It might seem that you have a valid point, but your argument relies too heavily on its myopically-narrow focus on “voter ID” to the exclusion of all the stuff happening around it. Anyway, taking you at your word that Maryland has no ID requirement, and since I heaven’t heard that voter fraud was a problem there - good for Maryland. The rest of the U.S. might consider following this example.
Good to know the abortion-rights issue is settled. And just as easily, too.
Again, you are railing against laws that make it easier to vote then your own country’s laws do. And you used your country’s voter ID laws to demonstrate your own ethical stance. I, however, find that requiring a whole other person to vouch for my address terribly unethical, and can’t believe you would stand for such a requirement, when I have seen you complain that a law that simply requires a person to say they couldn’t get an ID was unethical.
And also, sorry for myopically focusing on “voter ID” in a thread titled “The voter ID Thread”. Silly me.
Ok, cool. How do we go about getting people to vote for the representatives who support our policies?
Would it, perhaps, involve making arguments about the relative moral and ethical values of the policies being debated?
That sounds like something the Russians would do!
This is just begging the question. You’re telling people in a broken democracy that uses tactics to ensure that the majority loses that they should just vote to fix it.
Sorry, Bricker. You’ve already admitted this isn’t true. You flat out said that we should do this because of how people feel. You’ve admitted that the reason for this action is to get Republicans more votes. And you’ve admitted that you don’t think some people should be allowed to vote.
Right and wrong have nothing to do with who is in power. If you really believed that, then you’d have to accept that the Nazis didn’t do anything wrong because they actually voted in the people who put Hitler in power, and didn’t vote against it.
No, I’m not comparing anyone to Hitler. I’m once again pointing out that an idea has been discredited. The idea that the process dictates right and wrong is false. The idea that the laws dictate right and wrong is false.
Every time you appeal to these provably false arguments, we need to point this out, until you stop making provably false arguments.
Do you mean Maryland’s laws specifically? I didn’t even mention Maryland until you brought it up.
You’re wrong.
You’re comically wrong. You might have me confused with someone else.
It’s okay, the rest of us can carry the context ball on your behalf.
Are you of the opinion that illegal voting is insanely rampant, to the tune of 25,000,000 of them in the last election? Because if not, then you would agree that some of the political operatives at the head of the republican party have been telling lies.
How duped their constituents are is debatable. But a nontrivial number of them are suuuuuuper duped.
This is not to say that all republicans wish to restrict voting due to being duped. Some of them are openly racist or believe in disenfranchising the poor, for example. And others of them, yes, simply don’t agree with me, for reasons that are not always clear.
But the liars wouldn’t be lying if they didn’t think they were duping people. So you have to accept that yes, some nontrivial amount of duping occurs.
Who do you think is suuuuuuper duping the Democrats that support Voter ID laws?
Nobody. As best I can tell Democrats are divided between the “wait a minute - this is all just racism!” camp and the “whatever; Game of Thones is on” camps. (The latter camp is winning.)
Though I suppose you could argue that the people releasing the statistics that voter fraud appears to be nonexistent are swaying the liberals. It’s only duping if those statistics are false, though.
You do get that just because one side is doing something, doesn’t mean the other side is too, right?
Sure, a small number have.
Not sure what percentage crosses the line from trivial to non-trivial, but sure, “non-trivial” is a low bar to sustain; I’ll go along with it.
Yes, but given that this is a low bar, so what?
Even if some people are being duped, the whole point of representative democracy is that there’s no super-legislature that gets to override the will of the people by independently determining that they’ve been duped.
I could buy that there are Democrat-voters who honestly believe voter fraud is a thing. I figure they’re being duped by the same people who duped the much larger number of Republican-voters (specifically, Trump-voters) who claim to believe it also. It’s not like they run in completely isolated social circles.
I’m pretty sure that there’s nobody in the thread who thinks that there is or should be a super-powered dictatorial authority that crushes our government and replaces its rules with ones of its own choosing. Even non-racist dictatorial rules!
When a person here says things like “It would be nice if our voting setup wasn’t so overtly partisan and racism-driven”, they’re not saying that they think we gun-toting should rise up and overthrow the government with all our guns. They’re saying that it would nice if our voting setup wasn’t so overtly partisan and racism-driven. And that they wish the other people in the debate would either agree with that position, or argue intelligently against it without invoking the idea that the gun-toting liberals want to overthrow the government.
How about when they stop using the words “if” and “nice” and replace them with confident declarations about what conditions must exist to animate a law?
Examples, please.
Are you seriously saying that you’ll continue to knowingly use a completely bullshit and fallacious argument unless we, er, do something?
(I’m not a lawyer, so when you talk about animating a law to me I’ll say, “You need the cooperation of Disney Studios.”)
It just seems to me that if someone is inaccurately describing the legislative process, the measured response is to provide clarification and cites, not accusations of harbouring totalitarian fantasies.
Of course, I also am curious about the specific use of the phrase “animate”, hence my request for examples.
So these people who cannot afford to take off work to get a free ID and ride a bus 500 miles to the nearest DMV station can still go to a polling place, cast a provisional vote, and still have it counted unless:
- there is a protest or contest and
- in that protest or contest they are still unable to prove that they are legally entitled to vote to the commissioners who are representatives of each party?
Anyone care to argue that anyone is disenfranchised under this system?
Your car cost less than $10,000?
If not, then I suspect the dealership asked for your ID in order to complete IRS form 8300. Did that maybe happen?