Green New Deal

[Aponi]

Let's say for a second that Global Warming Science is UNDISPUTABLE FACT (which it is certainly NOT) to some degree (not to the degree AOC says it is, claiming the world will end in 12 years if we do not act now - we already heard that '12 Year' BS from Gore, and we're all still here....), But Let's just SAY it is 'true'...

THAT still does not change the FACT that the 'Green New Deal' AOC just embarrassingly rolled out is embarrassing as hell, a piece of crap, and one of the worst pieces of 'legislation' ever produced...it still does NOT change the fact that AOC admitted her plan is 1) Unrealistic, 2) 'unachievable' (Newsom / Ca just proved part of that), 3) Based on Non-existent technology, & 4) the cost is fiscally unaffordable - 'even if we took every dollar from every wealthy American and every resource from every prosperous company in the US'.

Yea that 12 years to the end of the world from cortez then unless we spend 60 or so trillion in 10 years green deal really tells you the truth unless your a moron like her

 

[Markle]

Nonsense. The Green Deal is a fantasy today and probably won't get out of committee but someday some of the things will happen. Healthcare is going to eventually end up as single payer and we're going to have to do something about the growing college loan debt. However, as far as lessen the effects of climate change, not much is going to be done until the world sees clearly the results. In other words, we going to have to experience the hard lesson of "show me".

This will flush out the Democrats and force them to either give ammunition to Republicans by voting for this joke or admit that it is a farce.

McConnell Plans To Bring Green New Deal To Senate Vote
February 12, 20195:43 PM ET

DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced Tuesday that he wants the Senate to vote on a massive plan to fight climate change.

"I've noted with great interest the [URL='https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline']Green New Deal, and we're going to be voting on that in the Senate," McConnell said at a Senate Republican news conference. "I'll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the "Green New Deal" framework last week. The legislation is a nonbinding resolution that is meant to outline a plan to massively curtail carbon emissions while undertaking sweeping economic changes to boost jobs and worker rights.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/694060405/mcconnell-plans-to-bring-green-new-deal-to-senate-vote
[/URL]

 

[Thinker101]

Let's say for a second that Global Warming Science is UNDISPUTABLE FACT (which it is certainly NOT) to some degree (not to the degree AOC says it is, claiming the world will end in 12 years if we do not act now - we already heard that '12 Year' BS from Gore, and we're all still here....), But Let's just SAY it is 'true'...

THAT still does not change the FACT that the 'Green New Deal' AOC just embarrassingly rolled out is embarrassing as hell, a piece of crap, and one of the worst pieces of 'legislation' ever produced...it still does NOT change the fact that AOC admitted her plan is 1) Unrealistic, 2) 'unachievable' (Newsom / Ca just proved part of that), 3) Based on Non-existent technology, & 4) the cost is fiscally unaffordable - 'even if we took every dollar from every wealthy American and every resource from every prosperous company in the US'.

Well, we can sure hope it ends in 12 years, her career in politics, climate change BS, and whining liberals.

 

[RealDave]

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

So the answer is to throw trillions of dollars into something that will likely not change anything. Sorry, but I think we could use those trillions for better things.

No, I think at this point the money should be going to research as FA_Q2 suggested. The problem is bigger than just limiting greenhouse gas production. Once excessive amounts are in the air, how do we get them out? Also, there are lot of answered questions about climate change.

It seems pretty clear that there is not going to be any global plan to reduce greenhouse gas production. It's going take a lot more than scientists warnings of increases in CO2 or small increases in global atmospheric temperature. People are going to have to experience first hand the results of climate change. Maybe by then there will be technological developments that can help. If not we just adapt.

Eventually we will use cleaner products for energy. I really can't see people going to a gas station in about 100 years from now. But it has to come at it's own time--not be forced on us through taxation or subsidies. If we are going to change, it has to be a benefit that people can immediately see, not something we can't or prove.

Look......we're both older people. We remember way back when this all started. Back then, it was global cooling that was the headline in the news. But since then, look at how much we've done. We have much cleaner burning gasoline, cars that get two to four times the milage they used to get, we got rid of fluorocarbons in our spray cans, lead out of our gasoline and paint, new anti-freeze for our cars, eliminated DDT, use of biodegradable packaging (McDonald's), elimination of asbestos, low sulfur diesel fuel, and the list goes on and on.

So what have our rewards been for these efforts? Things are worse now than ever before according to environmentalists in spite of the huge reduction of our carbon footprint.

2% OF G.N.P. SPENT BY U.S. ON CLEANUP

Obama Energy Czar: Fracking Is Good For The Environment

Huge reduction? Hardly. We have reduced emissions but not enough.

What have you done?

i hold my farts in.

unless im around you.

So you've done nothing.

 

[RealDave]

I don't know if there is consensus among writers of articles you read on the internet but there is no doubt there is scientific consensus among the top scientist in the world that climate is changing and man is responsible.

In science it is natural and expected that scientific theories will be questioned and alternatives theories offered and so it is with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change. There have been other alternative theories and hypothesis but none have stood up to peer scrutiny as the Greenhouse Theory has. And no it is not just consensus of government agencies.

The following are all non-goverment organization funded by members, universities, private businesses, and foundations, not the government. All are in agreement with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change and that humanity is a primary cause.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America

In addition there are approximate 58 international Academies of Science including the National Academy of Science which are funded by members, foundations, and governments. They represent over 25,000 of the top scientist in the world, selected based on merit and achievements. Every single one of these organizations accepts as fact that the earth is in a state major climate change. 56 of these organizations state that humanity is the major cause.

This is scientific consensus

BTW Do you realize you have links to articles that are 10 to 15 years old?

Yes I do, but since the time these articles were written, things have gotten better, haven't they? And if not, why not since we keep spending more and more money on this cause?

Do you think God created this planet for animals and plants? Of course not. He created it for the human species. Everything else was put here for our advantage.

Both your statements are your opinion. There is no verse in Bible that says the earth was created for man. This is a favorite argument Christians use to defend their right to rape the land, pollute the air and turn our waters into cesspools.

Of course this planet was created for man. Why would God make a planet where we are the dominant animal capable of doing the things we can do if it was not for us? From a religious point of view, we are the only occupants with souls. Animals don't have souls. From a religious point of view, we are here to be tested and then judged for the next life.

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Having dominion means to rule over or have dominance over. That does not mean God created the earth for man to ravage. The earth belongs to God not man.
"The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." (Psalm 24:1)

Yes, the earth does belong to God and not man. So why do you insist man controls it and not God?

Oh My God. Now you promote the stupid idea that God created the Earth & puny man can;t change it?

 

[Flopper]

Arguably we are the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world and despite the efforts of the current administration we are still considered a world leader. Other nations still look to US for leadership.

Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement was a huge disappoint for environmentalists around the world. However, the blow has been soften with the support of the United States Climate Alliance representing 21 US states and Trump's ridiculous quotes on climate change has certainly helped.

The Paris Accord only gave other countries the ability to limit our economic success. Of course they are pissed off.

That is complete nonsense. The agreement establishes a goal of a 26% reduction in carbon emission over a 20 year period. At the end each 5 years the US can readjust the figure. There is no penalty for not meeting the goal. Thankfully, 21 states agreed to support the Accord, assuring the world we aren't all idiots.

Well Trump thought it was a bad idea and so do I.

I have a better idea though. Let those other countries catch up to us, and then we'll agree to reduce our carbon emissions by 25%.

View attachment 245785

It's China, not other countries
China's is number 1 in the world in total carbon dioxide emissions, 9040 metric tons
US is number 2 in the world, 4,997. If the reduction in emission is based on total emissions, China would have the highest reduction goal and the US the 2nd highest. However, the members decided it would be fairer to base it on emission per capita. Using this method, China would drop to number 11th cutting it's emissions goal significantly and the US would drop to number 3 with little difference in it's US goal.

The bottom line is regardless of which method is used there would be little difference in the US emission goal. However, China's goal dropped significantly using the per captia method as did India, Indonesia, Brazil, and a number of small Africans nations who could not possibility meet their goal using the total emissions method. The per capita method is not only the fairest way to calculate emission reduction requirements but the only the way small developing nations could participate which is very important because they are the fastest growing nations in terms of carbon emissions. Trump of course, only saw that China had a lower goal than the US and withdrawing from the agreement made it easier to increase US emissions which was part of his agenda.
Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions
https://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/6924?file=1

However our emissions have been on the decline for several years now and it keeps on declining.

View attachment 245870

Whether per capita or collectively, we are still moving in the right direction as China does the opposite. How did this happen? Well, China has taken over much of our industry. When industry was here, we had some control over C02 emissions. Now that China has much of it, the graph pretty much speaks for itself.

However climate was the last thing Democrats were concerned about when they supported unions and high taxation. Let the jobs go to China. We'll survive.

Nonsense. The Green Deal is a fantasy today and probably won't get out of committee but someday some of the things will happen. Healthcare is going to eventually end up as single payer and we're going to have to do something about the growing college loan debt. However, as far as lessen the effects of climate change, not much is going to be done until the world sees clearly the results. In other words, we going to have to experience the hard lesson of "show me".

This will flush out the Democrats and force them to either give ammunition to Republicans by voting for this joke or admit that it is a farce.

McConnell Plans To Bring Green New Deal To Senate Vote
February 12, 20195:43 PM ET

DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced Tuesday that he wants the Senate to vote on a massive plan to fight climate change.

"I've noted with great interest the Green New Deal, and we're going to be voting on that in the Senate," McConnell said at a Senate Republican news conference. "I'll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the "Green New Deal" framework last week. The legislation is a nonbinding resolution that is meant to outline a plan to massively curtail carbon emissions while undertaking sweeping economic changes to boost jobs and worker rights.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/694060405/mcconnell-plans-to-bring-green-new-deal-to-senate-vote

There is another route which is more likely. Democrats just let it die in committee. As it stands, there is no specific action required and no financial impact. It's just a set of goals. It's kind of funny. The 2016 Green Deal died because it required specific actions and the 2017 version will die because it doesn't.

 

[RealDave]

Update: Mitch McConnell has said he is DEFINITELY putting the Green New Deal up for a vote, just so that Americans can see which Democrats support it.

Note to Occasional Cortex: when the opposition party is gleefully looking forward to bringing your legislation up for a public vote, you're probably in trouble.

It will be interesting on how many Dem Senators up for reelection next year will vote for this whack job resolution. My crystal ball says very few; only ones in states where a Republican has no shot at winning.

How many Republicans will vote to condemn future generations to the effects of unfettered global warming.

If it was really happening, most of them would vote to take action. But its not happening, its a hoax, and you have been duped like the mindless sheep that you are.

How did the acts of man change the climate millions of years ago? It was changing big time in the previous ice ages and then warming periods.

If you leftists are so worried about man made pollution why aren't you attacking China, the worst polluter on the planet?

Its lunacy and you fools are being led by lunatics like algore and AOC. the party of Truman and Kennedy has become the party of idiots and frauds.

It is happening now. We are experiencing effects from rising temperatures & it will only get worse,.

If you think it isn't, then you are one very stupid person.

There is a decades delay in taking action to alleviating the effects.

The only idiots are you & your horde of Truimpettes.

 

[RealDave]

THIS, of course, is how they want the REST of America to live and does not apply to THEM!


(BTW, Dems, COWS are not the only plentiful animals on the planet.....in fact, while you're chasing down non-existent technology to support your 'Green New Sci-Fi Project' - to include the 'cattle-itic' converter to shove up a cow's rear to collect Co2 from their farts, try developing a hi-tech butt-plug for humans. I would bet humans fart just as much if not more than cows (of course I hang around humans more than I hang out with cows, so my opinion is very biased in this area.)

Because there are no electric vehicles. Right?

 

[RealDave]

Goggle it. You won’t find it on Breitbart or Fox gnus.

dude, there is an entire forum for your stupid claim in here that has debunked every aspect of your nonsense. why don't you instead, go spend some time there. I have no need to go to the internet and do your job for you. you prove it. I know you can't and won't. there you go!

Well ..... you might have known global warming is real if you’d watch something other than FOX AND IDIOT FRIENDS AND FREAKS OF THE ROUND TABLE.

Instead of going out of your way to remain stupid, try to make room in your Rush/Hannity soted brain and read some of the peer reviewed papers written on the subject.

And don’t worry, science is black magic and God won’t smote you for raising your I.Q.

Though Rush and Hannity might look at you cross eyed with a frown.

you need new material aswipe.

You need to crack a book dumbass.

and you need to read something besides Al Gore's book of lies. BTW, didn't he say that florida would be under water by now? and that there would be no ice at either pole? Yes, he did. He either lied or was very stupid----------------probably both.

Actually no. He did not say that would happen by now.

 

[RealDave]

anytime someone on the left is getting their ass handed to them they run to FOX NEW LOL and cement the loss on their part.

It's their default mode.

Limbaugh
Fox
Hannity
Coulter

Racism
Homophobia

When they do find themselves in a corner, they just blurt out any of the above. It saves them time from learning anything, trying to disprove anything, or even helping them get out of a debate.

then whine words have lost their meaning.

i think they are more upset that means its lost impact.

Not too sure about that. They still use them repeatedly. I think they really don't know. When they lose elections, just blame it on the Republicans for cheating and not their worn out strategies. It's like the Boy who Cried Wolf.

Republicans do cheat. Photo ID laws. Voter suppression. Gerrymandering. Russian collusion. If you assfucks don;t want to be accused of cheating, QUIT YOUR ******* CHEATING.

"Republicans do cheat . . . because I want to believe it! Beating Democrats is cheating!"

Photo ID laws don't suppress voting. Gerrymandering is legal, AND practiced by both sides. Russian collusion is a fairy tale you made up to protect yourself from having to admit that your candidate was warmed-over shit. QUIT YOUR ******* LYING.

Study: Voter ID Laws Don’t Stop People Voting

When you demand a photo ID knowing that10-12% of eligible voters do not have one, you are suppressing the vote.

There are no statistics that show significant voter fraud that a photo ID would prevent.

That & your party cheaters.

Gerrymandering is legal so legalized cheating is OK? Wow, what a piece of shit you are.

Explain how a State like PA that has basic equal R vs D divide has twice as many R's as D's in the House?

 

[conserveguy877]

The green turd deal still a thing?

 

[basquebromance]

we have 2 major economic challenges in america: 1.climate change. 2.lack of economic opportunity. my friends, the Green Big Deal takes care of both!

 

[RealDave]

Nonsense. The Green Deal is a fantasy today and probably won't get out of committee but someday some of the things will happen. Healthcare is going to eventually end up as single payer and we're going to have to do something about the growing college loan debt. However, as far as lessen the effects of climate change, not much is going to be done until the world sees clearly the results. In other words, we going to have to experience the hard lesson of "show me".

This will flush out the Democrats and force them to either give ammunition to Republicans by voting for this joke or admit that it is a farce.

McConnell Plans To Bring Green New Deal To Senate Vote
February 12, 20195:43 PM ET

DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced Tuesday that he wants the Senate to vote on a massive plan to fight climate change.

"I've noted with great interest the Green New Deal, and we're going to be voting on that in the Senate," McConnell said at a Senate Republican news conference. "I'll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the "Green New Deal" framework last week. The legislation is a nonbinding resolution that is meant to outline a plan to massively curtail carbon emissions while undertaking sweeping economic changes to boost jobs and worker rights.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/694060405/mcconnell-plans-to-bring-green-new-deal-to-senate-vote

And to the Republicans that vote no? Announcing they are deniers who hate their own children.

22 Senators up for election. Some have a tough challenge.

Would a passing vote be funny?

 

[Aponi]

Update: Mitch McConnell has said he is DEFINITELY putting the Green New Deal up for a vote, just so that Americans can see which Democrats support it.

Note to Occasional Cortex: when the opposition party is gleefully looking forward to bringing your legislation up for a public vote, you're probably in trouble.

It will be interesting on how many Dem Senators up for reelection next year will vote for this whack job resolution. My crystal ball says very few; only ones in states where a Republican has no shot at winning.

How many Republicans will vote to condemn future generations to the effects of unfettered global warming.

If it was really happening, most of them would vote to take action. But its not happening, its a hoax, and you have been duped like the mindless sheep that you are.

How did the acts of man change the climate millions of years ago? It was changing big time in the previous ice ages and then warming periods.

If you leftists are so worried about man made pollution why aren't you attacking China, the worst polluter on the planet?

Its lunacy and you fools are being led by lunatics like algore and AOC. the party of Truman and Kennedy has become the party of idiots and frauds.

It is happening now. We are experiencing effects from rising temperatures & it will only get worse,.

If you think it isn't, then you are one very stupid person.

There is a decades delay in taking action to alleviating the effects.

The only idiots are you & your horde of Truimpettes.

Tell me do you think that the 7.7 billion people on eart have anything to do with it and how you plan on reducing their numbers

 

[Aponi]

Update: Mitch McConnell has said he is DEFINITELY putting the Green New Deal up for a vote, just so that Americans can see which Democrats support it.

Note to Occasional Cortex: when the opposition party is gleefully looking forward to bringing your legislation up for a public vote, you're probably in trouble.

It will be interesting on how many Dem Senators up for reelection next year will vote for this whack job resolution. My crystal ball says very few; only ones in states where a Republican has no shot at winning.

How many Republicans will vote to condemn future generations to the effects of unfettered global warming.

If it was really happening, most of them would vote to take action. But its not happening, its a hoax, and you have been duped like the mindless sheep that you are.

How did the acts of man change the climate millions of years ago? It was changing big time in the previous ice ages and then warming periods.

If you leftists are so worried about man made pollution why aren't you attacking China, the worst polluter on the planet?

Its lunacy and you fools are being led by lunatics like algore and AOC. the party of Truman and Kennedy has become the party of idiots and frauds.

It is happening now. We are experiencing effects from rising temperatures & it will only get worse,.

If you think it isn't, then you are one very stupid person.

There is a decades delay in taking action to alleviating the effects.

The only idiots are you & your horde of Truimpettes.

No id say the realidiots are those who think cortez is right the earth is going to end in 12 years but by giving her power and trillions of american dollars she can save it .
Knock off a few billion people might have a slight effect but nature is nature moron

 

[Cecilie1200]

THIS, of course, is how they want the REST of America to live and does not apply to THEM!


(BTW, Dems, COWS are not the only plentiful animals on the planet.....in fact, while you're chasing down non-existent technology to support your 'Green New Sci-Fi Project' - to include the 'cattle-itic' converter to shove up a cow's rear to collect Co2 from their farts, try developing a hi-tech butt-plug for humans. I would bet humans fart just as much if not more than cows (of course I hang around humans more than I hang out with cows, so my opinion is very biased in this area.)

Because there are no electric vehicles. Right?

Under Occasional Cortex's plan, there will be electric vehicles . . . sitting in junkyards because we can't generate electricity to power them or manufacture replacement batteries for them.

 

[RealDave]

Update: Mitch McConnell has said he is DEFINITELY putting the Green New Deal up for a vote, just so that Americans can see which Democrats support it.

Note to Occasional Cortex: when the opposition party is gleefully looking forward to bringing your legislation up for a public vote, you're probably in trouble.

It will be interesting on how many Dem Senators up for reelection next year will vote for this whack job resolution. My crystal ball says very few; only ones in states where a Republican has no shot at winning.

How many Republicans will vote to condemn future generations to the effects of unfettered global warming.

If it was really happening, most of them would vote to take action. But its not happening, its a hoax, and you have been duped like the mindless sheep that you are.

How did the acts of man change the climate millions of years ago? It was changing big time in the previous ice ages and then warming periods.

If you leftists are so worried about man made pollution why aren't you attacking China, the worst polluter on the planet?

Its lunacy and you fools are being led by lunatics like algore and AOC. the party of Truman and Kennedy has become the party of idiots and frauds.

It is happening now. We are experiencing effects from rising temperatures & it will only get worse,.

If you think it isn't, then you are one very stupid person.

There is a decades delay in taking action to alleviating the effects.

The only idiots are you & your horde of Truimpettes.

Tell me do you think that the 7.7 billion people on eart have anything to do with it and how you plan on reducing their numbers

If they live with lmiited carbon footprints, no

 

[RealDave]

THIS, of course, is how they want the REST of America to live and does not apply to THEM!


(BTW, Dems, COWS are not the only plentiful animals on the planet.....in fact, while you're chasing down non-existent technology to support your 'Green New Sci-Fi Project' - to include the 'cattle-itic' converter to shove up a cow's rear to collect Co2 from their farts, try developing a hi-tech butt-plug for humans. I would bet humans fart just as much if not more than cows (of course I hang around humans more than I hang out with cows, so my opinion is very biased in this area.)

Because there are no electric vehicles. Right?

Under Occasional Cortex's plan, there will be electric vehicles . . . sitting in junkyards because we can't generate electricity to power them or manufacture replacement batteries for them.

You obviously don't understand shit. Get a freaking brain & then look again.

 

[RealDave]

Update: Mitch McConnell has said he is DEFINITELY putting the Green New Deal up for a vote, just so that Americans can see which Democrats support it.

Note to Occasional Cortex: when the opposition party is gleefully looking forward to bringing your legislation up for a public vote, you're probably in trouble.

It will be interesting on how many Dem Senators up for reelection next year will vote for this whack job resolution. My crystal ball says very few; only ones in states where a Republican has no shot at winning.

How many Republicans will vote to condemn future generations to the effects of unfettered global warming.

If it was really happening, most of them would vote to take action. But its not happening, its a hoax, and you have been duped like the mindless sheep that you are.

How did the acts of man change the climate millions of years ago? It was changing big time in the previous ice ages and then warming periods.

If you leftists are so worried about man made pollution why aren't you attacking China, the worst polluter on the planet?

Its lunacy and you fools are being led by lunatics like algore and AOC. the party of Truman and Kennedy has become the party of idiots and frauds.

It is happening now. We are experiencing effects from rising temperatures & it will only get worse,.

If you think it isn't, then you are one very stupid person.

There is a decades delay in taking action to alleviating the effects.

The only idiots are you & your horde of Truimpettes.

No id say the realidiots are those who think cortez is right the earth is going to end in 12 years but by giving her power and trillions of american dollars she can save it .
Knock off a few billion people might have a slight effect but nature is nature moron

You assfucks are dumber than shit. We need to act quickly to prevent a disaster down the road.

I understand your point of view. You haste your children & grandchildren & don't give a rat's ass what their future will be like.

I

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's their default mode.

Limbaugh
Fox
Hannity
Coulter

Racism
Homophobia

When they do find themselves in a corner, they just blurt out any of the above. It saves them time from learning anything, trying to disprove anything, or even helping them get out of a debate.

then whine words have lost their meaning.

i think they are more upset that means its lost impact.

Not too sure about that. They still use them repeatedly. I think they really don't know. When they lose elections, just blame it on the Republicans for cheating and not their worn out strategies. It's like the Boy who Cried Wolf.

Republicans do cheat. Photo ID laws. Voter suppression. Gerrymandering. Russian collusion. If you assfucks don;t want to be accused of cheating, QUIT YOUR ******* CHEATING.

"Republicans do cheat . . . because I want to believe it! Beating Democrats is cheating!"

Photo ID laws don't suppress voting. Gerrymandering is legal, AND practiced by both sides. Russian collusion is a fairy tale you made up to protect yourself from having to admit that your candidate was warmed-over shit. QUIT YOUR ******* LYING.

Study: Voter ID Laws Don’t Stop People Voting

When you demand a photo ID knowing that10-12% of eligible voters do not have one, you are suppressing the vote.

There are no statistics that show significant voter fraud that a photo ID would prevent.

That & your party cheaters.

Gerrymandering is legal so legalized cheating is OK? Wow, what a piece of shit you are.

Explain how a State like PA that has basic equal R vs D divide has twice as many R's as D's in the House?

"Never mind your evidence. THIS is true because I say it is!"

When you say 10-12% of eligible voters don't have ID and won't vote because they don't have ID, you're saying that your voters are helpless, ignorant dumbasses. So I'm sure they appreciate you "helping" them like that.

Now, since I know you didn't even look at the link because you're going to believe what you believe and **** any facts, I'll help you out.

"To determine this, the professors took advantage of different timing of the implementation of voter ID laws in different states to construct a "difference-in-differences" analysis, looking at how voters behave in states that do and do not have strict voter ID laws, before and after those laws were implemented. They used data from the progressive data service Catalist, "a U.S. company that provides data and data-related services to progressive organizations and has a long history of collaborating with academics."

The data from Catalist contained both demographic information—age, sex, race, and party affiliation—as well as information on whether or not a surveyed person was actually registered. This means that the paper’s authors could test whether or not voter ID not only stopped registered voters from voting, but discouraged unregistered voters from registering.

"Strict ID laws have no significant negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any subgroup defined by age, gender, race, or party affiliation," the paper's authors found.

"Most importantly," they write, strict ID laws "do not decrease the participation of ethnic minorities relative to whites. The laws' overall effects remain close to zero and non-significant whether the election is a midterm or presidential election, and whether the laws are the more restrictive type that stipulate photo IDs.""

As for your claim that voters are helpless naifs who don't have and can't get ID, I dare you to prove to me that 10-12% of legally eligible voters are walking around the streets with absolutely no ID and no way to easily acquire it.

Furthermore, by definition, something that is legal cannot be cheating. The two are mutually exclusive. The fact that you can keep shouting, "Cheating! Cheating!!" over and over does not make it fact. Wow, what a delusional piece of shit you are.

"Explain how a State like PA that has basic equal R vs D divide has twice as many R's as D's in the House?" Like I said, you define "cheating" as "anything other than Dems winning." I feel absolutely no need to answer for, and certainly not to defend, the fact that you didn't get what you want.