Judge halts Pa.'s tough new voter ID requirement

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by steppenwolf86

 

source

I laid out bait and you took it.

I think you have the wrong idea how this works. If you wish to show proof of voter fraud on the democratic side that is your prerogative but please be realistic I am not here to do your work.

What is with this new trend I am seeing on ATS where people want their case to be made for them? Is it just laziness?

BTW the link I just posted works feel free to draw comparisons.

What in the hell are you talking about? Of course it is MY fault that you posted a bad link. Was that your bait? Brilliant! Your arrogance is sadly misplaced, we have made valid arguments that you obviously have no intention of responding to. You admit to cherry picking facts from your sources. You are not worth any more effort. It is people like you with their delusions of superiority that make political arguments impossible.

Although we do know about 10% of Americans might not have the ID necessary to vote, we don't know how many won't vote specifically because of this extra burden, how many will be motivated to get an ID or how many will resort to absentee ballots, which do not require ID.

Is that sufficient? You asked me to find evidence to support your stance are you dense.
Even though I already answered you sufficiently. Let me point out no one has proven a case of voter fraud in PA that would justify this law therefore the judge ruled correctly.
The bait was the Acorn reference you made even though the two are not the same and the article points that out and most people already know that.

Would you like to post proof of PA voter fraud because I can’t find any?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Although we do know about 10% of Americans might not have the ID necessary to vote, we don't know how many won't vote specifically because of this extra burden, how many will be motivated to get an ID or how many will resort to absentee ballots, which do not require ID.

Is that sufficient? You asked me to find evidence to support your stance are you dense.
Even though I already answered you sufficiently. Let me point out no one has proven a case of voter fraud in PA that would justify this law therefore the judge ruled correctly.
The bait was the Acorn reference you made even though the two are not the same and the article points that out and most people already know that.

Would you like to post proof of PA voter fraud because I can’t find any?

I guess I am dense, where did I claim voter fraud in PA, where did I ask YOU to look up anything? I am so confused. So just because there has never been a proven case in that state, that means preemptive measures should not be taken? Once again, how can you fault me for not knowing what the article said when your link was bad? This is my last post here, I hope you go donate your time and ferry people to the DMV since you care so much.

reply to post by steppenwolf86


Maybe there should be laws preventing things that can’t be proven to be a problem. This country has so many laws already that make no sense let’s just add some more.
BTW I expected you to know the common sense part about acorn but I guess you were left out of the loop. Well at least you learned something new.

Oh I wish I could fairy people to the DMV however I was injured in Iraq and I no longer drive because I would be a danger to those on the road maybe you could take my place.