It’s a big thread so it’s probably been brought up before, but I’m curious how people without IDs navigate life. I realize they’re often poor or elderly and may not drive or have credit cards and cell phones, but don’t they need to pick up prescriptions? Do any sort of financial transaction involving a bank? What if a cop wants to identify them? I was going to mention jury duty too, but now that I think of it they didn’t check my ID. They just did roll call. I don’t know if that’s normal, though.
nm
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley: Uncle who served at Iwo Jima unable to vote
.
Only “mostly” true instead of just true because there is another DMV office 20 miles away. I suppose they are assuming someone without a drivers license could hitch a ride or walk the 40 mile round trip.
I like how they justify themselves at the end:
So it’s completely true and accurate, what he said, but somehow they’re only gonna rate it “mostly true” because… um, reasons.
What a shame he couldn’t ask his niece what ID the law requires. She seems like she has a job that requires an understanding of the law.
So, how’s that coming along, hoss? Been about three weeks now, any progress in your analysis?
I mean, its not like you were throwing up a smokescreen so that you didn’t have to confront a valid study that injures your, ah, “argument”. No, no, you just want to study it, and if you find it kosher, you were going to rush right down here and accept it validity and revise your position.
Right?
This is a fair question.
And unfortunately for me, it’s a project that I am ill-equipped for. I took a stats class as an undergrad, and I was a math major before switching majors to CS, but that doesn’t leave me able to quickly and confidently assess exactly what was done, and how it might square with earlier studies that reported different results.
I note, though, that when the only studies out there supported my position, you didn’t revise your position, so I am a little confused about why one study requires me to reverse mine.
But not really, because I know the answer to that question. Only one of us would do something like that.
Ah! Yes, of course, liberal hypocrisy, specifically mine. But what about everybody else, who aren’t me? Don’t they deserve a presumption of honesty? Are you going to deny them the enlightenment of your intelligence, simply because of little ol’ me?
Besides which, my personal dishonest and hypocrisy aren’t dispositive. I didn’t say I would review the evidence, and, if it passed muster, change my view. You did.
Scoundrel that I am, my immediate reaction was “This is just Bricker putting up a smoke screen to beat a hasty retreat from uncomfortable facts, he has no such intention of examination and revision. He’s just skating away and hoping we forget.”
When did you find out that you didn’t have the chops for your homework? Could have just said so. Could have just said “I overspoke myself, I can’t actually do this, so no rebuttal is forthcoming.” Surely mathtards like me would understand, and sympathize.
But you didn’t. did you, buckaroo?
I wasn’t aware that some deadline had passed.
This thread has been going on for nearly four years. I can’t imagine why ny failure to undertake a somewhat complex project in less than a month is somehow damning.
Heck, it’d be great if the American voter was granted the presumption of honesty and the burden was on the American government to demonstrate its legitimacy.
“Damning”? Like, lakes of fire and demons poking at your with blazing pitchforks? Nah. Typical? Oh, yeah. Like the Texas professor you claimed as evidence and proof. Did you even bother to check him out, did you offer a caveat like “Well, this guy is a Republican operative, and I have no information about his statistical methods…” or anything like that? Nope, just slapped it on the plate and served it up.
Not “damning”, just standard Bricker. Typical.
And you have that one gloating point, it is the law, it will affect. And those tens to hundreds of thousands of votes that will not be cast for Democrats? That grand scheme looks as though it will operate on behalf of the worst candidate evah! And if it turns out to be super-dooper close, it may even elect him!
A proud moment, to be sure. Go ahead, take a bow! Well done, good and faithful servant, well done!
It’s good to know that any problems anyone has with implementation of such laws can be presumed to be mitigated by the existence of a knowledgeable niece.
Or a phone call.
It takes a Republican to really commit vote fraud.
Every case I’ve read about of voter identity fraud has been committed by a Republican, but that’s a quibble. The number of such cases has been very small.
On the other hand, voter machine fraud can be done wholesale.
GOP Poll Workers Accused Of Cheating Dem Voters On Super Tuesday (AUDIO)
Strange things happen with Diebold machines.
What does “voter identity fraud” mean, specifically? Does a non-citizen claiming to be a citizen and casting a vote fall under “voter identity fraud?”
Because if it does not, then why is this relevant? Voter ID allows easier prosecution of a voter who casts a fraudulent ballot, such as a non-citizen voting.
So is “voter identity fraud” a specific crime, distinct from what I just described? Is it some phrase that you just crafted to allow you to make the claim you just did?
In the “C” file, between “chimera” and “claptrap”.
The problem, to whatever extent it may actually exist is in registration, not voting. But you know that. :rolleyes:
What prosecutions have there been, or even might plausibly have been, of non-citizen voting that have been stymied by the absence of an ID law? It’s okay, take your time, we already know.
It turns out to also make it harder for some citizens to cast their legitimate votes, and by all indications in greater numbers than any plausible estimates of noncitizen would-be voters.
Just though I’d mention some reality, though it’s been rejected before.
I am entitled to weigh those harms differently than you do. When IDs are free, the “harder,” becomes a matter of judgement. Every person must undergo some personal sacrifice to vote. For a minimum wage person, it’s harder than for a Hilton heir. But that’s not enough to invalidate it. The question is: is the barrier objectively too burdensome?
No. It is not.
Of course you are and I’m entitled to criticize (even mock) the standards you use to conduct your weighing. You’re ignoring that the problem created is greater than the problem solved because you say “fuck the people for whom this creates a problem - they’re lazy and probably Democrats, or is that repeating myself?”