Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

AABB wrote:

Appalachia wrote:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/voter-id-laws-fraud-turnout-study-research

They also have little impact on turnout...so there's that.

So why require photo ID at all? What a waste.

2 difficult wrote:

Newsflash wrote:

Plus, an expired gov't issue ID is an acceptable form of ID for voting in my state, All someone has to do is get 1 gov't issued photo ID in their life in order to vote. If that's too difficult for you to do, Lord help you.

To get a real photo ID you need specific paperwork. An existing government issued photo ID (Catch 22). And a new version of your birth certificate (original versions are not acceptable; and if the hospital you were born in has never made digitized records you cannot get an updated birth certificate).

Of those one is impossible if you never had a photo ID (school photo IDs are not acceptable). The second is impossible if you were born at a small hospital with shoddy record.

Since you are your side is arguing to absurity, you can pay someone to make you a fake ID and then use that to get a real government issued ID.

Easy.

Sally Vix wrote:

photo ID wrote:

Who checks the photo ID of every person who is driving? No one. Follow the driving laws and you will never be stopped and asked to show an ID.

Hey, Einstein. If you don't have a photo ID, you are not following the driving laws. You are supposed to have in your possession when operating a motor vehicle. Did you really think this through?

You mean not following the laws, like Trump hiring illegals to work for him?

Why would you not need a photo ID to receive public assistance? Ever hear of fraud? Let's make it as easy as possible to defraud the government. I need a photo ID for pretty much everything. Why would one who receives public assistance not need to accurately verify who he or she is?[/quote]

You don't need a photo ID to get a photo ID. You use other forms of ID such as a birth certificate and Social Security card.

So public assistance just lets you use those original forms of ID. The photo ID doesn't enhance security very much.

Personally, I think we should have a national ID card with biometric security. But we can't do that because pre-millenial dispensationalists in the evangelical community would go nuts.

DMV wrote:

photo ID wrote:

Who checks the photo ID of every person who is driving? No one. Follow the driving laws and you will never be stopped and asked to show an ID.

Ummmm. Traffic laws include having a valid drivers license.

How can I not have a license AND follow all the traffic laws?

Ummmm, stupid one. Who stops people who follow the traffic laws to check their ID?

so there's that wrote:

AABB wrote:

They also have little impact on turnout...so there's that.

So why require photo ID at all? What a waste.

I agree. One side wants Voter ID to reduce non-existent voter fraud. The other side wants no voter ID to reduce non-existent voter suppression.

They are all idiots.

UR Not 2 Smart wrote:

Since you are your side is arguing to absurity, you can pay someone to make you a fake ID and then use that to get a real government issued ID.

Easy.

You are just plain ignorant. Sure, go out and try to get a real photo ID and give them your faked government ID as proof. Best of luck with that.

Fat hurts wrote:

Billy Bob wrote:

If it were a requirement to vote, I suspect they would make it a priority to get one. Not having one is not the same as being unable to get one. I'm sure if they wanted to drive a car, they would get a license.

It's not always easy to get one. That's what most of the court cases have been about.

How is it not easy to get one? Here in Texas you had tons of people offering to drive those voters-to-be to places where they could get voter IDs. They pretty much did everything to allow these people to get their photo IDs except wipe their butts.

I have a question about Mueller's testimony.

One of the Republican members (I forgot his name) said that Mueller did not have any power to exonerate anyone, because the prosecutor's job is to decide either to prosecute or not prosecute. (And prosecutor not prosecuting is not the same thing as exoneration.)

If he is right, why did Trump say Mueller report "totally and completely exonerated" him? I am confused. So the Republican Congressman was openly disagreeing with President?

I hope smart people on this thread can answer this question.

Cease with the name calling. How can you have a bank account with No Photo ID? How can you withdraw funds with no ID?

Sally Vix wrote:

Smorbun wrote:

We are talking about photo ID.

FH already said you need a photo ID to drive. Do you have a learning disability? If so, you are not overcoming it.

You can rent or live in a house in a variety of different ways without having a photo ID, and no it's not just 1% of the time.

You do not need to have a bank account.

You do not need a photo ID to get a credit card.

You do not need a photo ID to get most jobs.

You are an idiot.

Cease with the name calling. How can you have a bank account with No Photo ID? How can you withdraw funds with no ID?

My bad - you must live in Mayberry. Is that you, Otis? Is the jail cell warm enough? Aunt B has some homemade soup she can bring by.

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

You can do all those things without a photo ID except drive.

How can you legally drive without an ID? You can't. You are breaking the law. You can have a ma-and-pop operation which allows you to rent without an ID but 99% of places require an ID. You DO need an ID to buy a home. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. You DO need an ID to have a bank account. You DO need an ID to have a credit card. You DO need an ID to have a real job.

Ladies here ...

Would you ever date someone with no car, no driver's license, no apartment or house of his or her own, no bank account, no credit card, no real job and who has never voted?

Can you read? I just said you can do all those things except drive.

You can buy a home without an ID. You can pay someone cash or even trade something for it. It's perfectly legal.

But again, you are having trouble reading because you said "rent or own". A lot of places allow you to stay without an ID. I guarantee you that most low-end housing does not require an ID. Public housing does not require it. Any privately owned home which participates in the public housing assistance program also does not require an ID.

You do not need an ID to have a bank account. I can open up an account online in 5 minutes without an ID.

There is no requirement to have a photo ID for a job. My yard man just left here. He owns his own business, his truck, his custom-built trailer, his mower, etc. He makes a good living. I never asked him for ID.

You don't need a photo ID to get a photo ID. You use other forms of ID such as a birth certificate and Social Security card.

So public assistance just lets you use those original forms of ID. The photo ID doesn't enhance security very much.

Personally, I think we should have a national ID card with biometric security. But we can't do that because pre-millenial dispensationalists in the evangelical community would go nuts.[/quote]

Fat Hurts - I have to give it to you ... You have to be the first person to use the term "pre-millenial dispensationalists in the evangelical community."

The Trump thread is BACK, baby. will be up to 65000 posts soon. Well done, kooks.

So, you are paying your land man and he is not filing his earnings with the government? Oh, okay. I guess you don't need an ID if you (or your land man) is skirting the laws. I tend to follow the rules and laws of the government. But you are okay with paying a land man "under the table" where he pays no taxes.

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat Hurts - I have to give it to you ... You have to be the first person to use the term "pre-millenial dispensationalists in the evangelical community."

Nah, just the first person on this thread.

Anyone familiar with eschatology knows about pre-millenial dispensationalism.

Many things that Trump says are, strictly speaking, untrue. However, under a looser standard, they are not really that far outside of the mainstream. For example, while O.J. Simpson pled "innocent" he was actually pleading "not guilty" and he was found "not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." In fact, in a civil trial shortly after his criminal trial, he was found "more likely than not" responsible for his wife's death.

Many Simpson supporters still claim (and probably believe in good faith) that he was found innocent, just as many Trump supporters believe his claim that because Mueller did not recommend in his report that Trump be prosecuted, he was exonerated.

Such is life in the rare atmosphere of Trump, Simpson, Epstein, Michael Jackson, Harvey Weinstein, etc., etc.

utbcw wrote:

Many things that Trump says are, strictly speaking, untrue. However, under a looser standard, they are not really that far outside of the mainstream. For example, while O.J. Simpson pled "innocent" he was actually pleading "not guilty" and he was found "not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." In fact, in a civil trial shortly after his criminal trial, he was found "more likely than not" responsible for his wife's death.

Many Simpson supporters still claim (and probably believe in good faith) that he was found innocent, just as many Trump supporters believe his claim that because Mueller did not recommend in his report that Trump be prosecuted, he was exonerated.

Such is life in the rare atmosphere of Trump, Simpson, Epstein, Michael Jackson, Harvey Weinstein, etc., etc.

OJ got off from jury nullification.

SiIly WilIy wrote:

Trump actually won quite easily, with what, 306 electoral votes? He almost won Minnesota, too, if it weren't for stupid Gary Johnson. 306 to 232 is quite a defeat . . .

Since Alaska and Hawaii became states (1959), there have been 15 presidential elections. Of these, 11 were won with larger victory margins than Trump in 2016. Three were won with smaller margins of victory.

3 vs 11