Well, I actually will concede you have a point: I would not object to seeing this round be no more than a trial: election officials ask for ID but still permit the citizen to vote, with a warning that NEXT election, it’s for real. In any state with newly-enacted laws, anyway.
So…
A flawed perception by the public - perception that has been, shall we say, “guided” by groups with an interest in whose votes are cast aside - that incorrect, wrong and can we even say, specious perception…
Your premise would be that correcting that wrong perception should trump the right to vote for thousands of people.
Probably the same place that says millions of people will be disenfranchised due to working multiple jobs, and,..fuckit, I’m not going through the bullshit list of excuses again. It isn’t important.
My comment is that it will always be easier to find people who say they couldn’t vote due to one reason (or excuse) or another, rather than find those who have voted illegally. Those numbers will never match. The latter requires a burden of proof that the former does not.
[QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic]
A flawed perception by the public - perception that has been, shall we say, “guided” by groups with an interest in whose votes are cast aside - that incorrect, wrong and can we even say, specious perception…
[/QUOTE]
Well, you could decide that education will resolve the issue, but many will think you are doing it for the same partisan reasons of the other side and not change their opinion.
Or, you could implement an ID system (that most of the civilized world has, btw. I guess they have been brainwashed by the Republicans as well?) and remove their objection entirely? Maybe you prefer bashing your head pointlessly against a wall.
No, his contention is that bowing to that wrong perception trumps the right to vote for thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.
Many of us have said repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere that we don’t object to voter ID as long as there is sufficient opportunity for people, whatever their circumstance, to get one.
And that wrong perception should be dealt with the same way we deal with other fantasies – by educating people as to the facts. And the facts are that in-person voter fraud is so uncommon as to be negligible.
To what do you attribute your stunning failure to make that case thus far?
How about the problem that for some people, flawed perception trumps factual knowledge.
It seem that it’s hard to make a case when some folks (waves at Bricker) will not listen to facts, and prefer fantasy.
Start with a carefully orchestrated campaign by Republican brain trusts to deliberately deceive the public and inflame emotions against all those hordes of illegals, felons, and cheats. How about you acknowledge this, just as a gesture of reasonableness on your part? Or do you continue to deny this?
Sure. For the purpose of this argument, sure – it’s all the fault of the evil Republican Brain Trust. Cheerfully conceded.
Now, how do you propose to reverse this highly effective deception?
Even if true, how to explain the rest of the world with the same opinion on voter ID? Many to the left of the US. The fault of the Republicans as well? How do you explain that this perception crosses party lines in your country as well?
I suppose we must stipulate that, even for the purpose of abstract argument, hanging a few of them is quite out of the question? Even if it might have an encouraging effect on their civic virtue?
How, then? The truth, I guess, it’s all we got.
“Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing wrong with this, except that it ain’t so.”
- Mark Twain
Would help a lot if intelligent and articulate men would stop supporting cynics. Good start, at any rate.
That approach doesn’t seem to be working.
Again, for the purposes of this discussion, we assume the Evil Republicans’ Lie has caused even a large majority of Democrats in the public to favor Voter ID. I ask what you plan is to fix it, and you plaintively say that you wish intelligent and articulate men would stop supporting cynics.
But they are. Your plan to just tell the truth, as you see the truth, is not working – as your Twain quote acknowledges.
Is it going to start working in the future?
Gotta admit, you lose with such grace and…what’s the word?..aplomb. The tearing the hair, shrieking “No! No! No!”. Gladdens the heart, it does.
I’d like to step outside the current debate and comment on the Twain quote. I’m a big Twain gan, and this one sets my truth-o-meter off. Twain used the coloquial “ain’t” when it was coming from one of his characters, but much less often with his own writings. This looks suspicious.
A quick survey of Twain quote sites attributes it to “Notebook”, which looks reassuring at first, but different sites give it different dates. I’ve found three different dates for vthis supposed quote, from 1898 to 1905, and that sets off my distrust once again. If at least two of the citers got the date wrong, I doubt if they actually looked in the notebook, and that makes me question all of them. I observe that this quote is missing from the Wikiquotes page of Twain Quotes, even though there’s a section entirely devcoted to “Truth”, where you’d expect it to be: Mark Twain - Wikiquote
In short, I don’t believe it. Twain liked to be “folksy”, but he had his language standards, too, and he avoided "ain’t’ in most cases in favor of more properly accepted grammar.
Carry on.
What if the perception is created by the legislators?
Twain was not averse to recycling his favorite lines. Rather shameless about it, point of fact. You also have to remember that he has been a victim of Yogi Berra syndrome, a lot of stuff is attributed to him that he did not say. Like “his” line about Wagner’s music being better than it sounds.
Twain was a tireless promoter of his fellow humorists, and generous to a fault in that regard. Trouble was, people tended to assume that anything funny came from him, rather than from, say, his good friend Petroleum V. Nasby.
And, keep in mind, “ain’t” was not always held in such disdain. Which reminds me, haven’t read Roughing It in a year or so. About time.
Yeah, but I can’t believe he’d enter the same line three times in different years. He’d express it differently.
And I stand by my lack of “ain’t” – Twain didn’t like to use it in his own discourse, although he’d put it in the mouths of his characters. He was trying to avoid sounding like Huck Finn in everyday life, though, and wanted to project the image of a knowledgeable gentleman with wit. It didn’t matter if some people used it. Twain generally didn’t.
Uzi, you’ve got to read the thread, man! We are getting tired of your straw man argument. Again, the idea of voter ID isn’t the problem. The problem is the short timeline for implementation along with the various stumbling blocks (office hours, particular documents required, cost and time needed to obtain them, etc.) that impede the ability to gain or update an acceptable form of “voter ID”. Note that some of the first proposed legislative efforts actually included a fee schedule. These were withdrawn only when objectors pointed out that such would fail Constitutional muster, but they give a hint into the mindset of those who wrote the legislation. So the objection isn’t to voter ID per se, it is the problems the legislation put forth the last two years or so creates for certain large numbers of voters. And that these voters seem to be disproportionately skewed toward one side of the aisle. Please address the actual argument.
Bricker, this too has been stated repeatedly: We can but shine a light into the darkness. Sadly, truth is the only weapon we have against propaganda. But really, even this would be moot if not for the Emergency! Emergency! Get it implemented NOW! nature of the problem. For the umpteenth repetition, I and many other members of ‘the left’ would have no issue at all with enactment of picture voter ID legislation that included a several-year timeline, a generous public information budget including active help for people attempting to obtain the necessary paperwork, and no-fee options for economic hardship. Why, if coupled with a proactive government enhanced voter registration drive (“Get your ID here! Not registered? Get registered AND get your ID here! Not sure or have questions? Get them answered, get it straightened out, and STILL get your ID here!”) I would positively campaign for it.
I’d expect that “real Americans” 
who cared about voting rights and empowerment of all our fellow Americans and weren’t motivated primarily or substantially by partisan gain would join me. I believe that would be best for our country, and therefore the right thing to do. But apparently, Republican mileage does vary greatly. Sad you’ve chosen that particular hill to plant your flag on.
Actually, many people in this thread have used the argument about the cost of voter ID (to the government) not being justifiable. That makes it pretty damned clear that they are against voter ID in any form because any form of ID costs money.
I’m sure competent people managing this could do it in a very short period of time. From what I saw earlier (I think it was Pennsylvania), their requirements and website was confusing. So, obviously the people who designed it weren’t thinking of the customer whether that customer was on the left or the right.
Someone has to pay for their IDs. Who better than those who use them. But it shouldn’t be called a ‘Voter ID’. It should be a standardized form of national ID that can be used for voting along with many other things. But, let the poor have them for free if you want.
Been addressed multiple times, oh holder of the argument rulebook.
Sorry, can’t divide up the quotes on this handheld. Substituting paragraphs.
Cite for “many”. Partial credit for a cite to “any”.
Apparently the PA courts also concluded that the timeline was impossible to meet without disenfranchising many voters. Simple competence or lack thereof didn’t enter into it. And you seem to be the only person in this thread who thinks the disenfranchisement would be equally distributed.
Yes, someone has to pay for the ID system, but if you want it, then you’ll have to use tax money for it. Poll taxes are specifically prohibited in this country, donchaknow.
Yes the issue has been addressed multiple times, but not by you. Instead you insist on repeating your contention that we in this thread are adamantly opposed to voter ID, while continuing to ignore our complaints about the methods of implementation.
See post 1908 for one.
If you are willing to admit that democrats are mostly incompetent boobs who can’t complete simple task, then sure I’ll admit it affects them more than someone else in similar circumstances. But if the circumstances are the same, it will affect both parties equally. So, a black person working 15 jobs and has 42 kids living 500 miles away from the nearest DMV which is only open 1 day a month for an hour at 3am to 4am where the employees have a 2 hour lunch break, well, I don’t think it matters that the person is voting left or right. Now if you want to argue that the white person who only lives 499 miles away has some inherent advantage, by all means have at it.
For a guy who claims I’m not paying attention:rolleyes:
“But it shouldn’t be called a ‘Voter ID’. It should be a standardized form of national ID that can be used for voting along with many other things. But, let the poor have them for free if you want.”
Maybe read more than the first sentence, huh?
I’ve answered these complaints many times. I have explained the difference between an ‘excuse’ and a ‘valid reason’ ad nauseam. It is you and your compatriots who can’t seem to see the difference and expect the government to wipe people’s noses (and asses) for them in every aspect of their lives.