And as instantly pointed out, you have to have identification to leave the Unites States. Its called a “passport”. If you can legally enter another country, say, Bermuda, without a passport, you can legally return without proving squat. But outside of such countries as permit free entrance to Americans, you need a passport. Hence, you would not be in a country you cannot freely return from without a passport!
And if you left with a passport, a record was kept of your obtaining said passport. Hence, any problem you have in returning could be easily resolved. You don’t remember this?
No, wait, come to think, not quite so, you will be stopped at the Mexican border and asked for ID, Canadian as well. So, one for your side, this law will not unduly burden minority citizens who wish to leave the country. Good for you.
You seem to be convinced that if you can prove that showing id is valid under any circumstance whatsoever, that proves that this legislation is needful and just.
A better analogy would be if you can’t show ID at the border, you get a six hour hassle, but if you can show Republican voter registration, you get waved through.
It’s not, repeat, not about the validity of ID laws. It is about the partisan advantage of this particular legislation. I’ll repeat that as many times as necessary, if this doesn’t sink in this time.
I note that after you demanded proof of the numbers of potential disadvantaged voters, and gotten it, you suddenly found the subject uninteresting, preferring to return, once again, to the question of whether id verification is ever, under any circumstance, valid.
The question is not crucial. The crucial question is whether such laws may be applied to give a political party an electoral advantage. One more time will do it, do you think? If not, could we tag team this, I dont think I can repeat the same thing more than about fifteen times, if its going to take twenty or more to get through to you, I will need some help.
On the very first page after OMGABC pointed out that people were required to produce IDs to buy booze or cigarettes so why shouldn’t the have to produce IDs to vote you huffily said
Now, such a statement would suggest to every reasonable person that you were asserting that it was wrong to require people to produce IDs to vote because the right to vote was “guaranteed by the Constitution”.
As I’ve point out, by that logic you should be arguing that the state shouldn’t require people to produce an ID in order to purchase a gun.
Now, I doubt you feel that way.
I’m simply pointing out that you made a poorly thought-out and fairly unimaginative argument unless you honestly believe that shouldn’t be required to produce IDs in order to buy handguns.
I’d recommend withdrawing your argument and coming up with a new line of argument.
Except I didn’t ask for “proof of the numbers of potential disadvantaged voters”. I asked for the number of actual disadvantaged voters. I gave you actual fraud cases. If I wanted to give you the number of potential fraud cases, I would just show you the number of dead voters on the rolls - which number in hundreds of thousands.
Yet you didn’t answer it. Are those laws valid?
If a valid law gives one party an electoral advantage, so be it. There are numerous examples of such - just look at all the different redistrictings going on in different states.
And has been tirelessly pointed out to you, the “actual” disadvantaged voters will not exist until the law takes effect. See these two piles? This one is “actual”, they already exist. This one, over here, is “potential”, it is what will exist. Try to get those two separate in your mind, it is a very important distinction. Let me know when you get that absorbed, and we can go on to more complex notions.
Oh, please. Sure they do, that’s a fact. But they always deny it, they always swear on a stack of Bibles, a Torah and sweet Mary’s dimpled ass that no such thing is happening, that the distribution of voters in districts is fair, impartial, and non-partisan. They are lying, of course, you know it and I know it.
But if they thought this sort of thing was totally kosher, they wouldn’t bother to lie about it, now would they?
I am glad we agreed. Voter ID laws are just as valid as redistricting laws, and can have partisan effects just as redistricting laws do.
Now - I presume, from your vehemence and disdain for Republicans that you’re leaning Democrat. Tell me, honestly, if in your state redistricting favors Democrats, do you support it or not? What if doing it in strictly geographic or what someone would describe a “fair” way swung the state to Republicans - would you support that?
See that cite from NYT, quoting Mr Holder, who is relying on numbers provided by the State of South Carolina. Now, if SC is telling the truth, and Mr Holder is telling the truth, then those are the most reliable numbers available. Now, look closely. See that comma? The numbers to the left of that comma represent “thousands”, in this case, more than eighty thousand.
By golly, I think he may be getting it! Yes, indeed, they can have such partisan effects! And they should not! And the fact that they will have such effects is exactly…exactly!!..what I object to!