You don’t buy it? What is there not to buy? Do you mean to say it’s inconceivable to you that $5, much less $85 is too much of a burden for the working poor? Come to Camden, Trenton or Newark, my friend, and I’ll introduce you to some families who are living PRECISELY in the situation I described, and some worse. I find it hard to believe you’re as ignorant about this as you’re portraying.
You’re correct. “Lazy” was offered by Lonesomepolecat. I should have been more specific in my attribution, although I didn’t actually accuse you of saying it.
No, I don’t see. The purpose for proposing the ID cards is ostensibly to ensure those who vote have a legal right to do so (I don’t believe this is the actual reason, but that’s another argument), therefore to charge for this identification would be the institution of a poll tax, regardless of whatever secondary purposes the ID would hold.
Again, it’s not an imagined burden, unless of course you consider the working poor in New Jersey and other states to be imaginary people. It’s not hyperbolic and definitely not ludicrous if voter ID is its primary purpose.
Hmmm…I seem to recall more than a shred of proof in the other thread, but I will investigate further, outside the SDMB, and report back my findings.
Prove to me that any legal voters have been disenfranchised. I’ve laid out the way things are now, and the problems with that, now show me what you are trying to prevent.
Goodie for you, I said I have no experience in unemployment matters. I hope to hell that what you went through was a temporary thing, if it’s the policy of unemployment bureaucrats to give any joe off the streets money than we’re in worse shape than I thought.
Why? It was nothing personal against you. How did you open your account? What do you do when you need money from your account? How do you withdraw it? If you can do all of these things without ID, I wanna know how you’re doing it. I could be rich.
Your SSN is a form of ID. I doubt they took your word for it the first time, you had to link your SSN to yourself. That’s ID.
I never said voting was a government service. I used that as another example as to what an ID might be required. I said voting was a right, where you and I differ is that you seem to think that any human who presents him or herself at the polls has a right to vote. I say that said human must present evidence that he or she is a citizen who has the right to vote.
You’re full of shit. In every past election since I’ve been of age (roughly 20 years), I’ve had to show my ID to vote. At the very least this ID has taken the form of a registration card. Now, I don’t have to show anything.
Seriously Frank, we went round and round before, but I think you learned to respect me (while not agreeing with me) at the same time I learned to respect you, but at the same time, can you honestly tell me that requiring proof that you are a citizen and thus able to vote is out of line? What are you going for here?
Onomatopoeia, I’ll get to you tomorrow, I’m tired now. Sorry.
You asked what other than naturalization papers could be used. If you’re a naturalized citizen, you have plenty of ID, believe me. My wife is an immigrant, and she is required by law to carry her green card with her everywhere. Her green card is a government issued ID. You lose.
No, she’s not. She is a legal resident alien. She doesn’t chose to pursue citizenship at this time. She could, but she doesn’t want to. My point here is that for anyone who goes through the process of immigrating, the process itself creates voluminous amounts of paperwork, including a valid ID, which negates Fear’s red herring about naturalized citizens and birth certificates.
Does this actually apply to showing an ID, or merely to telling police my name? I’d tell the cops my name; I have no problem with that. But I’m under no legal requirement to even carry an ID.
I’ll readily add to my statement: I am under no requirement to show an ID to the police unless I am engaged in an activity which requires one, such as driving, or when I am reasonably suspected of criminal activity if I happen to have an ID on me at the time.
This is the second time you’ve called me a liar. I’m done with you.
I’ve been voting for over 35 years in five different states and I have never had to show an id. I was a (Republican) poll watcher one year in New Jersey and no voter showed an id.
You do need an id to register - but it has traditionally been a proof of residence, like a utility bill. A drivers license hasn’t been required, though it will do.
The procedure in California, which is about the same all the places I’ve been:
I walk across the street to the elementary school, I give the nice lady my name and address. They look me up in the big book, I sign it , and I get my ballot.
If you insist on an id, would you agree to a bill, or a credit card, or some other piece of id that most people would have already without having to pay or jump through hoops? That should reduce 99% of the feared fraud, without disenfranchising anyone.
Side note: (I do not recall ever having to provide ID to vote. I had to provide ID to register, but my declaration of who I am and where I live combined with my signature has absolutely been the only thing requested of me, in order to vote, for at least 20 years and actually as far back as I can recall.)
I’ve already said, several times, that I think the state should provide an ID free of charge. I would have no problem with some type of alternate ID sufficing.
Can you please clarify exactly why this is out of line? It’s not a personal insult, it’s not personal at all, it’s a comment on what the person said. He presented something that is completely false as a fact, in the colloquial “full of shit” is the appropriate term for this. I don’t understand how this violates the rules of GD. Would my post have been OK if I said “That’s not true”? What’s the difference between the two terms?
Don’t go there! If someone’s stupid and/or evil enough to vote Republican I don’t want them to vote in the first place, but I don’t dispute their right!
“Full of shit” has broader implications expressed in coarser terms and making the subject of the sentence “you” makes it a direct insult. While “That is false” or even “That is a lie” is grudgingly tolerated, here, I see no reason to start accepting scatological comments. You are not being formally Warned and I did not write this up in the Big Book of Demerits. I just want the number of insults in this Forum kept to a minimum and “You are full of shit” qualifies as an insult that attacks the poster, not the post.
Really? You were not asked to sign in? There was no previous signature against which your signature was compared? That is interesting. In Ohio and Michigan, I always signed the register next to a photocopy of my signature from the last election (or the registration card if it was my first vote).
I really wasn’t. I had to sign a card, but it wasn’t compared to anything. I signed it, handed it to the poll worker, and she walked over and stuck it in a manila envelope taped to the side of the voting machine I was going to use. And thanks for the clarification.
Nobody has ever proven that Diebold machines have been tampered with, merely that it is possible to do so, and you’ve been vehement against their use. Why is this any different?
