I’m not sure how an anti-voter ID debater could possibly humiliate a pro-voter ID debater, given public opinion on the issue.
Who was it who said, “If you think everyone else is wrong and you’re right…” Isn’t that a definition of insanity?
Words for you to live by, my friend.
Yeah, but that’s only in one place, and for all I know this could just be an insane asylum I stumbled into.
You’re honestly going to come in to this thread to try to make that argument?
The word “honestly” can harbor many shades and nuances of meaning.
Is one of them “without any sense of shame and showing no development, likely due to being rewarded with praise for using jokes to avoid any sort of personal responsibility”?
Public opinion has been manipulated. At first glance, the natural reaction is that it’s only right to show ID. But when you explain the difficulties that some people have in getting that ID and that those having those problems are disproportionately Democratic leaning and that there is no problem to be solved by the IDs and that the sole purpose of pushing these laws is to rig elections, then people change their minds.
Jesus, how long does it take you to pull bricker’s pubes out of your teeth?
Well, it’s simple: voter ID laws are a very basic, very straightforward set of laws which seem like a really great idea until you look at them closer (which most people don’t), at which point all justification for them completely falls apart and the entire thing reveals itself as a law the the sole purpose of stopping legitimate voters from voting. Read the voter ID thread; you might become enlightened. Also, this line of argumentation is stupid. I’d say even for your standards, but your standards are pretty fucking low. So I’ll be charitable and say this argument is smart by Clothahump standards.
Why can’t all that be true?
I don’t think he does. I think he leaves it in there, ya know, like it was a badge of honor or something.
What you actually mean then is that public opinion hasn’t been manipulated, the public just has it wrong and needs to have it explained to them.
Not to mention ID is required to exercise other basic constitutional rights. Once people have voted, Democrats lose interest in their ID-less plight.
Actually, my argument is simply that it’s impossible to “humiliate” another poster on the issue, since both sides have valid arguments.
ID is required to do a great many things in life, often for things in which there is no evidence that lack of ID contributes to fraud. Therefore, wishing to require it for voting is just as valid as requiring it to get a hotel room or board an airplane or open a bank account. There is no way to “debunk” this argument. Anyone who thinks they can is eating a giant piece of hubris pie.
We still talkin’ Benghazi, or 60 minutes Adaher? It was amusing how you weaseled out of the discussion you started. I credited you with an exit that you, I guess, did not make. So what are we talking about?
Whatever you want to talk about.
Cannabis toothpaste. It’s an idea whose time has come.
Cannabis toothpaste…Mmmmmm… Is it hard to keep lit?
You have no constitutional right to a hotel room or an airplane ticket. While ID could potentially stop fraud, our current system also seems to stop fraud just fine. ID requirements disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters… and if your goal is preserving faith in our elections, I’d argue “keeping hundreds of thousands of voters from casting their votes” is worse than “stopping three people from casting fraudulent votes.”
Much like the fraud argument, this argument also lacks evidence, since many states do have ID laws, and turnout has not noticeably dropped. There is equally no evidence that voter ID actually disenfranchises people in significant numbers. Only studies on who COULD be disenfranchised based on not having ID at the time the law passed. However, that would be just as useful as saying that hundreds of thousands of people are denied the ability to get jobs because they lack ID.
As for it being a constitutional right, petitioning your representatives for redress of grievances is a 1st amendment right, yet almost always requires ID. You don’t get into most townhall meetings without ID, and you can’t get into most federal buildings without ID. Basically, you cannot interact with your government in person at all without ID, unless you want to vote.
Finally, voting is not actually a constitutional right. The only right you have as it pertains to voting is that you not be denied eligibility based on race or sex. You can still be ineligible for a variety of other reasons. True constitutional rights apply to all residents of the United States.
The most fatal weakness in the anti-ID argument is the same weakness that affects a lot of liberal arguments: there is no general principle involved that can be extended to other situations. If ID should not be required to exercise constitutional rights, then ID should not be required to exercise constitutional rights, period. If ID should not be required in cases where it serves no fraud prevention purposes then ID should not be required in any cases where it serves no fraud prevention purpose.
By making it about a single issue that just HAPPENS to be of potential concern to Democratic political viability, it makes liberals look like they are just playing an issue for political advantage. Conservatives on the other hand, are applying a general principle: ID should be required to do any action where there is a societal interest in confirming identity.
And THAT is why most Americans support ID. We’ve been told by both parties that ID is a sensible requirement to do many things and we have further codified it in federal laws. So yes, it does look like Democrats are trying to create an exception for political gain.
This is a foolish false equivalence. Few other rights have a valued historical tradition of anonymity, but voting does. Few other rights have an ideal of universality, but voting does. And few other rights underlie the concept of democracy itself…but voting does.
Your “one size fits all” approach to law is absurd.
I would say that the 1st amendment meets that standard. And you said “few”, which does imply that there are other situations where ID requirements should be abolished.
And we are talking abolishment here. voter ID is the law in most states.