I declare total victory now, in every state that wants Voter ID. It’s done. I Have Spoken.
Try to take it away. Won’t work. I rule. Bring me skulls for my Skull Throne.
No. You’re lying in your claim that I am lying.
That will be the context until they lose on that front…then without admitting error, they will shift back into demanding the courts step up and kill Voter ID, and the thread will continue its Great Migratory Cycle of Liberal Incompetence.
If that happens, it’ll be after someone points out the moral need for increased voter ID laws. In your 2000+ posts in this thread, I can’t recall you doing so, but feel free to surprise us.
Child uses big words he heard on Discov’ry Channel.
It’s moral to assuage the concerns of the public with respect to election results.
It is moral to lie to them about the seriousness of these concerns? Related, is it moral to lie on a legislative floor when making statements like “my constituents are deeply concerned about this issue” when they aren’t actually? Is doing so more moral than making it more difficult for citizens to exercise the franchise? Show your work. If it’s as simple as you say, it should be an easy calculation.
This seems more an attack on other people, than an reason why Voter ID laws are immoral. Again, if Voter ID laws were so immoral, why aren’t other countries that require ID to vote racing to repeal such immoral laws?
Voter ID aren’t immoral.
If you think about it long enough, you might eventually realize there’s no contradiction in my position.
Perhaps you can clearly and concisely state what your position is. I’m sure somewhere in this huge thread you may have stated it, but it might be easier for you to restate it, if you please. I will take any response along the lines of “I’ve said it 1000 times, not saying it again” or “look for it in this thread” as the fact that you have no clear, concise position in the matter.
Oooh, you’re just a big nasty silly that deserves a good slap!
I’ll give the brief now, a more detailed answer can follow later if needed when I have a bit more time:
My position is that elected officials should not have the degree of control over the election process that American elected officials have. It is an invitation to corruption, manipulation, gerrymandering, in fact it represents a fairly basic conflict of interest to expect someone to be able to set the conditions under which their job performance will be evaluated. We’d expect judges to recuse themselves under lesser appearances of conflict.
That said, of course voters need to be able to identify themselves. It should be an important role of government (not politicians) to ensure that every eligible citizen who wants to be counted, can be counted, regardless of who they are likely to vote for. To that end, is is reasonable (and without moral dimension) to efficiently and accurately maintain voter rolls, to constantly update data, to make the registration process smooth and simple such that when a voter shows up at the polls, any reasonable identification that matches a name and address already on a well-maintained list will clear them for voting.
Now let’s say the system in place works halfway well; some bumps, some skips, but for the most part reasonably smooth. The additional voter ID laws under discussion are not in response to any particular need for increased security - there’s no indication security is even slightly at risk. Among the people calling for these laws, some have let slip out that discouraging certain types of voters is the goal, those types being perceived as less likely to vote for a particular party.
There is more to the issue, of course, but those are the opening paragraphs in my argument of why voter ID laws are not immoral, but calling to increase them* when it is not shown necessary, primarily to bias elections and justified by whipping up fear* is.
Thank you for stating your position, I really appreciate it (no sarcasm).
In reading about this issue, it seems that Canada passed it’s first Voter ID laws in 2007. Do you recall why they were necessary then and continue to be necessary today?
Was there an outcry about disadvantaged voters being unable to obtain an ID to vote?
No.
Assuming facts not in evidence: they ARE deeply concerned about the issue.
Yes. It’s obvious that it’s more mark, because of the number of people involved and the millibars of morality the issue weighs. At a rough guess, I’d say… 187 millibars of morality per capita are on the Voter ID side as opposed to 102 per capita on the difficulty side. Of course, that’s only a rough estimate.
Why admit error at that point? There would have been none.
Bullshit, but, hey, you’re an incompetent liar, so who cares.
Voter ID laws are immoral…and constitutionally invalid also. Several have already been knocked down by the courts. Several legislators have publicly admitted that the laws were enacted with the intent of decreasing Democratic voting, and that makes the laws unconstitutional, just as extreme Gerrymandering is unconstitutional.
Voter ID laws and Gerrymandering do exist, and have not always been knocked down by the courts. It takes a particular kind of idiot to say that this, alone, makes them constitutionally valid. It takes a particular kind of ethical monster to say that this makes them morally valid.
You’re both an idiot and a monster.
(You’re also the sort of guy who, in a sprint for the End Zone, slows down a little to celebrate your touchdown…and that puts you into the hands of the pursuit, who tackle your sorry butt and make you look even more stupid. Crowing, “I’ve won, you’re all incompetent” is a silly way to conduct a debate.)
Grin! I think they are, as they are currently written, because they have the intent of discriminating against groups of people on the basis of their statistical partisan alignment. Jim Crow laws were also immoral.
It could be possible to write a Voter ID law that was not discriminatory, and thus would be either morally neutral or even conceivably morally good (although it’s hard to praise someone for devising a cure for a disease which does not exist.) But the laws that have been put in place fail the moral test, because they have a deliberate and conscious partisan bias.
You are lying when you say you see no commonality between voter ID laws and Jim Crow, but, more importantly, you are lying and you have been lying from day one when you say you believe that these new voter ID laws have any purpose other than suppression of legally eligible voters who lean D. That is not true and you know it.
First three are actually true, civil war is debatable.
Look at it this way:
Say there is a liquor store 20 miles away that has a Half-Price Sale one day a month.
How many of these poor downtrodden would miraculously find a way to get there???
What?! The Civil War was about slavery? Does anyone have a cite for this?