ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

You said with your own bolding "Is this TRUE? Shocking if it is."

Simply comparing the pics shows 2 states require PHOTO voter ID - NH, Rhode Island. Then 3 others, Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, require non-photo ID.

Thanks for fact-checking yourself though, maybe try that next time before you post it? The internet is full of BS like this.
Better tell @joeydavid !
  • Love
Reactions: pooponduke

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

This isn't the terrible joke thread my man.
You said with your own bolding "Is this TRUE? Shocking if it is."

Simply comparing the pics shows 2 states require PHOTO voter ID - NH, Rhode Island. Then 3 others, Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, require non-photo ID.

Thanks for fact-checking yourself though, maybe try that next time before you post it? The internet is full of BS like this.

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

I didn't "fall" for anything, it's why I asked, numbnuts. But I don't understand what "Looks a few times" means? (and specific note: as if this space has never been flooded with spam - guess it's not spam if it supports your agenda).
What agenda, that you don't easily fall for misinfo? That you look at both maps for the two states not supporting the claim?

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

I checked Snopes as I figured they'd paint the best picture possible. They did not disappoint. Basically, the X is somewhat true, just not in absolutes and my point remains about it being an interesting observation of the way people think about the need for photo ID to vote. In those areas not requiring a photo ID, KH did very well.

"Of those 15 states and the District of Columbia, as of Nov. 6, AP projected Harris to win California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. AP also projected Harris led in Maine. Further, the news organization projected Trump won Pennsylvania — a battleground state only requiring first-time voters to present a photo or non-photo ID.

As for the remaining 35 states, Ballotpedia noted 25 required photo ID to vote while 10 others required non-photo ID. In states generally requiring photo ID to vote, AP projected Harris won New Hampshire and Rhode Island. In states generally requiring non-photo ID, AP projected Harris won Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware and Virginia.

In other words, AP projected Harris won most of the states generally not requiring ID to vote but also projected her as victorious in some other states that required voters to present ID. The statements made in the aforementioned X post was misleading and not true."

https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/11/06/harris-2024-voter-id/

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Civil war actually happened.

Fraud didn't. Paper recounts (often multiple, and often done by RED SoS) proved there was no mass fraud. It's a fabrication that you fell for.
Nice move of the goalposts. The issue was "getting over it" and "moving on" which are a completely different issue. We never even get to those things if something never happened. Whether something happened or didn't would be irrelevant as conceptually we are either allowed to talk about the past or we aren't.

Now, you'll probably tell me this isn't accurate or it's spam, but doesn't this anomaly seem to be just a little out of wack? KH got almost exactly what everyone else gets, except one. Things that make you go "Hmmmmm".

Login to view embedded media

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

And the irony of this is thicker than cement. Again, I'll concede any discussion about the prior election can wait (although there are some very, very interesting observations to be made in comparing some things/trends). But you never stop arguing over an event that ended 159 years ago and you want to tell @bluetoe to move on. That's some funny stuff.
Civil war actually happened.

Fraud didn't. Paper recounts (often multiple, and often done by RED SoS) proved there was no mass fraud. It's a fabrication that you fell for.

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

That's debatable. What isn't debatable is that Hispanics, as a whole, are more conservative on social issues. That would put them more in line with the GOP.
Agree with this and don't understand why @blazers makes the pitch of Hispanics benefiting more from progressive policies. First, everyone benefits short term from any type of gift from someone else, but long term no one benefits from this when the entity doing the "giving" doesn't have anything to actually give. Hispanics are no different from anyone else and this class/categorical distinction stuff is a big part of the problem. Everyone benefits from policies that allows them to work hard and thrive. And from my perspective on Hispanics, all they want is the opportunity to do just that, like most Americans.

Which also brings up one of my pet peeves with the D's and media. Stop lumping all Hispanics/immigrants into one big basket. Immigrants come from all kinds of places and aren't just Hispanic. Further, there is a big, big, big difference between immigrants and illegals. Or, more accurately immigrants and criminals. They are not the same and should not be spoken of as one group. We desperately need to address the actual topic of immigration in our country, but criminally entering our country and then acting like those individuals are the same as the ones who legitimately applied and/or were processed at a legal port of entry is a false narrative being sold to us.
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT