Wow. Just… wow. This is who I’ve been trying to reason with?
But its perfectly legal! And there’s nothing in the Constitution saying we have to keep people alive! And besides, liberal hypocrisy!
Let me take a different tack here (leaving my own personal feelings aside, as they seem to be a bit jumbled)
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that a law requiring IDs is really of no burden at all to potential voters. Let us further assume that there will be no challenge to this law in court. It is still law, laws need enforcement and enforcement requires the spending of tax dollars. It may not be that expensive, but still.
Would you support this law?
I’m not trying to be an asshole or anything, just trying to get clarification. From what I have read in this thread, voter fraud is virtually non-existant. This seems like a law to solve a problem that doesn’t really need solving. This just doesn’t seem like a conservative thing to do, as I understand it. (more laws without a real need). I guess what I’m asking is do you really believe there is substantial fraud happening, necessitating such a law?
As for this:
I will take a WAG. I would think ACORN may be well-funded, but the funding is not unlimited. They look at dollars and cents too, and may take the opinion that they have to put the resources where they will do the most good (as they define it, of course). they may have data that would suggest there are more unregistered potential voters in urban areas. Undoubtedly, they are easier to get to in urban areas.
It sounds like you’ve fallen for the Republican lie that their goal is reducing government spending. That’s just a bullshit line to fool the gullible.
Trillion dollar foolish wars? Love 'em! Trillion dollar tax breaks for the rich? Great idea! A tax ceiling idiocy that may eventually cost a trillion dollars in interest if U.S. credit suffers? Great fun!
Republican spending cuts are generally miniscule savings aimed at programs like Head Start, or laying off IRS auditors. They need high deficits to feed their agenda of making Americans hate government.
They’re not even really against regulation, as long as the regulations help their agenda of helping Americans hate government. There was a great article substantiating this several years ago in Harper’s Magazine (unfortunately pay-per-view now).
“Conservatives” reluctant to spend money disenfranchising Democrat voters? You’ve got to be kidding.
Where was that quoted from?
Without context I can’t judge it. But even by itself it isn’t all that objectionable - we don’t go all out to preserve life even in this country where often we spend too much and go too far.
There is a cost-benefit analysis to be applied generally - and financial costs have to be included as well.
Click on the quote. It’s a link. And a quote. And a floor polish and a dessert topping.
Also, you don’t find this that objectionable because you’re probably as degenerate and evil as Bricker is. But you probably don’t make as much money, so don’t trust him.
And of course you can’t spend a billion dollars to save every 90 year old for two months. But you can have much better results than we do now for much less money. And arguing against doing so because you want the poor to suffer is evil.
You mean like a … oh, I don’t know … a death panel?
I’m told it’s the will of some god or other.
I’m curious about this and am considering starting a poll thread with:
Don’t numbers matter? GOP hopes to reduce voting by tens of thousands while preventing perhaps a few dozen frauds.
I’d certainly change sides were those numbers reversed.
Actually, if they’re making a low enough amount per year, and not accepting much from each of their employers, it is possible that they aren’t making enough to be required to file a tax return. That would be an *extremely *low income, of course, but we are talking about the bottommost rung of the socioeconomic ladder.
As an example - at a recent job site a passing gentleman asked if needed some extra help moving torn-off shingles to a dumpster as part of a roofing job. The boss offered him minimum wage for three hours to move the crap and paid him in cash. That’s a low enough sum that the boss doesn’t need to issue a 1099. Whether the passing man makes enough from such odd jobs to be required to file taxes is another matter, but it is conceivable (if not entirely likely) that he really is that low income.
Actually, he had known me for over a decade before I rented from him, so he knew who I was. But he also accepts cash rents from any of his tenants. Why would he care whether he gets paid cash, check, or money order? What he wants is the rent on time every month. He’ll check with the prior landlord if possible, and if the prior landlord says “Yes, rent on time every month, in cash” what does this guy care?
Amazingly enough - my utilities are included in my rent. This is not an unknown arrangement.
For single-room rentals, and by the week rentals, it’s totally impractical to make each tenant sign up individually for utilities due to turnover, so the utilities bundled in with the rent is a common set up for those.
Again, we ARE talking about the bottom rung of the ladder. Things are done a little differently there than in middle class America.
I know people who actually HAVE legit ID, and are even registered voters, who don’t have bank accounts but rely on those currency exchanges.
Why? Well, in some cases it’s inertia - it’s how they’ve always done it. In some cases, this is also linked to racism and banks simply not opening branches in extremely poor neighborhoods, so those folks got in the habit of going to currency exchanges. Also, quite a few banks require minimum balances in a checking account or they start charging exorbitant fees, which makes them no better than the currency exchanges. Finally, currency exchanges sometimes have hours FAR mor convenient for people working long hours for shit pay than banks do… although with the advent of bank branches in grocery stores this isn’t so much the case these days.
Because so many banks require minimum balances these people can’t maintain. Because bank branches are few in the neighborhood and the currency exchanges have better hours. Because not everyone pays utilities separately.
You might as well ask why they don’t pay their bills on line. Well, for starters, a lot of them just don’t own computers. Even if they did, they don’t have access to internet because they either can’t afford it, or they use pre-paid cellphones for telephone service (instead of the landline utilitiy) and it’s not compatible with internet use.
To YOU it’s unreasonable. To them it looks like the easiest and most practical way, given their living conditions, to get things done.
Now, as it happens, my particular bank does have checking accounts that don’t require a minimum balance. They make considerable effort to market how they’re better than a currency exchange to the local poor. They make an effort to staff their branches so that they reflect the local ethnic proportions (my area is 85% black, the rest more or less a split between white and hispanic) so folks who have been historically discriminated against feel more welcome (they also try to hire locally, so it shouldn’t be surprising that their staff reflects the neighborhood). The tellers are allowed to “dress down” to business casual, so there isn’t such a clothing gulf between the tellers and the local poor (management and loan officers still dress in business formal). You see a LOT of scruffy people going to my local bank branches, but not every bank is willing to do business with the poor.
It wouldn’t surprise me if you continue to refuse to believe that is the case, but it is in some places.
And it has nothing to do with the argument. While I think it’s great that you’ve such a hard on for Bricker that you feel the need to poison the well against him in completely unrelated discussions, I think it’s also kind of douchetastic of you to have an unrelated quote that you can just whip out to poison a discussion because the dude disagrees with you. Kind of screams desperation.
So hey. I also think that the whole photo ID thing is far from disenfranchising. Gonna dig up a fun quote from me?
Starving Artist probably never has been one. Somehow I find this very funny.
Reread the post I quoted. I was letting Septimus know that Bricker isn’t a good person. He’s actually evil and giving him the benefit of the doubt is a waste of time.
I have less than a moderate chub for Bricker. I specifically responded to a post. You however, have gone off full-retard when it has nothing to do with the thread. I suspect this is because you want to have sex with me. Well, take a number, sister.
I don’t have the quote ready. I had to look it up, on the googles. Look, you’re not smart. You’re pissed off. The world is a frightening and fast moving place to you. That’s okay. But don’t lash out at me, just because I point out someone you respect (I assume) is evil.
I don’t need to. This quote shows you’re not exactly on the A-list for my attention.
But if you want a personal attack, uh Hockey is a stupid sport. But I’m from Hawaii, so that opinion is probably genetic.
Let’s try this one more time, see if it sinks in. “Disenfranchisement” is an exaggeration, it is not designed to stop, it is designed to slow, hassle, and discourage. Those who use the term are committing a minor semantical error.
The principle of using legislative power to ensure partisan advantage remains. Its not about the relative convenience of the DMV in your home state. Its not about whether it is legal or Constitutional. Its not about whether or not people are so poor they cannot afford it. And it sure as hell isn’t about stopping voter fraud, any more than its about preventing impalement by unicorns, and for the same reason.
Its about whether it is right or wrong. Even if only one hundred people out of the entire country didn’t vote who otherwise would have, it is wrong.
Me, I’m on board with the Bricker plan: universal adult voter registration. The boy does have his moments. Too bad they are moments, but he has them.
No. Satan is evil. Yankee fans are evil. People who ride Harleys in packs and ruin everyone’s nice quiet day are evil. Whoever gave the green light to Bucky Larson is evil. At best, Bricker is a bit of a dick.
With a quote from somewhere else that isn’t relevant to the conversation except for you to play to the audience. Unless somehow this thread went off about health care and I missed it. Nope. It was from another thread. Shouldn’t be surprised really. You clearly don’t have the attention span for this sort of thing. You’ve already wandered off to pop culture references and sex based insults.
I’ll try to guide you back on topic. Is it hard to get a photo ID unless you live in Wisconsin where the state board of cunts is apparently trying to keep anyone and everyone from getting one?
Yes indeed. I’m an unfrozen caveman lawyer. Ya got me pegged. On the other hand, I’ve managed to get a photo ID. Puts me ahead of at least 11% of the population so there’s that.
Aw. Now I’m all butthurt.
Of course, butthurt isn’t my usual terminology but I figured I’d keep the conversation at your level so you’d feel more comfortable that way I can have sex with you which I clearly want.
I’d return the statement in kind, but surfing isn’t really a sport. Certainly a skilled pasttime and a fine profession if you can get to it, but not really a sport.
Yes.
And you’ll notice how Lobohan excised any link or context to that statement.
Hmm…
Well, this is the thread.
The context of the statement was to reject the reductio ad absurdum conclusion:
In short: if we could keep a single 90-year-old alive for an extra month by paying $100 million, would we?
My answer: no. Under that circumstance, it is acceptable for people to die because they can’t afford the proper treatment.
And I suspect you agree.
Now, gee, Lobohan, what happened to the link in your quote, huh? Must’ve slipped off your keyboard or something. Surely you would not have deliberately left it off to obscure the context.
Would you?
The context makes you look like a puerile sack of shit just as well. I did link you ninny, click on the quote. All the kids are doing it that way nowadays.
I add fuddyduddy to your list of crimes.
You can try and pretty up your evil stances all you like retroactively, but you’re fighting an uphill battle.
Edit: I should mention that I’m sure you probably knew about the link, but you’re such a dishonest liar that you made that assertion in bad faith. Presumably so the casual reader might think you weren’t the wretched creature that you actually are.
Then stop using the term. It’s being repeated as if it were fact that 11% nationwide just became instantly disenfranched. I suspect the number would be far lower even if we weren’t to narrow it down to those of the 11% lacking proper photo ID and likely to vote at all.
I agree that it’s being used to partisan advantage, but it’s really rather stupid to do so. Taking out election day voter registration leaves 364 other days. That’s not an obstacle. The small hurdles created for voter registration groups is wrong, but certainly easily overcome by a slight change in planning. Requiring a photo ID isn’t stealing an election. A large majority of the country already has a valid photo ID and while I don’t know the exact demographics involved with those that don’t, I think it’s safe to say that most of them could get one as well without undue difficulty.
And this I agree with as well. As do most people in this thread I suspect. Even the apparently evil Bricker agrees that a free ID should be provided. The only issue I have is with the number of posts treating getting a photo ID as if it were the hardest thing in the world and/or creating very narrow circumstances in which it is at best harder than normal to do so.
My view is that we will never have a perfect system that allows for all citizens to vote every time. It’s always going to be harder than normal for someone no matter what we do. However partisan the activities discussed in the OP, they really aren’t placing an insurmountable demand upon potential voters. It certainly has not been proven that it is. Other countries have similar requirements and their democracies haven’t collapsed yet. Least not so far as I know. Might’ve missed something while I was at work.
This of course excludes Wisconsin where there seem to be large numbers of shenanigans taking place to prevent people from obtaining an ID for free.
What surprises me is that this isn’t enough. There seems to be a general consensus that the government should make it so everyone has the right to vote. The general consensus is that voter fraud really isn’t an issue at all. The general consensus seems to be that the measures taken are mostly partisan in nature and are honestly wrong. The only sticking point seems to be whether or not getting an ID is an unfair expectation, and this is the point being muddied by claims of disenfranchisement that are really impossible to prove.
No. But now that I follow through, I see your link goes to an earlier instance of your quoting me, which hides your link by making the word “Quote” a clickable link, and that in turn links only to my post, not to a display of the entire thread.
Almost as if you were trying to not give people a way to read the context but still giving yourself a quasi-plausible out to defend against that charge.
In fact, not almost. Exactly as if.