Australian Politics Forum - Black Americans Debunk

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 21737
Meeanjin (Brisbane)

Re: Black Americans Debunk - Voter ID Is ‘Racist’
Reply #150 - Today at 8:45am

Frank wrote Yesterday at 6:12pm:

Which part of this foxes you, mongs:

SB 1174 prohibits local governments from requiring voters to present identification when casting their ballots at the polls.

I figured you'd just ignore the fact that you were caught changing the goal posts and then try to bury it with your usual waffle and bullshit.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 56133
Gender: male

Re: Black Americans Debunk - Voter ID Is ‘Racist’
Reply #151 - Today at 9:56am

ProudKangaroo wrote Today at 8:45am:

Frank wrote Yesterday at 6:12pm:

Which part of this foxes you, mongs:

SB 1174 prohibits local governments from requiring voters to present identification when casting their ballots at the polls.

I figured you'd just ignore the fact that you were caught changing the goal posts and then try to bury it with your usual waffle and bullshit.

The cryptic crosswords are on page 25, shifty.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 21737
Meeanjin (Brisbane)

Re: Black Americans Debunk - Voter ID Is ‘Racist’
Reply #152 - Today at 10:37am

Frank wrote Today at 9:56am:

ProudKangaroo wrote Today at 8:45am:

Frank wrote Yesterday at 6:12pm:

Which part of this foxes you, mongs:

SB 1174 prohibits local governments from requiring voters to present identification when casting their ballots at the polls.

I figured you'd just ignore the fact that you were caught changing the goal posts and then try to bury it with your usual waffle and bullshit.

The cryptic crosswords are on page 25, shifty.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jan 17^th, 2026 at 12:02pm:

Today's follow up word is Avoidance (rhetorical):

A debate tactic in which a respondent deliberately fails to engage with the substantive claims, evidence, or arguments presented, and instead diverts attention through meta-commentary, ridicule, or insinuation about the speaker's motives. The defining feature is substitution: replacing an argument with dismissal.

A common form of avoidance is deflection by labelling, where the respondent assigns a pejorative psychological term (for example, declaring "the word of the day is projection") in lieu of addressing the quoted claims. This manoeuvre functions not as a rebuttal but as an evasion, signalling an unwillingness or inability to contest the substance of the argument.

The response operates purely at the level of insult or insinuation, attempting to delegitimise the speaker rather than engage the content.

If the response could be made without having read the original argument, it is avoidance, not engagement.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 56133
Gender: male

Re: Black Americans Debunk - Voter ID Is ‘Racist’
Reply #153 - Today at 10:45am

ProudKangaroo wrote Today at 10:37am:

Frank wrote Today at 9:56am:

ProudKangaroo wrote Today at 8:45am:

Frank wrote Yesterday at 6:12pm:

Which part of this foxes you, mongs:

SB 1174 prohibits local governments from requiring voters to present identification when casting their ballots at the polls.

I figured you'd just ignore the fact that you were caught changing the goal posts and then try to bury it with your usual waffle and bullshit.

The cryptic crosswords are on page 25, shifty.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jan 17^th, 2026 at 12:02pm:

Today's follow up word is Avoidance (rhetorical):

A debate tactic in which a respondent deliberately fails to engage with the substantive claims, evidence, or arguments presented, and instead diverts attention through meta-commentary, ridicule, or insinuation about the speaker's motives. The defining feature is substitution: replacing an argument with dismissal.

A common form of avoidance is deflection by labelling, where the respondent assigns a pejorative psychological term (for example, declaring "the word of the day is projection") in lieu of addressing the quoted claims. This manoeuvre functions not as a rebuttal but as an evasion, signalling an unwillingness or inability to contest the substance of the argument.

The response operates purely at the level of insult or insinuation, attempting to delegitimise the speaker rather than engage the content.

If the response could be made without having read the original argument, it is avoidance, not engagement.

*uck knows what you are on about, teapot.

One minuite it's endless emotionally incontinent verbal diarrhea, the next minute it's cryptic crosswords with idiotic mystery eyerolling.

You would die if you had to express yourself clearly and concisely. It'd kill you.

One day you'll make an excellent mother in law for someone, if you aren't one already.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 21737
Meeanjin (Brisbane)

Re: Black Americans Debunk - Voter ID Is ‘Racist’
Reply #154 - Today at 11:32am

Frank wrote Today at 10:45am:

You would die if you had to express yourself clearly and concisely. It'd kill you.

You quoted Trump saying,

Frank wrote on Jan 20^th, 2026 at 7:32pm:

"Gavin Newsom, one of the worst governors in the world signed a bill that you are not allowed to ask a person, even ask them whether or not they have a voter id. This is because they want to cheat."

一 Donald Trump

I aksed you:

ProudKangaroo wrote Yesterday at 10:49am:

Did you bother to look into that claim Frank?

You responded, eventually, with:

(Abuse removed)

Frank wrote Yesterday at 1:49pm:

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1174 into law on September 29, 2024. SB 1174 prohibits local governments from requiring voters to present identification when casting their ballots at the polls.

https://perkinscoie.com/insights/update/new-california-law-prohibits-localities-...

That law doesn't do what Trump claimed in your quote, as I let you know here,

ProudKangaroo wrote Yesterday at 2:01pm:

Ah, but you've just changed the goalposts.

You said that Trump claimed that Newsom signed a bill making it illegal to even ask whether someone has voter ID, and then asserted this was done so Democrats can cheat. That description is false and Trump was lying.

What the law actually does is far narrower and far less sinister. California passed legislation preventing local councils from inventing their own voter ID requirements that go beyond state law. It was a response to a handful of conservative local governments attempting to impose their own ID rules independently. That's it. No statewide ban on ID, no prohibition on showing ID, no law criminalising the act of asking someone if they have ID.

California's voting system already relied primarily on voter registration verification long before this bill existed. Limited ID checks still apply in specific cases, such as first-time federal voters who didn't provide identification when registering. None of that changed. The law didn't loosen anything, it just stopped local councils from creating a patchwork of conflicting rules.

The claim that this was done to enable cheating is pure bullshit. There is no evidence offered, no mechanism explained, and no fraud data supporting it. It's motive-attribution masquerading as fact. If the intent were to facilitate fraud, one would expect an increase in documented impersonation cases, prosecutions, or credible findings from election audits. None exist.

So if you think Trump is telling the truth, what you really mean is that you're accepting his framing without checking whether it matches reality.

But the funny thing is, you posted a link to the real law that exists, and it doesn't match Trump's description of it. Conflating the two doesn't make his statement true, it just spreads a false narrative.

At some point you have to decide whether you care about what feels right politically, or what is actually supported by the facts. Right now, you're choosing the former and calling it the latter, while posting links that debunk your claims hoping nobody would read them...

You then ignored that you backed down and changed the goal posts, then made this post, this post, this post, this post, this post, this post and this post to try and run from that.

Is that clear enough champ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 56133
Gender: male

Re: Black Americans Debunk - Voter ID Is ‘Racist’
Reply #155 - Today at 2:28pm

What ELSE does this MEAN, thenm FFS!!???

October 11, 2024
New California Law Prohibits Localities From Imposing Their Own Voter ID Requirements

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1174 into law on September 29, 2024. SB 1174 prohibits local governments from requiring voters to present identification when casting their ballots at the polls.

SB 1174 Passed in Response to Huntington Beach Voter ID Measure
SB 1174, authored by state Senator Dave Min (D-Irvine), was introduced following disagreements between the state of California and the city of Huntington Beach regarding control of election procedures. Prior to the enactment of SB 1174, California’s statewide election law allowed individuals to cast their vote without identification. Cal. Elec. Code § 14216.[1] There was, however, ambiguity regarding whether cities and counties had the power to impose stricter requirements, especially given the autonomy that localities have in administering elections.

In October 2023, the Huntington Beach City Council took advantage of this ambiguity and voted to place a measure on the March 2024 ballot, known as Measure A, seeking voter approval for a city charter amendment revising the city’s election processes. The text of Measure A granted the city broad discretion to require identification at polling places to determine voter eligibility, without defining what would constitute a valid form of identification or providing any other details regarding the measure’s requirements or implementation.

Huntington Beach voters approved the measure by a 53% to 47% margin. In April 2024, the state of California filed suit against the city of Huntington Beach, seeking to enjoin implementation of Measure A. The state argued that existing California election law established uniform procedures for determining voter eligibility at polling places that did not include voter identification and that preempted any contradictory city or county laws. The state further argued that “[i]mposing unnecessary obstacles to voter participation disproportionately burdens low-income voters, voters of color, young or elderly voters, and people with disabilities.” A private citizen has also challenged Measure A on similar grounds. See Bixby v. Estanislau, 30-2023-01366664-CU-WM-CJC.

https://perkinscoie.com/insights/update/new-california-law-prohibits-localities-...

As I said now a few times, teapot, blind malice and militant stupidity vie in your head and heart and it's always a bloody draw when you utter.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 28300
Gender: male

Re: Black Americans Debunk - Voter ID Is ‘Racist’
Reply #156 - Today at 2:33pm

Frank wrote Today at 10:45am:

ProudKangaroo wrote Today at 10:37am:

Frank wrote Today at 9:56am:

ProudKangaroo wrote Today at 8:45am:

Frank wrote Yesterday at 6:12pm:

Which part of this foxes you, mongs:

SB 1174 prohibits local governments from requiring voters to present identification when casting their ballots at the polls.

I figured you'd just ignore the fact that you were caught changing the goal posts and then try to bury it with your usual waffle and bullshit.

The cryptic crosswords are on page 25, shifty.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jan 17^th, 2026 at 12:02pm:

Today's follow up word is Avoidance (rhetorical):

A debate tactic in which a respondent deliberately fails to engage with the substantive claims, evidence, or arguments presented, and instead diverts attention through meta-commentary, ridicule, or insinuation about the speaker's motives. The defining feature is substitution: replacing an argument with dismissal.

A common form of avoidance is deflection by labelling, where the respondent assigns a pejorative psychological term (for example, declaring "the word of the day is projection") in lieu of addressing the quoted claims. This manoeuvre functions not as a rebuttal but as an evasion, signalling an unwillingness or inability to contest the substance of the argument.

The response operates purely at the level of insult or insinuation, attempting to delegitimise the speaker rather than engage the content.

If the response could be made without having read the original argument, it is avoidance, not engagement.

*uck knows what you are on about, teapot.

One minuite it's endless emotionally incontinent verbal diarrhea, the next minute it's cryptic crosswords with idiotic mystery eyerolling.

You would die if you had to express yourself clearly and concisely. It'd kill you.

One day you'll make an excellent mother in law for someone, if you aren't one already.

Why do you call people you disagree with a teapot? Is it meant to hurt their feelings? All it does is make you appear petulant and small.

Back to top

IP Logged

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 21737
Meeanjin (Brisbane)

Re: Black Americans Debunk - Voter ID Is ‘Racist’
Reply #157 - Today at 4:50pm

Frank wrote Today at 2:28pm:

What ELSE does this MEAN, thenm FFS!!???

October 11, 2024
New California Law Prohibits Localities From Imposing Their Own Voter ID Requirements

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1174 into law on September 29, 2024. SB 1174 prohibits local governments from requiring voters to present identification when casting their ballots at the polls.

SB 1174 Passed in Response to Huntington Beach Voter ID Measure
SB 1174, authored by state Senator Dave Min (D-Irvine), was introduced following disagreements between the state of California and the city of Huntington Beach regarding control of election procedures. Prior to the enactment of SB 1174, California’s statewide election law allowed individuals to cast their vote without identification. Cal. Elec. Code § 14216.[1] There was, however, ambiguity regarding whether cities and counties had the power to impose stricter requirements, especially given the autonomy that localities have in administering elections.

In October 2023, the Huntington Beach City Council took advantage of this ambiguity and voted to place a measure on the March 2024 ballot, known as Measure A, seeking voter approval for a city charter amendment revising the city’s election processes. The text of Measure A granted the city broad discretion to require identification at polling places to determine voter eligibility, without defining what would constitute a valid form of identification or providing any other details regarding the measure’s requirements or implementation.

Huntington Beach voters approved the measure by a 53% to 47% margin. In April 2024, the state of California filed suit against the city of Huntington Beach, seeking to enjoin implementation of Measure A. The state argued that existing California election law established uniform procedures for determining voter eligibility at polling places that did not include voter identification and that preempted any contradictory city or county laws. The state further argued that “[i]mposing unnecessary obstacles to voter participation disproportionately burdens low-income voters, voters of color, young or elderly voters, and people with disabilities.” A private citizen has also challenged Measure A on similar grounds. See Bixby v. Estanislau, 30-2023-01366664-CU-WM-CJC.

https://perkinscoie.com/insights/update/new-california-law-prohibits-localities-...

As I said now a few times, teapot, blind malice and militant stupidity vie in your head and heart and it's always a bloody draw when you utter.

Repeating the same claim ad nauseam, then padding it out with insults, doesn't make it any more relevant, nor does it magically turn it into the truth. It just signals that you've run out of substance and are hoping volume will do the work reasoning couldn't.

What California did was not ban voter ID, not ban asking for ID, and not legalise fraud. The law simply prevents local councils from inventing their own voter-ID requirements that go beyond state election law.

That's it.

Voter-ID rules remain a state-level matter. People can still be asked for ID where state law allows it, they just can't be denied a ballot because a local council decided to freelance its own rules.

So Trump saying "you are not allowed to even ask" is flatly false.

They can ask. They just can't require it as a condition of voting unless state law says so.

Since you're suddenly very invested in following the law, that should be the end of it.

But as this distinction seems to be causing some difficulty, here's an analogy that might help. Apply the same logic to roads and speed limits:

"Local councils can't set their own speed limits independently of state law."

That does not mean:

- Speed limits don't exist
- Police can't ask how fast you were going
- Driving laws were abolished

It simply means the state sets the rules, not random councils engaging in culture-war cosplay.

Your claim was that Trump said: "Gavin Newsom, one of the worst governors in the world, signed a bill that you are not allowed to ask a person, even ask them whether or not they have a voter ID. This is because they want to cheat."

It is true that he said it. It is also true that it's a standard Trump lie, and the legislation you linked to proves exactly that.

Back to top

IP Logged