The Biden Presidency

[thethe]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...374EDCD26333BF

I mean one study showing reduced turnout after strict voter ID laws.

PRIMARY ELECTION DATA?

Oh Jesus Zito - Do you actually know anything about the study since it appears to be behind a paywall or was this just the first result on your google search?

[zitothebrave]

can you point me to the specific post you answered it?

Being lazy cause I don't want to go bakc

It's not racist to ask to see someone's ID wher eit's legal to, unfortunately Voter ID is inherently racist.

Again the reason why sturg is doing this is simple. It's not racist to ask for an ID, like it's not racist to say things. .

[sturg33]

I don't care about studies... I want to know if zito believes requiring a photo ID to participate in something discriminates against black people.

I have yet to see a clear answer from him, despite asking 22 times. Perhaps he can link me to the post he claims he answered

[sturg33]

Being lazy cause I don't want to go bakc

so if it is not racist to ask to see someone's ID, why is is racist to require an ID to vote?

[zitothebrave]

PRIMARY ELECTION DATA?

Oh Jesus Zito - Do you actually know anything about the study since it appears to be behind a paywall or was this just the first result on your google search?

Hardly first result, I've read articles on it, because you know there are people you can trust without reading every single word too.

Primary Election data was what it was based off of because the law was struck down before the general election. So yeah, it's there. Again, it's just one. I could point to other.

https://www.thenation.com/article/ar...-won-by-23000/

I linked to the article because they addressed the scribbd.

"While states with no change to voter identification laws witnessed an average increased turnout of +1.3% from 2012 to 2016, Wisconsin’s turnout (where voter ID laws changed to strict) dropped by -3.3%. If turnout had instead increased by the national no-change average, we estimate that over 200,000 more voters would have voted in Wisconsin in 2016."

[zitothebrave]

so if it is not racist to ask to see someone's ID, why is is racist to require an ID to vote?

Again, as I said pages back, I'm fine with voter IDs if you make it very easy for every citizen to get it. I pointed out where I live it's miles to go to the DMV. NH doesn't have strict voter ID. It has non-strict non-photo ID requirements. What that means is a Supervisor, etc. can essentially vouch for someone so betty who's lived in my town for 30 years can show up and the supervisor can vouch for them. It's not a perfect system as it makes it hard for someone come in from the outside.

So again, I make this simple, either your state should be paying to regularly make sure citizens are able to get a compliant Photo ID, OR reset the representation in the house.

[thethe]

Hardly first result, I've read articles on it, because you know there are people you can trust without reading every single word too.

Primary Election data was what it was based off of because the law was struck down before the general election. So yeah, it's there. Again, it's just one. I could point to other.

https://www.thenation.com/article/ar...-won-by-23000/

I linked to the article because they addressed the scribbd.

"While states with no change to voter identification laws witnessed an average increased turnout of +1.3% from 2012 to 2016, Wisconsin’s turnout (where voter ID laws changed to strict) dropped by -3.3%. If turnout had instead increased by the national no-change average, we estimate that over 200,000 more voters would have voted in Wisconsin in 2016."

Oh boy - Here is the logic that was used:

The lost voters skewed more African-American and more Democrat. For example, Wisconsin’s 2016 electorate was 6.1% more Republican, and 5.7% less Democrat, than the group of ‘lost voters’. Furthermore, the WI electorate was 3.7% more White and 3.8% less African American than the group of ‘lost voters.’ This analysis suggests that the 200,000 lost voters would have both been more racially diverse and have voted more Democratic.

Which means they are using the outcome of the election to back into what had to be 'lost voters'. Of course when you look deeper into who ran the study you find:

(Priorities USA is a progressive advocacy group and Super PAC that supported Clinton in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2012. The study was conducted by Civis Analytics, a data science firm founded by the chief analytics officer for Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012.)

Oh Zito....

[sturg33]

Again, as I said pages back, I'm fine with voter IDs if you make it very easy for every citizen to get it. I pointed out where I live it's miles to go to the DMV. NH doesn't have strict voter ID. It has non-strict non-photo ID requirements. What that means is a Supervisor, etc. can essentially vouch for someone so betty who's lived in my town for 30 years can show up and the supervisor can vouch for them. It's not a perfect system as it makes it hard for someone come in from the outside.

So again, I make this simple, either your state should be paying to regularly make sure citizens are able to get a compliant Photo ID, OR reset the representation in the house.

But if it's hard for black people to get a photo id, why is not also racist to require a photo ID to get on a plane or to get in a bar?

The same barriers to getting the ID exist in either scenario

[zitothebrave]

Oh boy - Here is the logic that was used:

The lost voters skewed more African-American and more Democrat. For example, Wisconsin’s 2016 electorate was 6.1% more Republican, and 5.7% less Democrat, than the group of ‘lost voters’. Furthermore, the WI electorate was 3.7% more White and 3.8% less African American than the group of ‘lost voters.’ This analysis suggests that the 200,000 lost voters would have both been more racially diverse and have voted more Democratic.

Which means they are using the outcome of the election to back into what had to be 'lost voters'. Of course when you look deeper into who ran the study you find:

(Priorities USA is a progressive advocacy group and Super PAC that supported Clinton in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2012. The study was conducted by Civis Analytics, a data science firm founded by the chief analytics officer for Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012.)

Oh Zito....

Sigh, you just don't get it.

Fine here we go

In 2012 about 3.27M people in Wisconsin voted, in 2016 about 2.78M people voted.

From 2010 to 2020 Wisconsin experienced about 3% population growth.

Explain that massive of a drop when Voter ID was tightened. 2020 with opened up ballots basically got things about even to 2012. BUT Trump pulled much higher numbers than Mittens.

[thethe]

I wonder if there was a candidate in 2012 on the left that connected with black people better…

[zitothebrave]

I wonder if there was a candidate in 2012 on the left that connected with black people better…

Lol

[sturg33]

Sigh, you just don't get it.

Fine here we go

In 2012 about 3.27M people in Wisconsin voted, in 2016 about 2.78M people voted.

From 2010 to 2020 Wisconsin experienced about 3% population growth.

Explain that massive of a drop when Voter ID was tightened. 2020 with opened up ballots basically got things about even to 2012. BUT Trump pulled much higher numbers than Mittens.

Sounds like you're suggesting the photo ID was a very big barrier for black people

Why does that logic not apply to planes or bars?

[sturg33]

When the supreme snacks down Biden again, what will the consequences be for yet again breaking our law?

I submit that any law ruled unconstitutional should result in immediate removal from office

[sturg33]

They so badly want a globalist rule over our citizens

[thethe]

They hate Alex Jones so much becase he said this was coming for twenty years.

[cajunrevenge]

When the supreme snacks down Biden again, what will the consequences be for yet again breaking our law?

I submit that any law ruled unconstitutional should result in immediate removal from office

No doubt you will suddenly drop this point of view when a Republican is In the white house. Thanks for letting us know you know nothing about laws or our system of government though.

[57Brave]

In his State of the Union speech in February, President Biden called for that $35 monthly cap to be expanded beyond Medicare to include every diabetes patient.

Mr. Biden praised Lilly on Wednesday, after the company announced its moves. “It’s a big deal, and it’s time for other manufacturers to follow,” he said.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/eli-lil...by-70-c554f516

[Tapate50]

In his State of the Union speech in February, President Biden called for that $35 monthly cap to be expanded beyond Medicare to include every diabetes patient.

Mr. Biden praised Lilly on Wednesday, after the company announced its moves. “It’s a big deal, and it’s time for other manufacturers to follow,” he said.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/eli-lil...by-70-c554f516

A good follow up to that statement would have been to ask why he revoked Trumps EO doing the same thing. This delaying the benefit for millions

[57Brave]

Social media posts claim President Joe Biden overturned an executive order signed by his predecessor Donald Trump that aimed to lower insulin costs for US diabetics. This is false; Biden froze for 60 days the implementation of all federal rules created but not yet put into effect by the previous administration and, if applied, Trump’s proposed change would only cut drug prices for a limited number of Americans.

https://factcheck.afp.com/trumps-ins...scrapped-biden

pretty sure this conversation was had

[57Brave]

On first blush, President Donald Trump’s $35 insulin discount policy may seem like a serious attack on high prescription drug prices. No doubt, it could help some patients. But the new policy is a limited gesture that is no substitute for comprehensive drug pricing reform. The timing suggests Trump’s insulin plan may be a political ploy to curry favor with senior voters, who – according to recent polling – are turning against the president.

https://www.ncpssm.org/documents/202...ollar-problem/


After months of silence on prescription drug prices, the administration announced the $35 insulin policy after polls indicated that Trump is underwater with senior voters