Uh, George W. Bush isn't a current, office-holding national Republican.

I hate to break this to you Judson, but:



There are exactly 2 offices in the nation that are nationally elected. President and Vice-President of the United States. It's NOT POSSIBLE for a "current, office-holding national Republican" to have attended by your silly standard.

Do you want your cake, or do you want to eat it?

Uh, I said national Republican. All of them at the national level are national. Unless you don't understand that the House and Senate are national I don't understand your point.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Mar 9 2015 08:14pm

So what? He's an ex-president with a heart beat, and he showed for a Civil Rights anniversary event. It's insane not to include him in the picture. This is the unity that liberals claim to strive for( ).

ITT, Republicans mad that Dubya was excluded from a picture of an event, despite excluding him from actual events because of his toxic brand.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Mar 9 2015 08:28pm

Ah, so instead, you'll settle for being wrecked by:



Your false narrative is smashed either way you want to cut it. t4t

Oh cool. They should have stepped into the picture but I understand their constituents wouldn't like that. Good on them, though. I'm happy to have been wrong.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Mar 9 2015 08:36pm

Equally how? You realize that following principles with blind faith and no application of reason or analysis per case is not just silly, but dangerous, right?

I suppose requiring every registered voter to possess photo id is good in theory to prevent voter fraud. Same with refusing felons the right to vote and checking to make sure the felon lists are updated ahead of elections.

Voter identification fraud is a myth. Minorities are much less likely to possess photographic ID, most common in the form of a driver's license that usually requires something expense, such as a car, to possess. If photo id was required to vote, the rate of disenfranchised voter to fraudster prevented is probably 60,000 to 1, with the majority of those 60,000 being racial minorities (and if history is any predictor, that 1 fraudster will be white). That assumes that the average 1 fraudulent ballot in 3.7 million was even intentional, which they don't always end up being.

Refusing felons the right to vote makes some sense. Checking and updating the list does, too. Making a blanket list and then requiring tens of thousands of voters, a disproportionate amount of whom are racial minorities, to substantially prove to the state and local governments that they're not felons mere days or a couple weeks in advance of voting deadlines is beyond stupid.

Idealistic goals based on principles with awful results. I suppose racial minorities are all equal before the law in these cases, though, if not equal before any other part of anything that correlates to a rational, sustained reality.

This post was edited by Interesting on Mar 10 2015 03:01am

Voter fraud that can be prevented by voter ID however is not a myth. Non-citizens aren't supposed to be issued IDs that could be used for voting - the main reason there is opposition to issuing driver's licenses to illegals unless it specifically denotes "not valid for voting."

But don't take my word for it, there's solid research on the subject: http://aun-tv.com/2014/11/harvard-study-illegal-alien-voter-fraud-decides-many-elections-6-4-of-illegals-voted-in-2008/

If you can find me 60,000 voters who have been disenfranchised by voter ID laws, I'll vote Democrat in 2016. Not 60,000 who could have, under specious assumptions, but 60,000 people who absolutely couldn't cast a ballot. The simple fact of the matter is that actually ineligible people voting outnumber people who've been disenfranchised by voter ID.

Lol that is messed up.