Do you think a state that won’t let this black man vote would let him have a concealed carry license? :dubious: … And do you think a white Republican-looking person with a birth certificate irregularity but with redeeming ID including a previos state-issued ID would have been refused?
The black man has a bastard’s name, and he should just own up to it – he’s a bastard. (Can he produce his parents’ marriage license? With photo ID on the license?)
Anyway, disenfranchising 600,000 voters to stop 10 or 20 cases of voter fraud is the right thing to do – it will give us all so much confidence that democracy is served.
If he really wants to vote, why doesn’t he just do what Bricker did: go to Mexico, swim across the Rio Grande with 13 cents in his pocket and a Hispanic surname, work shining shoes for a nickel a pair, save up and go to law school, and help this great country by bamboozling juries with stupid “logic”? Hunh?
Bricker, would you be in agreement with a requirement that everyone would have to get a brand new specific Voter ID in order to be eligible to vote? That is, things like driver’s licenses or gun permits would not be acceptable substitutes?
The guy has a legal name, as do we all. Why should my “heart” extend to valorizing his attempts to change that legal name without going through the same process everyone else has to?
I ALSO think that relevant information was minimized by the article. If the writeup said: *A Texas man is unable to obtain photo ID in the name he’s been using. The man explained that his birth certificate was issued showing only his mother’s name, but he wanted to use his father’s last name as his own. The man admitted he had not gone through any legal steps to change the name on his birth certificate, but wanted the new ID anyway, * then much of the “heart” reaction would vanish.
The article is manipulative, and, like most of these cases, the story falls apart on close examination.
Hey Bricker, remember when you said I didn’t understand your argument, then I showed you that you said I understand your argument, and then you changed the subject?
Your earlier understanding of my argument must have vanished from your head, a natural consequence of the one place in the universe that does not abhor a vacuum.
It must be tough going through life discussing only those things a legislature is working on. Then again, as a slavish authoritarian, I suppose it would be much more comfortable to deal only with concepts as codified by those in charge.
Sorry to tax your cognitive abilities.
But kudos on maintaining your boundaries on acceptable methods for approaching this issue! It all has to be able to come down to neener, neener in the end doesn’t it?
I disagree. I think you leave out some factual stuff that goes to the heart of my objections.
A Texas man, who has voted legally his entire adult life, finds he can no longer use his old and reasonable forms of ID. He spends many hours traveling by bus and standing in long lines, and pays more than a day’s wages, to obtain a birth certificate, only to discover that said certificate doesn’t bear the name he’s been using for 45 years, and so is considered invalid. So after all that, he finds that he can either change his name, which carries significant emotional attachment for him, or not vote this year.
That’s a lot of bullshit to make someone wade through, and thousands of people, almost all of whom are poor and/or minorities, are going to have to wade through similar bullshit. Legal or not, that doesn’t sit well with me.
As aside: Bricker, I don’t know if your family name carries any emotion value to you, but would you readily change it to something arbitrary in order to vote? And would you be happy about it? I love voting and have done it my entire adult life, but I’m not sure I would.
And it’s also a name he has used exclusively as his legal name for decades and he has multiple forms of ID bearing this name.
There’s no general obligation to go through the expense and legal formalities of an official name change.
Why suddenly after so many decades of using X as his name legally with documentation using X as his name must he either go through the time and expense to obtain judicial recognition (again, not a standard obligation) or accept Y as his legal name?
How does this imposition relate to ensuring the integrity of the voting process?
That’s fascinating. If this guy lived in the state of General, by gosh, you’d be right on point.
However, in Texas, a court’s permission is required. See In re Erickson, 547 SW 2d 357 (Tx Ct Civ App 1977); see also Texas Family Code Section 45.101 (note that code sections have been renumbered since 1977).
Because, in Texas, that’s what you have to do to change your name. Why the hell do you keep bringing up “standard” obligations? Does he live in Standard? I thought you said it was General. He lives in TEXAS.
You asked a question that showed your lack of understanding. Whether you forgot because you’re dim or just lied about the predicates because that’s who you are, I have no idea. But your attempt to take the time I said to you that you understood and use it as inoculation against any future accusation that you don’t won’t work, because you turned right around and said stupid shit about my argument that showed you (a) forgot, or (b) lied.
(c) I understand it full well, and you don’t like when people point out how utterly craven and shitty you are.
Bricker, you’re not deep. You’re a thin skin of skum atop a wafer of unwarranted arrogance. Figuring out your argument doesn’t take any sort of grand understanding. It takes listening to your words. And those words are poopy.
So, thanks for, in your cowardly fashion, admitting that I understand your argument, and that you were wrong. I appreciate that you are unable to admit this openly, because of how invested you are in this thread and pretending you’re winning this argument.
And what value do you believe that these Texas-specific obligations offer in terms of preventing this particular guy from fraudulently voting compared to the burden it places on him?