Claire McCaskel gets big boost from democrat judge.

Middle_Ground said:

Okay I understand you have an agenda that you really want to believe. But if it were me being misled I would write the editor if the article you just posted a complain.
Here is an article with the actual court ruling attached.
https://krcgtv.com/news/local/judge-strikes-down-portion-of-state-voter-id-law

Along with several others from Missouri that refute that axios article.
https://fox2now.com/2018/10/09/missouri-to-appeal-ruling-against-voter-id-law/

Judge rules part of Missouri voter ID law unconstitutional | The Kansas City Star

I hope you take the time to see you were misled.

Click to expand...

Sensible state officials are appealing the democrat judge's ruling because it is wrong for several reasons. Well respected members of the Missouri state legislature passed the law for necessary reasons and now this buckaroo Obamanite democrat judge decides his opinion is better than the opinions of the legal minds who wrote and passed the law. State lawmakers and officials are appealing the bad ruling, not because the bad ruling is harmless, but because it is bad.

Tanngrisnir said:

They didn't find voter fraud. They presupposed it.

Click to expand...

You have been victimized by a very bad mob of lying leftists and I feel sorry for you. I also feel sorry for teenage Muslim suicide bombers who have been misled into sacrificing their lives for a lying cause.

marke said:

You have been victimized by a very bad mob of lying leftists and I feel sorry for you. I also feel sorry for teenage Muslim suicide bombers who have been misled into sacrificing their lives for a lying cause.

Click to expand...

Yawn. That's exactly what a Marxist would say, comrade.

I feel sorry for you that you hate the United States so much.

marke said:

The Indiana judge who blocked the Indiana updating of voter registries was a black democrat woman appointed by Barack Obama. Go figger again.

Click to expand...

Well now we understand the problem!

marke said:

Democrats claim voter protections disenfranchise minority democrat voters. So what if they do? Let blacks drive without drivers' licenses because they have trouble obtaining them? Should America not safeguard our elections processes just because democrats claim safeguards will hurt democrats in elections?

Click to expand...

Oh no, now it's "the blacks without driver's licenses".

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Oh no, now it's "the blacks without driver's licenses".

Click to expand...

Democrat fundraiser? Future voting station guard?

marke said:

Democrats claim voter protections disenfranchise minority democrat voters. So what if they do? Let blacks drive without drivers' licenses because they have trouble obtaining them? Should America not safeguard our elections processes just because democrats claim safeguards will hurt democrats in elections?

Click to expand...

The problem is that those safeguards you're proposing have a far greater influence on election results than a few illegal votes slipping through the cracks. Make no mistake: This isn't about making the elections fair and square. It's about suppressing minority votes. The fact is: America already has safeguards in place to prevent voter fraud. They work quite well in fact, though you can certainly argue that they aren't 100% effective at preventing every single illegally cast vote from being counted. But that's by design: The more money you throw at scrutinizing every single vote, the less return you get for your investment. You lose an enormous amount of money scrubbing a few dozen votes from tens of thousands.

BUT: if an "unintended" side-effect of this process is that voting becomes slightly more cumbersome to minorities and working-class populations, (most of whom tend to vote democrat,) then the comparatively huge percentage of those that will decide that they don't have the time nor inclination to put forth the extra effort to vote makes the investment more than worthwhile to Republicans. The few actual illegally cast votes are relevant only as a gimmick to rally behind, and only if you drastically exaggerate how big of a problem it is.

America must safeguard the election process, but not if the only way to do so is voter suppression. Such a safeguard doesn't just hurt democrats, it hurts America by undermining the democratic process.

lwf said:

The problem is that those safeguards you're proposing have a far greater influence on election results than a few illegal votes slipping through the cracks. Make no mistake: This isn't about making the elections fair and square. It's about suppressing minority votes. The fact is: America already has safeguards in place to prevent voter fraud. They work quite well in fact, though you can certainly argue that they aren't 100% effective at preventing every single illegally cast vote from being counted. But that's by design: The more money you throw at scrutinizing every single vote, the less return you get for your investment. You lose an enormous amount of money scrubbing a few dozen votes from tens of thousands.

Click to expand...

Democrats are no different from republicans when it comes to obtaining required identifications. For example, they can either go to the trouble of getting a driver's license or they can either drive illegally or not drive at all. Just because tens of thousands of illegal votes may have slipped through the cracks without investigation of any sort does not mean we should not protect our voting processes from fraud. Ignorance, disability, poverty and/or other claims are no justification for not making our voting processes secure.

BUT: if an "unintended" side-effect of this process is that voting becomes slightly more cumbersome to minorities and working-class populations, (most of whom tend to vote democrat,) then the comparatively huge percentage of those that will decide that they don't have the time nor inclination to put forth the extra effort to vote makes the investment more than worthwhile to Republicans. The few actual illegally cast votes are relevant only as a gimmick to rally behind, and only if you drastically exaggerate how big of a problem it is.

Click to expand...

Nobody knows how much voter fraud is getting through the cracks in our voting process because democrats obstruct investigations of voter fraud by claiming such investigations are racist, wrong, disrespectful to blacks and/or a dozen other silly nonsense allegations.

America must safeguard the election process, but not if the only way to do so is voter suppression. Such a safeguard doesn't just hurt democrats, it hurts America by undermining the democratic process.

Click to expand...

If protections against voter fraud are put in place you can bet those committing voter fraud will cry bloody hell and claim their rights are being violated.

marke said:

Democrat fundraiser? Future voting station guard?

Click to expand...

Well, at least you haven't stooped to just making outright "nigger jokes"...is that next?

lwf said:

America must safeguard the election process, but not if the only way to do so is voter suppression. Such a safeguard doesn't just hurt democrats, it hurts America by undermining the democratic process.

Click to expand...

People like marke, if you can even call them people, don't like the democratic process to begin with, it's messy and unreliable, meaning it doesn't guarantee the lock on power they feel they are entitled to.
Besides, they're scared to death of all those "blacks" getting the vote.
Next thing it'll be Juneteenth bustin' out all over.

marke said:

Democrats are no different from republicans when it comes to obtaining required identifications. For example, they can either go to the trouble of getting a driver's license or they can either drive illegally or not drive at all. Just because tens of thousands of illegal votes may have slipped through the cracks without investigation of any sort does not mean we should not protect our voting processes from fraud. Ignorance, disability, poverty and/or other claims are no justification for not making our voting processes secure.

Nobody knows how much voter fraud is getting through the cracks in our voting process because democrats obstruct investigations of voter fraud by claiming such investigations are racist, wrong, disrespectful to blacks and/or a dozen other silly nonsense allegations.

If protections against voter fraud are put in place you can bet those committing voter fraud will cry bloody hell and claim their rights are being violated.

Click to expand...

I don't for a second believe that "tens of thousands" of illegal votes have slipped through the cracks. Not only do the facts simply not support it, it just doesn't make sense. By all accounts, illegal immigrants as a group don't even attempt to vote. That's not to say that three or four in a city don't risk it, but this whole narrative that there are huge groups of illegal immigrants conspiring to swing the election in favor of democrats is nothing more than ludicrous right-wing fear mongering in the same vein as the satanism scare of the 1980's. There's just nothing there.

The only study I've ever seen that tried to make the case that there are thousands of illegal votes poisoning our elections was a republican funded questionnaire that came to the conclusion that because 99.9% percent of respondents were legal voters, that must mean that 0.1% of all votes in US elections are illegally cast. Hence the tens of thousands number. It doesn't take a statistician to see the problem there. A study by the Washington Post in 2014 found that from 2000 to 2014, there were 31 instances of voter fraud.

Illegal votes do not sway elections in favor of democrats. Voter suppression does sway elections in favor of Republicans.

marke said:

If protections against voter fraud are put in place you can bet those committing voter fraud will cry bloody hell and claim their rights are being violated.

Click to expand...

Yeah and next thing you know those dirty Puerto Ricans will be demanding their rights, too.
They're just like those dirty Cubans, right marke?

marke said:

Democrat loyalist activist Judge Richard Callahan has struck down key provisions of Missouri's voter ID law so that democrats can vote illegally without detection. This is a huge win for Democrat McCaskill.

On the national front, Kavanaugh represents a serious threat to ongoing democrat plans to keep voter fraud avenues open. America had better wake up and put a stop to this corruption or America will lose it's liberty and envied way of life at the hands of ruthless insurrectionists.

Click to expand...

Currently 70% of the voter registrations in Georgia on hold are black. That's in a state that's 32% black no less. So don't you worry, Repug loyalist judge Kavanaugh will ensure that the states Repugs will be allowed to keep thousands of blacks from voting. This is a huge win for Repugs everywhere.

America is already awake and aware, but Repugs who control states voting laws will ensure that voter repression will strip thousands of Americans of their liberty and envied way of life at the hands of ruthless Trump sycophants...

marke said:

Democrat loyalist activist Judge Richard Callahan has struck down key provisions of Missouri's voter ID law so that democrats can vote illegally without detection. This is a huge win for Democrat McCaskill.

On the national front, Kavanaugh represents a serious threat to ongoing democrat plans to keep voter fraud avenues open. America had better wake up and put a stop to this corruption or America will lose it's liberty and envied way of life at the hands of ruthless insurrectionists.

Click to expand...

\

did you conveniently miss the part of the article that said most of the provisions of the voter ID law were upheld?

lwf said:

I don't for a second believe that "tens of thousands" of illegal votes have slipped through the cracks. Not only do the facts simply not support it, it just doesn't make sense. By all accounts, illegal immigrants as a group don't even attempt to vote. That's not to say that three or four in a city don't risk it, but this whole narrative that there are huge groups of illegal immigrants conspiring to swing the election in favor of democrats is nothing more than ludicrous right-wing fear mongering in the same vein as the satanism scare of the 1980's. There's just nothing there.

The only study I've ever seen that tried to make the case that there are thousands of illegal votes poisoning our elections was a republican funded questionnaire that came to the conclusion that because 99.9% percent of respondents were legal voters, that must mean that 0.1% of all votes in US elections are illegally cast. Hence the tens of thousands number. It doesn't take a statistician to see the problem there. A study by the Washington Post in 2014 found that from 2000 to 2014, there were 31 instances of voter fraud.

Illegal votes do not sway elections in favor of democrats. Voter suppression does sway elections in favor of Republicans.

Click to expand...

Bob Dornan lost in 1996 by less than 1,000 votes and he challenged the results. A congressional task force found voter fraud but did not overturn the results because they could not prove voter fraud. Just because voter fraud is hard to prove does not mean it does not exist and should not be protected against. There is clear evidence of potential fraud even if fraud cannot be proven which means steps should be taken to protect our voting system from fraud. Democrats oppose protections against fraud while lying about committing fraud. This country will suffer greatly if this abuse and corruption is not stopped.

The task force found that about 750 noncitizens voted in the election, a Republican leadership source said. That is far fewer than the 2,500 illegal votes that Republican source had talked about uncovering in the past several months. During Dornan's investigation, the Orange County registrar found about 125 illegally cast absentee ballots in the race.

Since only 750 illegal votes by noncitizens were found instead of the 2,500 first claimed the democrats chant "There is no voter fraud." That is a lie. Voter fraud is hard to detect, especially now in California which has made it illegal to require proof of citizenship to register and vote.

House Expected to Drop Probe of Sanchez Election - latimes

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Yeah and next thing you know those dirty Puerto Ricans will be demanding their rights, too.
They're just like those dirty Cubans, right marke?

Click to expand...

Nobody has a right to obstruct the institution of protections against voter fraud for any reason.

marke said:

Bob Dornan lost in 1996 by less than 1,000 votes and he challenged the results. A congressional task force found voter fraud but did not overturn the results because they could not prove voter fraud. Just because voter fraud is hard to prove does not mean it does not exist and should not be protected against. There is clear evidence of potential fraud even if fraud cannot be proven which means steps should be taken to protect our voting system from fraud. Democrats oppose protections against fraud while lying about committing fraud. This country will suffer greatly if this abuse and corruption is not stopped.

The task force found that about 750 noncitizens voted in the election, a Republican leadership source said. That is far fewer than the 2,500 illegal votes that Republican source had talked about uncovering in the past several months. During Dornan's investigation, the Orange County registrar found about 125 illegally cast absentee ballots in the race.

Since only 750 illegal votes by noncitizens were found instead of the 2,500 first claimed the democrats chant "There is no voter fraud." That is a lie. Voter fraud is hard to detect, especially now in California which has made it illegal to require proof of citizenship to register and vote.

House Expected to Drop Probe of Sanchez Election - latimes

Click to expand...

I agree: "There is no voter fraud" is a lie. Voter fraud does exist and it is, and should be, illegal. It is also a lie to say "Voter fraud causes people to lose elections." It does not. Voter suppression does cause people to lose elections. Therefore voter suppression should never be used to protect against voter fraud.

It is inaccurate to say that democrats oppose protections against voter fraud. It is more accurate to say that democrats oppose voter suppression. Tactics that result in voter suppression are among the options at our disposal that could be used to protect against voter fraud. Republicans take this particular fact and apply it as a universal statement, as you did. This is dishonest.

SoCal said:

Currently 70% of the voter registrations in Georgia on hold are black. That's in a state that's 32% black no less. So don't you worry, Repug loyalist judge Kavanaugh will ensure that the states Repugs will be allowed to keep thousands of blacks from voting. This is a huge win for Repugs everywhere.

America is already awake and aware, but Repugs who control states voting laws will ensure that voter repression will strip thousands of Americans of their liberty and envied way of life at the hands of ruthless Trump sycophants...

Click to expand...

What is holding up black registration in Georgia? Failure to let felons vote?

Floridafan said:

\

did you conveniently miss the part of the article that said most of the provisions of the voter ID law were upheld?

Click to expand...

Its not so much the parts which were upheld which will allow crooks to continue to commit voter fraud. It is the parts that the Obamanite activist judge shot down which will keep the door open to fraud.

lwf said:

I agree: "There is no voter fraud" is a lie. Voter fraud does exist and it is, and should be, illegal. It is also a lie to say "Voter fraud causes people to lose elections." It does not. Voter suppression does cause people to lose elections. Therefore voter suppression should never be used to protect against voter fraud.

It is inaccurate to say that democrats oppose protections against voter fraud. It is more accurate to say that democrats oppose voter suppression. Tactics that result in voter suppression are among the options at our disposal that could be used to protect against voter fraud. Republicans take this particular fact and apply it as a universal statement, as you did. This is dishonest.

Click to expand...

Franken won because of voter fraud, no matter what lying democrats say.

marke said:

Franken won because of voter fraud, no matter what lying democrats say.

Click to expand...

I think democrats would say Coleman would have won if legitimately cast absentee ballots had been successfully challenged and rejected by the GOP. And the Minnesota election board would appear to agree with this. This proves the point. Voter suppression works to throw elections to republicans. Whenever this type of tactic is used, it disenfranchises or otherwise invalidates orders of magnitude more legitimate votes than it protects against illegitimate votes.

lwf said:

I think democrats would say Coleman would have won if legitimately cast absentee ballots had been successfully challenged and rejected by the GOP. And the Minnesota election board would appear to agree with this. This proves the point. Voter suppression works to throw elections to republicans. Whenever this type of tactic is used, it disenfranchises or otherwise invalidates orders of magnitude more legitimate votes than it protects against illegitimate votes.

Click to expand...

Democrats say there is no evidence of voter fraud. That is a lie but democrats have no qualms about lying. Consider the facts:

York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1-099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots

It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes. Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.

During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting records, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race. ...

And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate Race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and, 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.

marke said:

Democrats say there is no evidence of voter fraud. That is a lie but democrats have no qualms about lying. Consider the facts:

York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1-099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots

It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes. Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.

During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting records, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race. ...

And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate Race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and, 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.

Click to expand...

This is from an obviously biased news source and you can tell by the language used that it is propaganda meant to anger the right, not legitimate news. Democrats did not 'dispatch an army of lawyers' to challenge the result. The recount was mandatory due to the close nature of the race. Senate race 100% counted: Coleman on top - StarTribune.com You should check the bias of your news sources.

The Republican dominated Minnesota Canvassing Board are the ones who determined that absentee ballots were wrongly rejected during the initial count and that Al Franken won. And all but one of those felons who voted illegally did so because they hadn't bothered to go through all of the steps required to re-register after they got out of prison. I also don't remember anyone saying that any of them voted for Franken. In fact, it's entirely possible that they voted for Coleman. In any case, those 38 votes (not 177) wouldn't have changed the outcome of this election any more than any other. That said, illegally cast votes, while not a serious problem requiring a drastic change to the election process, is still something to avoid whenever possible. It sounds like a solution in this case is to better educate felons about their voting rights after they've served their time.

lwf said:

This is from an obviously biased news source and you can tell by the language used that it is propaganda meant to anger the right, not legitimate news. Democrats did not 'dispatch an army of lawyers' to challenge the result. The recount was mandatory due to the close nature of the race. Senate race 100% counted: Coleman on top - StarTribune.com You should check the bias of your news sources.

The Republican dominated Minnesota Canvassing Board are the ones who determined that absentee ballots were wrongly rejected during the initial count and that Al Franken won. And all but one of those felons who voted illegally did so because they hadn't bothered to go through all of the steps required to re-register after they got out of prison. I also don't remember anyone saying that any of them voted for Franken. In fact, it's entirely possible that they voted for Coleman. In any case, those 38 votes (not 177) wouldn't have changed the outcome of this election any more than any other. That said, illegally cast votes, while not a serious problem requiring a drastic change to the election process, is still something to avoid whenever possible. It sounds like a solution in this case is to better educate felons about their voting rights after they've served their time.

Click to expand...

You propagate the democrat spin. Naturally.