DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The Red Wave

I am pretty sure all counties have a DMV and most counties aren't 50-60 miles from on end to the other....Just more of your slime.

Just go get the friggen ID..quit making extreme excuses that in the vast majority of cases isn't even a problem..

And to add....you go drive them around if it is so important to you. It isn't that important to me. I certainly won't prevent anyone from voting but I sure as hell am not going to hold someone's hand to see that happens.

Oh I know it's not important to you because it's much easier for you to vote and you like the fact that making it harder for some other people to vote favors your side winning.

if only we have voter ID laws this wouldn't happen

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ion/ar-AAQJOmW?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

AS VEGAS (AP) — A Las Vegas business executive whose claim of voter fraud was featured by state Republicans in November 2020 as proof of tainted votes has agreed to plead guilty to a reduced charge of voting more than once in the same election.

Donald “Kirk” Hartle is expected to pay a $2,000 fine and receive the equivalent of one year of probation when he's sentenced, according to a plea agreement filed Monday ahead of his scheduled plea on Tuesday in state court in Las Vegas.

People Born 1941-1979 On Medicare Are In For A Treat This November (Check If You Qualify)
Ad
Comparisons.org
People Born 1941-1979 On Medicare Are In For A Treat This November (Check If You Qualify)
Hartle, 55, had faced two felony charges in a criminal complaint alleging that he used his dead wife’s ballot. Hartle’s wife, Rosemarie Hartle, died in 2017 at age 52.

Hartle’s attorney, David Chesnoff, on Monday called the plea deal fair and said Hartle accepted responsibility for his actions.

Through a spokesman, state Attorney General Aaron Ford declined immediate comment.

The state Republican Party featured Hartle’s account as an example of widespread voter fraud in Nevada, where now-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, defeated then-President Donald Trump by 33,596 of 1.4 million votes cast, or about 2.4%.

Records showed a ballot for Rosemarie Hartle was submitted with a signature that matched Clark County voter records.

State and federal courts in Nevada and other states rejected dozens of election challenges by Republicans and Trump’s presidential campaign, including claims of widespread voter fraud.

Ford, a Democrat, has called voter fraud rare and vowed that his office would not tolerate it.

In an earlier Nevada case, a 53-year-old man was sentenced last July to up to two years of probation for his guilty plea to one felony charge of voting twice — in Benton, Arkansas and in Las Vegas — during the 2016 presidential election.

At least five other people have been convicted in Nevada since 2011 of registration fraud during voter recruitment, and one woman pleaded guilty to trying to vote twice in 2012.

When Hartle was charged, he became the only person currently being prosecuted on voter fraud allegations in Nevada.

Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, a Republican, said in April that reviews of election fraud claims delivered to her office by the state GOP in March found that some cases were already under investigation but that most were baseless or inaccurately interpreted.

Just so I have this clear --- there is another example of voter fraud and it is once again a Republican found guilty of said fraud?

If Hartle submitted more than one vote ... I am not sure why or how requiring ID would make a difference? Presumably he could do whatever he did before - just showing his ID. Fraudulent - but with an ID in hand ?

who cares what political party was guilty?

it's still voter fraud and this person should never be allowed to vote again.

If he showed his ID, he wouldn't have been able to vote for his dead wife. He would have only been able to vote for himself.

I care. Because there is a fake narrative by one party about mass voter fraud. Rampant voter fraud. How easy and often voter fraud occurs.

The same party that is creating this fake narrative - are the same party that consistently has real voter fraud cases. If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny.

Someone posted on here the other day how 89% of voters already have ID. As if that was good.... when in fact it means that MORE than 1 out of every 10 people DO NOT have ID. So not only is there not any evidence of mass voter fraud - the idea that requiring ID to vote is no big deal is horse patootie. It means that of the 74 million who voted for Trump - possibly 8 million didn't have ID. Of the 81 million who voted for Biden - maybe 8.9 million didn't have voter ID. . . . . BUT we all know the section of society most likely not to have ID are most likely to vote Dem. So we know exactly why this fake narrative exists.

https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/sos-information/office-facts/faqs-all-division/elections

Requiring ID didn't stop him.

wtf? it was his dead wife not some 17 year old

I don't care. It's not a fake narrative. both parties do it and neither should be allowed. It seems like you want it to continue because it could potentially hurt your political party's ability to get elected.


I posted that 89% fact and you are misconstruing that fact.

it was 89% of elgible voters had ID's

*the most amount of eligible voters without ID's were senior citizens (who typically vote republican)

Look at the page, that 17-year-old thing was above what I posted and copied by mistake. Formatting and bullets are copy/paste fails too.

I don't believe I did misconstrue the stats. 89% of eligible voters don't have ID. So 89% of those that did in fact vote is reasonable.

The idea of mass voter fraud is indeed a proven lie and fake narrative. There is no mass voter fraud. Trump hand picked a commission to dig into it and found .... NADA. Trump claimed it after he lost in a landslide - 89+ court cases and ZERO evidence.

There is no justification for trying to make it harder to vote. It's a false narrative. I am surprised you have bought into this clear and obvious piece of theatrical political theater. Saying "one case of voter fraud is too many" is bogus.

And I do not have a party, despite what you or anyone else wants to assume. I think anyone paying attention to more than the Trump talking points might have realized.

So let's change voting laws for something that rarely ever happens and has never been shown to change election results. Many Republican states agree with you. Meanwhile Oregon has had mail in voting for 20 years with no problems proving it works. #fauxoutrage

if it's not a problem, why are dems fighting so hard to keep it so you don't need an ID?

It seems the only ones who get caught are the republicans.

the point is moreseo, why is it not a law?

you need an id to rent an apartment, buy a house, go to school, get a cellphone/gas/electric account, social security, open a bank account, buy a gun, buy drugs, alcohol, or tobacco, or fly a plane.

yet... one of the most important things that control our country... no ID required.

It is concerning that people are fighting like hell to keep it that way.

Because the laws being written by the right tend to favor those they want to vote and not favor those they don't want to vote. And you can't see why dems would fight that?

So you think asking why someone doesn't see the need to create laws there is proof there is no need for is the problem? And in case you missed it, Texas is a red state. So maybe you should ask Republicans why it is they caught one of their own? Maybe it's because they are more often the one's cheating?

I mean trump tried to get states to stop counting the votes so he would win. What more evidence do you need to see who is really trying to cheat?

Simple, voting rights have been zealously protected since the 1960s. The recent easing of state autonomy in voting laws is only the result of no longer holding Jim Crow states accountable for this type of legislation. And the first thing GOPer states did with that autonomy was attack voting rights. This is all a form of Jim Crow 2.0. So, the short answer is we don't want to restrict voting by placing obstacles in the path of voters. I too happen to think all states should have some sort of ID laws at least when registering or actually voting. But I also don't want eligible voters not being able to exercise their voting rights for any reason. It's one thing to not vote because you didn't want to take the time, but another to be denied your right. So dems fight for that right.

So why don't these democrat voters stop commiting felonies and go get ID, who is stopping them.
Do they take someones ID away when they commit felonies.
Can you explain what "section of society" is most likely not to have an ID because all I can imagine is they are those who commit felonies.
You know like, rape, or arson, or gun crime robberies of convienent stores.

Who are the democrat voters who don't have ID. and who is stopping them from getting ID. What is this non personal decision, that people don't make themselves, that creates this "section of society" and who is this "section of society" without ID's.
and how can you assume they are the "most likely" to vote democrat.

And what does this REd Wave give you anyway! The Red wave is useless.

Laugh at this then...

GOP defeats Obama-endorsed candidate in deep blue city that Biden won handily in 2020

Republicans say their victory is part of a 'red wave'

Endorsements from former President Obama and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn in reliably blue Columbia, South Carolina, were not enough to push the city’s Democratic mayoral candidate over the finish line.

Republican Daniel Rickenmann, a businessman and Columbia city council member, defeated Democrat Tameika Isaac Devine 52% to 48% on Tuesday night in Columbia, which sits in a county that President Biden carried by almost 40 points in 2020.

Among the topline numbers, according to USA Today/Suffolk University, are a 37.8% approval rating for Biden with a 59% disapproval – more than 21 points underwater. Forty-six percent of those included in the survey said Biden has done a worse job than expected, and 64% said they don't want Biden to run for reelection.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-defeats-obama-endorsed-candidate-deep-blue-city-biden

"The Woke" Awaken!

Yeah, but Tameika Isaac Devineis a black woman, so obviously this victory is #becauseracism

The Democrats held that mayors position for 30 years. This is big!

You know I can remember a time that I though Bill Maher was a nut job. Now he is as close to being the most rational Democrat there is!

Everything you said is reasonable.

But .... the more straight forward and obvious rebuttal .... GOP WANT TO CREATE A LAW TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT EXIST. And everyone but the blindest know why they want to do it. The same reason why they closed some polling stations. There is a clear and definite pattern.

I agree. I'm glad someone finally listened to him talk first before writing off everything he says because they simply labeled him a liberal and dismissed it.

The Bill Maher of today is definitely different than the Bill Maher of 15 years ago.

He most certainly is. And I applaud that. To me he is a prime example of proof positive that you can't lump everyone into the same basket based on some crazy perception that everyone that belongs to or generally supports one party are the same. You've brought up Adam Kinzinger as a Republican you would have voted for over Biden. I think a lot of people would have. I don't know enough about all of his policies but he's certainly a candidate I would have given consideration to.

We've interacted enough that I'm quite sure you're not some left wing supporter. But just like Adam Kinzinger I've seen you labeled as such because you don't walk the trump company line. Republicans who aren't Trumpians seem to always face punitive repercussions. Just look at Liz Cheney. First she was stripped of her power in the house. Then the Republican party in the state of Wyoming now refuses to recognize here as a Republican.

Rep. Liz Cheney ousted from Wyoming GOP

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-liz-cheney-ousted-wyoming-gop/story?id=81206853

The infrastructure bill was a compromise written with five republicans and five democrats. That's about is bipartisan as you can get. But look at what's happening to the 13 Republicans that voted in favor of it.

Here are Trump's comments...... and measures being taken against them by the likes of Marjorie Taylor Green.


As long as they keep letting the inmates run the asylum it's going to be very hard for them to get the votes of those who sit somewhere in the middle. What I do like about watching this bill being passed that unfolded is not only did thirteen Republicans vote for it, the far left "squad" of the democrats voted against it. That in and of itself tells me it must have been a pretty good bill. When extremists from both sides oppose it, I tend to like it.

Thanks for that. It is good to see people, like Maher, adapt over time. I think one of the foundational issues with this country is that there has been such an indoctrination of Republican vs Democrat, Conservative vs Liberal, one ideal vs another, etc. that people have already taken sides based upon their preconceived notion that one side is right and the other is wrong. When you look at Republicans now vs Republicans decades ago, the two vastly different, but I believe that many uphold the Republican banner nowadays under the same auspices that it's still the Party of Reagan or the Party of Lincoln, when it really isn't at all anymore. The same can be said for Democrats as well. Many believe that it's the party of FDR, but those goal posts have moved, too, IMHO. I think that right there is the problem we have with political parties, like we have. Once they suck you in, they can change and still remain confident that you will be along for the ride.

I myself was a victim of that. I started changing with the Republicans. The TEA Party movement is really what started to open my eyes to the filth. It was hard to let go of for me, but I ultimately was able to do it. I can still see that it is hard for other people on this board who are otherwise very reasonable and intelligent.

As far as Kinzinger goes, I like him because he aligns with a some of my ideals, but he's also reasonable. For instance, he's for concealed carry across state lines, but also is for background checks for firearm transfers. I actually depart with him on several social issues, like LGBTQ stuff, and I depart with him on certain economic issues, but I think he has shown a willingness to work across the aisle on those issues as well, along with showing empathy toward people he disagrees with (Marie Newman) which is encouraging, and rare for his side. I'll be honest, too, his willingness to make a decision that ultimately went against his political career to me speaks volumes, and juxtaposes him with the eternal opportunists in Congress, like Cruz and Graham. That goes a long way with me, even if I disagree on some fronts.

I really don't identify myself with either wing anymore and I don't think I'll allow myself to officially join any party, even if there is one that aligns with my ideals perfectly in the moment, because I don't want to put myself in a position again where I get caught up in the greater machine.

To me, the scary dynamic is that the party has become a top-down machine, and that has certainly happened with Trump. The way people have pivoted (Cruz, Graham, etc.) shows that they fear his wrath more than they genuinely want to help the constituents who belong to them. They can get around this by whipping their constituents into place with deflecting fear and anger tactics. That way, it ensures they are first and foremost aligned with the person who bears the most influence in the party, and then they can subsequently make sure that their base is in line. I don't think it would be that easy if people could shed the preconceived notions that one party is always correct and the other party is always wrong or evil.

Your quote from Trump is proof of that dynamic.

As much as people like to paint with a broad brush, some things aren't that simple. I'm a second amendment supporter myself. Yet I do think some common sense applies. To me a CCW permit makes sense. It assures that people who carry firearms have at least had basic firearms safety instruction. They know how to safely handles and fire a gun. Yet state after state are now passing laws that no longer require a CCW permit and anyone who can legally buy a firearm can carry one. No training needed. To me that's a very dangerous stance to everyone. Yet when you speak out about it it's labeled a conservative verses liberal topic.

Cancel culture is yet another issue. I'm not a fan of it by any stretch of the imagination. Yet there are limits to how it's labeled. Let's take the case of Paul Gosar as an example. What he posted showing his face on an anime video showing him killing AOC and his next target was attacking biden with two swords isn't a question of cancel culture when he was censured no matter how hard they tried to present it as such. That's simply something that can not be accepted from our elected officials. We've seen a glimpse of what violent rhetoric can lead to with what unfolded on January 6th and that could be only the tip of the iceberg if such conduct continues. And don't get me wrong, that's not a one way street just the latest example of it.

What I'm speaking of in terms of cancel culture is what the Democrats tried to do to Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing. Taking something that may or may not have happened when he was in college and try to make the claim that's what he is today. Things like that are ridiculous. What concerned me was his total lack of composure during the hearing. He seemed very volatile for someone being placed as a SCOTUS member. What we both seem to agree on is that people often times change over time. The person we may or may not have been when we are 18 to 20 years old has no reflection of who we may be now. Also social norms change over time. Things that were done 30 years ago, 50 years ago weren't seen in the same light as they are today. I don't think it's right to hold something someone did 40 years ago to the social norms of today. There are certainly things that do apply, but many do not. I'll use black face as an example. While it's certainly wrong and that's easy to see now, at one time nobody really thought much about it. So we can see that it's wrong but we can't rewind history and pretend that people who did it decades ago understood the reality of their actions.

And the entire cancel culture issue seems so naive to me that one side has the unmitigated gall to point the finger in the other direction. Just look at our above conversation where Republicans are attacking and undermining every Republican who doesn't walk lock step with trump. Even going so far as the measures they've taken against Liz Cheney and trying to get anyone who certified the election which are Republican to be voted out of office. Then look at all the companies trump told them to boycott. There's no less cancel culture on one side than the other. It's a very sad state.

Well said. The bottom line with cancel culture is that people only want to cancel things that they don't like and then scream about the atrocities of it when it is thrown back in their own direction.

The Republicans, are trying to Stop the Democrats in the democrats attempts to Cheat!

Again as always, Republicans are on the side of right. and democrats are on the side of criminal behavior.

If you don't know the democrats by now you will never ever know them.

Hey troll. There was no cheating. Therefore there’s nothing to stop.
Take your garbage elsewhere.

I see Portland has started funding the Police again. At least there must be a few people out there with common sense. Another great Democratic idea goes down.

Let’s see if they can hire some officers that aren’t so quick to pull guns and shoot POC on the streets like they’ve been so eager to do in the past.
The new increased funding also calls for hiring more unarmed specialists to handle situations where an armed officer isn’t needed. This I can get behind.
Lastly they’ll be using some of the funds for more body cams so those officers that do patrol our streets are more closely monitored for behaviors that aren’t helping the public.

Personally I think police need two to four years of education before they’re turned loose on the public. Too many of them are just under educated, over testosteroned, armed goons with too little knowledge of the laws they’re sworn to uphold.
They should spend more of the funding for their education.

So some of the very policies that "defund the police" actually means were adopted and duty is making it sound like that means he won some kind of political war. Typical.

Red Wave? Sounds like the commies are coming again for a second try. Lol