Not today he wouldn’t.
So?
I’m all for universal ID possession. I’d prefer a federal ID. But the shit-for-brains on the right won’t allow that, because black helicopters.
Also, the 15 per vote would presumably be spent on outreach and advertising. You can’t spend it on getting ten percent of the populace IDs and still get the votes.
Given that we have shown that you do not possess any real moral sense of right and wrong, I have to humbly suggest that your opinion on this subject isn’t exactly compelling.
You support a state of affairs in which the law permits the killing of unborn children.
So please understand that from my point of view, it is you that is morally bereft.
But I accept that my view is not the law. I’d like to see the law change, but in the interim, I accept the legitimacy of the law. I can, in other words, separate my opinion, strongly felt though it is, from the idea that my opinion about morality must also be accepted by everyone as objective fact.
I hav no idea how old you are, Lobohan, but this is a lesson you should absorb.
No. I support a state of affairs were the law permits the killing of fetuses. A fetus isn’t a child, and an acorn isn’t a tree.
Since you base (I assume) your notion that a fetus is a child on the idea that a “soul” exists, you should prove that idea to be fact before you expect other people to agree it is legitimate.
I try to be honest and not use the bullshit misdirection tactics that you descend to all the time. That said, I can’t judge myself and I leave it to the peanut gallery.
When it was the law that men could be enslaved, you of course would have no trouble with that? We are not arguing that the law isn’t the law. We are saying that the people who have made the law, did it so they could enshrine a systematic advantage for all future elections. That’s evil. And you’re evil to clap for them.
I’m old enough. I’ve been here almost ten years, after all.
Agreed. Or, more broadly, whatever rationale I advance in support of the change that eliminates abortion must be something others agree to. I absolutely agree with that. And I haven’t done it.
Now turn that same reasoning towards your current cause. Since you base your idea on the claim that changing the law so they could enshrine a systematic advantage for all future elections is evil, you should prove that idea to be fact before you expect other people to agree.
Well it ain’t fine with me. I pay my dues. How many people here are scofflaws, neither paying dues or using Adblock to block advertising? Why should they get a vote?
If I told a person to go get an ID tomorrow, then that would be a problem and an unreasonable requirement. If I told them that they had to get an ID before the next election that is months away, then that isn’t a problem nor is it an unreasonable requirement.
If you can’t get an ID, you can’t prove you are a citizen. You don’t get to vote. I don’t know why this is even under discussion when it is so fricken obvious to anyone with a brain. So, obvious that most modern countries have it as a requirement.
What in the world does any of this reactionary twaddle have to do with Bricker’s 20 minute assertion?
Because if I had months, if not years, to figure out how to get to a place 20 miles from my home and back again, I think I could figure out a way.
Okay. What about if you live in Texas, cannot drive, and the nearest place where you can get ID is, as the verdict pointed out, is over 100 miles away from you? How long would you need to make that reasonable with no driver’s license and a low income? :rolleyes:
Yes. And if we had any data from a 10-year-long witch hunt which began to indicate that this was an issue, I would actually give a damn. As is, I DON’T FUCKING CARE! Why do you? Why do you give a damn? Why do you care whether or not you can prove that you’re a citizen for the purpose of voting when, in fact, every scrap of data we have indicates that requiring that proof makes the system more broken then using the honor system*? Seriously, I want to figure this out. I just don’t get it. I thought we had made some real progress last time we spoke. Apparently not as much as I thought.
*(And when you really think about it, that really makes sense – the payoff is essentially 0 (as most voter fraud gets detected and stricken, and the few that don’t really fail to make a difference in essentially every case), and the risk is a felony charge.)
It’s “fricken obvious”, and then people actually study the phenomenon, and find out, “whoops, completely obvious ≠ correct”.
Most modern countries have ever so slightly different systems than the USA. People have brought up the differences between, say, the USA and Canada, or the USA and Germany, multiple times in this thread.
K. What about 30 miles? 50 miles? At what point would it stop being worthwhile to you in order to cast one vote in millions? And, most importantly, would it be more worthwhile to ensure that far more people are actually willing to vote, in exchange for, you know, not using a system that we know doesn’t work?
What verdict is that?
Some court case involving subpoenas in Texas. Was posted a few pages back.
Oh, he knows, Budgie, he’s just yanking your chain.
Hence why I didn’t go dig it up. Not worth the time.
So, Uzi, all those people who claim they have a problem, they are all lying, then? Why?
Or is it that they are lazy, and you don’t think lazy people should vote? They should be pleased at the opportunity to show their commitment, then?
Well, then, what about people who find such things easy and convenient? How do you propose they should prove that they deserve to vote? Because, otherwise, kinda looks like another privilege that goes with wealth, that you don’t have to prove your worthiness. Now, there are quite a few people who would find that a very wholesome and worthy proposition. But you probably don’t want to hang out with them. And they probably wouldn’t let you.
One should be very, very careful when one sets about deciding who deserves to vote. Slope doesn’t get more slippery than that. If you have the right to do that to them, doesn’t that mean they have a right to do it to you?
Voter confidence gonna be busting out all over! Except for black people, I suppose. Even if they didn’t have Sunday voting to lose, they’ll hear about, most likely chalk it up as another in a long, long string of insults. Hispanic voters can’t be too thrilled, if they pay any attention to what’s going on in Texas and Florida. White liberals won’t have much to celebrate either, what with their political allies being spayed and neutered.
But white Republicans? Gonna be just stuffed with voter confidence, voter confidence just leaking out of their ears!
You want me to prove that cheating is wrong? Our system of government is set up for one person / one vote. Enshrining disincentives for people likely to vote for an opponent is hardly fair play.
Is it your opinion that the founders thought that we should set up a system where one political party gets to manufacture a bias when they happen to gain control?
It seems you think it’s fine if one boxer gets to roll his gloves in tar and broken glass, as long as it’s your boxer.
You might have to take my word that most people don’t feel that way.
Its not cheating when you change the rules, because then they are the rules! Besides, its not even changing the rules to favor rich white folks. Those are the rules.
They may well be lying, or they could have valid reasons, or they may not even be citizens such that they can ever get an ID. You seem to think they are deliberately prevented from doing so. I think, in most cases, it is just because they have no need, or just don’t want one.
I’m also sure that there are people who were born in a shack up in the backwoods of nowhere who have never been anywhere near a place where their birth was registered. Or that don’t have people to verify who they are, or all sorts of alien abduction scenarios that would prevent a person living in a modern society from getting an ID.
What page are we on now? We’ve been over it multiple times. Luckily, most people in the civilized world agree, and most of your fellow citizens as well, that an ID is not an onerous condition placed upon people wishing to vote.
MOST COUNTRIES ARE NOT THE USA!
GOD FUCKING DAMMIT WILL YOU FUCKING PAY ATTENTION?!
In Canada, others have pointed out that just about every little strip mall has somewhere where you can pick up photo ID. The USA doesn’t have this. You might have to go 10, 20, 30, even 50 or 100 miles to get to the closest DMV, and getting it sent to you really isn’t an option.
In Germany, we have a system in place that keeps very close tabs on its citizens. You cannot go through adult life at all without photo ID, which is why the government expends a lot of effort ensuring that every adult citizen has one, mostly starting to issue them in high school as part of a program presented by an office which is present at least once every 5-10 miles, and requiring them for just about everything from there on out.
In the USA, ID is seen by much of the citizenry as unnecessary (1 in 10 is definitely a lot). The nearest DMV is usually between 30 and 50 miles away if you live anywhere other than a city, public transportation is usually a complete wash, and actually getting through the DMV is a complete and utter wash which can easily take all day, or multiple days if it turns out late in the process that something is wrong and you have to go back, or even just that the computer systems are down!
We’ve been over this multiple times, yes. I’ve explained how voter ID laws are more likely to make elections less representative and more dishonest, and how it almost certainly will bias in favor of the republican party countless times in this thread. I’ve explained how, why, and how we know that voter fraud is completely negligible multiple times, and how “common sense” throws us in entirely the wrong direction… Why your brain can’t put 2 and 2 together and get 4 is somewhat beyond me.
Of course, I’m not the only person who sees this as a problem…
This is the absolutely key point to me, in that you’re making a comparison between two VASTLY different things. And I can’t believe you’re not smart enough to realize it.
In one case, one politician gains a “political” advantage because of a small but noticeable permanent demographic shift in voting turnout due to “disenfranchisement”* of voters. In the other case, a politician gains a “political” advantage by cynically supporting something popular simply to appeal to his constituents. In other words, the second case is exactly the way every politician in the history of time acts, and the first case is a vastly less common, strongly anti-democratic act.
And while you will rarely find me doing things like accusing you of arguing in bad faith, the fact that you made such a ridiculous comparison really puzzles me.
*We need a better word than disenfranchisement, one which means “add barriers to voting which, while certainly CAN be overcome by just about anyone, but which are pretty much guaranteed to have an impact on overall turnout”.