Let’s leave the personal shots and opinions regarding other posters’ intelligence to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
It often goes missing in this discussion that there are a small number of otherwise eligible voters who cannot obtain IDs at all, much less through reasonable effort. These people are very inconvenient to advocates for voter ID, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I know of an elderly woman who did not have and could not obtain her birth certificate, for complicated and rare reasons. She is decidedly not representative of the typical voters–a rare case–but she exists and so do others and these laws mean she cannot vote.
(In her case, the state allowed her a “temporary” voter ID to prevent her from having standing to litigate, though it is far from clear whether, once the law is more firmly established, they will continue to give her special dispensation.)
In other words, it’s okay to do things that won’t help because the electorate is stupid and believes it will. The Republican position, everyone.
You even admitted that the reason you were okay with Voter ID was that it would because it would help the Republican party. You know the real reason for this: it will help our party, so let’s see what bullshit excuse we can come up with.
I just don’t understand why ethics goes out the window when politics is involved.
That’s what I thought when I learned out about Jonathan Gruber’s tactics to pass Romneycare and Obamacare. No ethics in politics.
Can I assume that Democrats want to end Voter ID laws because it helps the Democrat Party? How unsavory. :rolleyes:
He did not. He did stipulate that the motivations of “some” Republicans were sordid and malign. That is all.
Haven’t you already? Well, no matter. In my capacity as Queen of Romania, we extend to you our dispensation to believe whatever you fucking well please.
And Pubs are for them because they help the GOP.
The difference is that the anti-voter-ID position also is based on good, disinterested civic/democratic justifications that apply independently of election results, and the pro- position certainly is not, pace Bricker.
There are a lot of laws pushed/passed by the left in which their utility is far greater suspect than voter ID laws. And someone on these boards invariably will defend them posting something like* “if it saves just one life”*.
Voter ID is a law that soon the left will shut up about because inside they’ll realize it’s no big deal and they’re wrong. I don’t hear any of them still pushing the 55 mile per hour speed limit they crammed down our collective throats for 3 decades. Why? Because they know their side was wrong about it. As soon as they stop bitching about voter ID I’ll take it as an admission of stipulation that they were wrong.
Kids, can you say “false equivalence”?
I knew you couldn’t! 
What does “possible” mean? Anything is “possible”.
The entire point of my problem with the Republican stance on this is that they made no effort to distinguish reality from a vague unsupported possibility before putting hurdles in front of marginalized voters. That’s not how real problems get solved. When people, even politicians, honestly care about a problem, they want to know how big the problem is today, and how big it is after they implement their fix. Because they CARE that it is actually fixed.
In this case, I can say “But Bricker, don’t non-citizens still have driver’s licenses? How does requiring that ID stop them?” and you might say “Yes, but they won’t DARE vote because the ID now gives the law ‘teeth’ and they will fear prosecution.” and I say “That’s nice, but since it doesn’t actively prevent them from voting, you don’t know how many of those 600 decide to not vote.”
Doesn’t it matter at all to you how many of those 600 stop voting? Do you care at all that the fix worked?
That’s rich. Don’t Democrats support net neutrality, an effort to fix a problem that does not yet exist, but might?
That’s what BigT said in post 103.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the lower court got it right. States can enact voter ID requirement laws. Your biased political (do I even have to use the word “biased” when I say “political”?) opinion is that your side is good, disinterested (seriously?), and a civic justification, while the other side only has a SCOTUS ruling to back up it’s position.
How do I pace Bricker? 
Wrong about what? The 55mph limit was supposed to save fuel. It did. It also saved lives. It may have been deemed no longer been worth it, but that’s a different argument than being “wrong”.
Let’s talk about two different business situations both involving a Regional Sales Manager discussing contract terms with the VP of Sales.
Situation #1:
Sales Manager - I found out that this particular Term in our contract would allow customers to do X, which would cost us a lot of money. I propose changing the term so that future contracts do not allow this. The change in term will not affect our current customer set, only the activity we want to avoid.
VP - Excellent pro-active analysis, here’s a bonus.
Situation #2:
Sales Manager - I believe some of our customers are doing X, which costs us a lot of money today. I want to change our terms to disallow it.
VP - How many of our customers are doing X? How much does it cost us?
SM - I don’t know, didn’t bother to look.
VP - OK… what is the effect on our customers?
SM - We’ll force every customer to give us additional information Y.
VP - Some of our customers don’t have that information readily available.
SM - I know, but they can get it if they want to.
VP - And that information won’t actually prevent them from doing X, will it?
SM - No, but if they did X, we would have cause to cancel their contract.
VP - Get out of my face before I fire you.
No, it didn’t. When gas prices skyrocketed in '73 people curbed their driving. Less cars on the road = less fatalities.
God forbid! :eek:
You mean like not having to prove citizenship to register to vote? All you have to do is say that you’re a citizen. Not open to fraud at all.
In your haste to enlighten and correct, you neglected to include detail and citation.
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
Not sure you meant me but if so
but if so
And from there