I want you to read the following sentence very carefully, xenophon41: You don’t get to decide what the law is or what the law should be.
ETA: never mind, I see you retracted this claim of yours.
It should be noted that the last attempt for national ID was a Democratic party thing: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/95235-democrats-spark-alarm-with-call-for-national-id-card
The Republicans provided no support. Also, one might note that the Democratic lawmakers aren’t owned by the very left of their party. Whereas the Republicans are pursuing a Tea-Party platform of Tax Cuts for “job creators” and elimination of birth control and/or abortion.
Yes, let’s follow this thought, weasel. I don’t get to decide what the law is, but I do get to argue whether it’s correct, and I do get to lobby for change and write LTE’s and call my congressperson and Senators and bloviate on websites and walk around with other folks outside holding placards with slogans on 'em if I want to.
And most importantly, I get to vote as a direct exercise of my democratic rights. But some assholes think that right to vote should be means tested -if you aint got the means, you don’t deserve the right. But that’s not a democracy, it’s a plutocratic oligarchy, and if you’re going to advocate for that, at least get up on your hind legs and declare your elitism in a forthright manner.
The difference, friend Bricker, is that everyone agrees that cheating is wrong. Except you. There are no moral axioms in some book somewhere. There are only the things we’ve been crafted by evolution as a social species to feel.
More importantly, our system is designed to be neutral and respond to voters. Manipulating that system in order to weigh the scales isn’t what our system is designed to do.
If you want to be a toady lickspittle to your betters, good for you. There is a good future in the spineless lackey business. But actual people with integrity, who want elections to be as fair as possible find this sort of thing vile.
You just said that the Democrats were for a national ID. Is this not the perfect opportunity to be for it again? Stand up and say you are for the ID law, but you need the ID system to go along with it. Then things would be fair, there would be no arbitrary local rules on what constitutes a valid ID, and everyone would benefit from having an ID recognized across the country.
Or are you saying you are for the national ID, but not for its use as proof during a vote?
I think maybe you just didn’t notice the first times this came around.
I am not a spokesman for the Democratic Party, for progressives or liberals in general, or even for the other anti voter suppression laws posters in this thread, but I can say that, in general, we liberals/progressives/moderate Democrats would like to see the ID system enacted and in operation first, for a long enough period of time so that no significant sector of the electorate has not yet come under compliance (perhaps 2 years as a personal off-the-cuff guess). Once that’s in place, then hell yes, bring on the voter ID requirements. Because then, they won’t be discriminatory in effect.
Are you fucking thick or what? What thread have you been reading? You and Doughy seem not to understand that we already have an established voter registration system that involves demonstrating identity, and no universal photo ID card.
If we had an established ID and then required its use, that would be one thing. Doing it the way Bricker prefers is just for partisan gain.
Are you even reading what other people are writing? Because I’ve said as much. The trouble is, the Republicans, the side that are trying to tweak election rules so fewer Democrats can vote, are against a national ID. And in the Senate they can technical filibuster anything (since they have 40 votes and vote as a block on every single issue). In the House the control it outright and decide what goes to the floor. The same people who want IDs to vote are the ones blocking IDs from becoming more widespread.
Dude, I’ve said it to you several times. You aren’t even reading my posts. Not cool:
You keep doing this. It gets squashed, you change the subject, wait for a while, and then do it again. You must believe that everyone who opposes you has the short term memory of a goldfish.
Indeed, most people do favor voter id laws. So do most of the people who oppose this nasty bit of partisan judo.
Which polls can you cite that prove that most Americans will approve voter id laws that favor one party over another? I certainly approve of driver’s licenses, to ensure that only qualified people are permitted to drive. Does that mean I would approve of laws that make it more difficult for black people to get drivers licenses? Would I approve of a law that requires a cash bond of $10,000 to get a driver’s license? Of course not, it would be grossly unfair.
So, one more time, in the faint hope that a lightning bolt of clarity might yet penetrate the dim recesses of your reptile brain stem: not about voter id being good or bad. About using voter id as a partisan political ploy to gain undeserved electoral advantage.
What is that now, one hundred and ten repetitions? Son, if stubborn were electricity, you could power Chicago just by attaching leads to your ears.
And that is a reason for a democracy. Not a morality. A bunch of idiots voting for murder doesn’t make it right.
Once again, Bricker proves his absolute mastery of sophistic thinking, of the triumph of rationality over reason. “… may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators…” That’s a beauty, obfuscation masquerading as clarity.
It may have? I daresay. Pretty much a given, isn’t it, Counselor? Unless the individual legislator you offer as a theoretical construct is utterly innocent of information and has no idea of the potential results of this legislation. He didn’t talk to anybody, didn’t read anything, didn’t hear any countervailing arguments? Unless your ideal legislator is as innocent as a lamb gamboling and frolicking amongst the daffodils, of course he knew! There isn’t any “maybe” about it.
A clever bit of sleight of mind, Counselor, which might very well have worked, if your opposition had the cogntive capacity of cottage cheese. You have a problem, and it leads you to construct arguments that face-plant themselves with Olympic perfection: you think you are smarter than the people who disagree with you. Which leads you to offer twisted rationales as “reason”, apparently in the hope that no one is smart enough to see the smoke and the mirrors.
But it just ain’t so.
If it’s allowed by the rules, it’s not cheating. These ID demands have been found by the courts, the ultimate arbiters of the rules, not to be cheating. As Bricker ha repeatedly said, if you disagree with the rules, work to get them changed, but don’t say people are wrong to play by them.
100% of people in Ireland don’t have ID, depending on what you mean. I doubt 100% of people have passports and of those without passports I’m sure some don’t have drivers licences or Garda National ID (voluntary ID scheme for young adults typically).
Although you’re required to have ID to vote in Ireland in reality you’re rarely asked to present it. I’ve never been asked to provide ID in about 5 times I’ve voted.
I think you’re having trouble following the conversation.
I’m saying, that some people got swept into office on a wave and decided to make a rule that made it less likely for their opponents to get elected in every election after that.
I’m not saying they didn’t create a law. I’m saying they are being complete, un-American dickholes. And their cheerleaders, Bricker amongst them, are very happy to win based on such dickholery.
If you’re on team Red and you gain control of the board and say that 10% of team Blue’s players don’t get a turn, you’re certainly not competing in a fair way.
America is founded on the idea of fair elections. Bricker wants this to become a banana republic where the one party gets all the votes.
Ah, Ignorance fought. I thought I had heard that basically everyone had passports.
If the rules say that’s allowed, then it’s not cheating. If the rules say they can only do things Lobohan says are fair, then I guess it would be cheating.
I’m following the conversation just fine, though, but thanks for asking. You don’t like the fact that the rules allow the party in power to act in such a way as to maximise it’s chances of staying in power. Fair enough, you’re basically right not to like it. Where you’re wrong is to whine about it being so unfair, rather than acting to change it.
(emphasis mine)
So, its wrong then, but not cheating? Have you been taking semantic parsing lessons from Bricker? So, if we just call it “wrong” or “unprincipled” or “slimy, underhanded and dishonest”, we pass your muster, so long as we don’t call it “cheating”?
Crucial point, Steophan, and we thank you for your participation, here’s your ribbon.
I’m acting to change it, as it happens. By showing that only complete twats like Bricker are rah-rahing it.
I’m also acting to change it by supporting candidates that aren’t complete pieces of shit. But lets move away from me and focus on the issue at hand.
Poll taxes were legal at one time. I’d say they were wrong then too.
But not cheating! Nosir! Just because something is wrong, doesn’t mean its cheating! So you just be careful there, Lobohan!