Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Election 2018 Thread (An Adult Finally Has the Gavel)


PleaseBlitz

Recommended Posts

Just now, nonniey said:

Irrelevant.

 

.... can't purge rolls solely based on lack of voting/ time.

 

 

Sure, dude. The notice is cover to purge based on lack of voting. They might as well switch up notice with the voter doing a little dance. If the voter doesn't do the dance then they get purged. Now it's not illegal cause it's not only based on lack of voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Sure, dude. The notice is cover to purge based on lack of voting. They might as well switch up notice with the voter doing a little dance. If the voter doesn't do the dance then they get purged. Now it's not illegal cause it's not only based on lack of voting.

The notice?  You mean the multiple notifications/requests for response sent over four years asking the voter if he still lives where he is registered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

If not voting were only one of the trumped up reasons to purge voters, that's violation of the law. Tacking on a bunch of "reasons" to circumvent the issue of nonvoting is the very definition of skirting the law.

Just FYI seems like those challenging the law concede that non-voting can in fact trigger the process to remove voters.  I bet this will be a 7-2 or 6-3 decision in favor of Ohio.

 

"Paul Smith, representing civil rights groups at the Supreme Court, said most people who receive notices from the state never return them. "The evidence we have in the record is that most people throw it in the wastebasket," Smith said.

 

The state learns nothing about whether someone actually has moved if a notice is not returned, he said.

He said a process that used a notice which could not be forwarded and would be returned as undeliverable if sent to a wrong address would satisfy the opponents.

But Chief Justice John Roberts said he regarded Smith's comment as a concession that states could use evidence of non-voting to trigger the process.

"Your argument really turns on the adequacy of the notice," Roberts said."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Just FYI seems like those challenging the law concede that non-voting can in fact trigger the process to remove voters.  I bet this will be a 7-2 or 6-3 decision in favor of Ohio

Where are you pulling these numbers from? You are living in an alternate reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nonniey said:

I said I'd bet that is what the result would be as in a prediction.  We'll know come June.  Do you have a prediction?

Liberals all voting against Ohio. Already know Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas already decided. Probably 5-4. Should be against Ohio but partisanship is strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Liberals all voting against Ohio. Already know Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas already decided. Probably 5-4. Should be against Ohio but partisanship is strong.

I'm thinking Breyer and maybe Ginsburg will vote in Ohio's favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Arizona Senate candidate Arpaio still claims Obama birth certificate is fake, claims he has proof, gave it to the FBI, nothing was done because Russia. 

 

What a loon!

 

https://thinkprogress.org/republican-senate-candidate-joe-arpaio-says-he-has-proof-that-obamas-birth-certificate-is-fake-03023299d352/

 

 

From that article:

 

Quote

In a separate interview on WABC Radio, Arpaio criticized the FBI for focusing on Russia and not his evidence on Obama’s birth certificate. “You gotta do what you feel is right, and not have these cover-ups and people not willing to look at everything we got. Why won’t they look at it? We sent it to the FBI two years ago. With a lot of other information. Where is it? They’re too busy talking about Russia,” Arpaio said.

 

He's literally on TV.  Why doesn't he just tell everyone what "it" is while he is on national television?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, nonniey said:

I'm thinking Breyer and maybe Ginsburg will vote in Ohio's favor.

 

This is from PBS news hour from last night. Just one excerpt

Quote

U.S. Army Sergeant Joseph Helle was in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, and in Afghanistan in 2009. But when he came home to Ohio in 2011, he found a battle he didn't expect. Helle showed up to vote that fall, and found his name had been removed from the voter rolls

 

But hey, since your party is for it, **** that guy, right?

 

Oh, another ****ing joke is when the Ohio Secretary of State said this law is to “It's done to try to be helpful to the voter, and helping them update their information,”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

This is from PBS news hour from last night. Just one excerpt

 

But hey, since your party is for it, **** that guy, right?

 

Oh, another ****ing joke is when the Ohio Secretary of State said this law is to “It's done to try to be helpful to the voter, and helping them update their information,”

 

 

 

Odd he didn't get mail and they are usually afforded the opportunity to vote while deployed.

 

I do agree a provisional ballot or such should be a option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

This is from PBS news hour from last night. Just one excerpt

 

But hey, since your party is for it, **** that guy, right?

 

Oh, another ****ing joke is when the Ohio Secretary of State said this law is to “It's done to try to be helpful to the voter, and helping them update their information,”

 

 

Again Ohio executes a process lasting four years (FOUR YEARS) before a voter is removed from the rolls. They send multiple notifications requesting responses.  There is no way you will be able to convince the vast majority of people that that is unreasonable. And frankly it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Supreme Court has a 9-0 ruling in Ohio's favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name change, address change, party affiliation change (in some states).

 

That should be the only requirements needed to be updated by the voter (and the SOS or whoever handles the state voting rolls could be connected to the State DMVs to ease some of the burden on the voter). 

 

Otherwise you'd stay on the voting roll. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Name change, address change, party affiliation change (in some states).

 

That should be the only requirements needed to be updated by the voter (and the SOS or whoever handles the state voting rolls could be connected to the State DMVs to ease some of the burden on the voter). 

 

Otherwise you'd stay on the voting roll. 

 

 

 

Death. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...