Could you please point to an example of someone making that claim? :rolleyes:
Perhaps you and John Mace could go back and read the thread to each other. You might or might not get some grasp of the topic, but you might embarrass yourselves less, too.
In my state, they only do those things illegally or by violating an establishment’s requirements through some form of fraud or deception. Is that what you meant? Stupendous point you made there with your super informed opinion. I guess they could employ the same strategy for voting. Maybe get a fake voter ID.
Jesus Christ, you just get more idiotic as the years roll by. Thank God you’re virtually never on my side of a debate. I will never bother to provide you a cite, since your reaction to being shown you’re flat-out fucking wrong is predictably pathetic. Feel free, as usual, to assume by this refusal that you’ve shattered the other guy’s position through your typical imbecilic contribution to the thread.
If this is what you believe, you still lack sufficient data.
I know what my state requires. Don’t be coy, what’s your point then, oh inscrutable one?
Your side of this debate is the outside. You have no fucking clue what we’re even talking about here, do you? None at all.
I certainly didn’t expect one. :rolleyes:
Good thing I no longer bother buying irony meters.
OK then, maybe *you *can point to an actual example of somebody making the claims you’re strenuously denying.
Or maybe not. :rolleyes:
This was way back 2 pages ago by someone you probably don’t pay much attention to:
In a representative democracy, the will of the people is expressed through their elected representatives.
Don’t like that feature, eh?
Nope. The only person who thinks “there is an assumption that voter ID laws is inherently discriminatory” is you.
That is not the subject here, my dear boy. Not these laws themselves, but their implementation and their motives and their effects, and the broader subjects of what other problems exist and are not being addressed. That’s what is discriminatory, and damaging to democracy and to “voter confidence”
You might have grasped that if you’d actually been paying attention. With a little thought and a little sense of responsibility, you might even have contributed something, instead of applying nothing more than your superficial and counterproductive and useless and basically lying “Both sides do it, I’m above it all and therefore better than you” adolescent shit.
Now go to bed. The grownups are talking.
And so we return once again to the failed argument “lib’ruls just wanna rule by fiat!”
Yawn.
When will you ever learn why we have a Constitution?
Somehow you still misunderstand my objection. I object that any of this rigmarole is required in the first place. I object that Texas intentionally placed unnecessarily narrow requirements on getting the ID. I object that poor people, already more burdened in this regard, are being made to shoulder yet more burdens of time and money to acquire one. The man in question had been voting just fine for many years, and Texas even had an ID law he was (seemingly) complying with.
If you still don’t understand, just read Justice Ginsberg’s dissent of the recent court decision that allowed the Texas ID law to stand for 2014. That pretty much sums up my objections. Do you consider Justice Ginsberg part of the “Loony Left?”
My understanding of the recent course of events in Texas is this:
2011: Texas legislature passes a strict Voter ID law, which is then struck down by the Federal government for violating the Voter Rights Act.
2013: Supreme Court decides the Voter Rights Act is no longer necessary, at which point the Texas Legislature immediately reintroduces, and passes, the same Voter ID law that the Feds had previously ruled overly discriminatory.
2014: A district court judge enters an injunction to stop the law, opining that the law was drafted “with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose,” and created “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote” and amounted to a poll tax.
Later in 2014: The Supreme Court decides to waive that injunction, not because they disagreed with its substance, but because it was too close to an election to change the laws about which ID’s were valid or not.
Does that sound right? If it is, I’d say it provides evidence that my position on the matter is not at all “loony,” but is in fact supported (at least) by several Federal judges.
And though I shouldn’t have to say this, you’ve made it clear I need to: I do not think these laws were arrived at illegally, or that we should overthrow the legislative process in order to change them. Still, I want them changed by legal means, and one way I can incrementally move toward that, is by making arguments in a public place that the current crop of Republican politicians is intentionally trying to indirectly disenfranchise poor and minority voters. As such, we should vote them out, because they’re intentionally inflicting harm on our democratic process.
I’d feel exactly the same way, and be arguing just the same, if the parties in question were reversed. If Democratic-controlled legislatures managed to pass laws clearly designed to dissuade Republican voters from voting, even if they had a thin veneer of legitimate purpose, I’d vociferously object to those laws.
What was it you said again about paying attention? Again, not a problem as I no longer own any irony meters.
Dance all you want, amigo, but we can all read what you wrote.
Your cite is the only person in this thread as clueless as yourself about the actual topic matter. 
It’s not something to be proud of, John. Now go do your homework.
John, you haven’t proven what you think you have. ElvisL1ves asked for a quote of someone claiming that “we among most western nations can’t figure out a way to administer a practical voter ID process.” The only thing you just proved is that Elvis, along with many of us arguing in this thread, is claiming the voter ID laws recently passed by Republican dominated state legislatures have a discriminatory effect on the poor, and (less definitely per your proffered “proof”, but I’ll give it to you since it’s the theme of the damn thread) that this discriminatory effect is an intended feature of the laws rather than a bug.
None of that has anything to do with anyone’s belief about whether voter ID laws can be effectively (and equitably) written and adminstered in this country, something which almost all of us on the anti-voter-ID-laws-as-currently-enacted side have expressed faith can be done if there were an actual will to do so by these state legislatures.
Although I by no means think Elvis is by any measure the most reasonable or rational representative for “my” side in this argument, I think he has a point about you and Stratocaster not paying attention to several points that have already been well argued in the thread. Whether either of you is deliberately eliding those points is indefinite, but the further you go with these frankly idiotic “gotcha-ya” attempts the more it seems to be the case.
No real point in trying to explain it to him, anymore, xeno. The guy’s entire conceptual structure of US politics is based on the template that the Reps and Dems are equally bad by definition, and that his refusal to draw distinctions regardless of any facts shoved in his face is a sign of his moral superiority to us grubby participants. His adolescent superciliousness literally unable to consider the possibility that yes, the facts show only one party is trying to undermine democracy here, and only one is trying to prevent it. He can only address the situation by pretending the topic is something else entirely. If he could actually understand what he’s doing, it would be simple trolling.
No, which is why I don’t suggest that the U.S. voter ID system will be fine because other countries manage.
Not sure how I missed that little gem.
xenophon: If you want to align yourself with Elvis, be my guest.