Shodan wrote: “Remember the study. Liberals have a lot more trouble than conservatives and moderates in understanding why the other side thinks as they do.”
If that were true conservatives wouldn’t constantly misstate the liberal position, then argue against their own misstatement. The problem with most conservatives these days isn’t what they think, it’s what they think we think.
The first one is paid, sorry not going to shell out $10 on that.
The second one doesn’t break it down by state at all by name, so it does not address my assertion that, if it does affect votes in Delaware, it wasn’t implemented to hurt minorities, and certainly doesn’t work “well enough” if the intent is to harm minority voters.
In Delaware, this is your requirement:
You are not required to show a photo ID.
PA currently has a Republican advantage of 13-5 in House seats. You don’t see a problem there?
When did I ever say it’s inherently bad? As numerous others have said, it’s a tool being used by Republicans to reduce Dem voter turnout and, as has been cited above, it does exactly that. Just because it doesn’t appear to you to do that in your state doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist.
TX may be red, but not every congressional or state district in TX is red. If all someone voted for were Senator and President, that might be a valid argument.
My argument is pretty straightforward. You don’t need to theorize alternative things that I never stated.
The second link is an article by the authors of the study. Is your position that you only care about voting in Delaware and don’t at all care about voting in other states?
That is a problem, clearly due to gerrymandering, which is a completely separate issue. It’s in the news right now obviously.
Nope, I really don’t care about Delaware at all, since I believe there is more voter suppression there by virtue of the fact that virtually any vote for a republican presidential candidate or senator might as well go straight into a garbage can.
So, the issue is the PHOTO is the problem? Okay, so lets say theoretically each state required something that only requires a name and and address, allowing a legitimate lookup on their voter rolls. Is that a problem too?
You keep moving the goalposts. We are talking about how actual voter ID laws have been used to suppress minority voting. I’ve linked to an academic study that proves this. I have also linked (and am linking again below) to actual Republicans openly talking about how they have used voter ID laws including a video of the chairman of the Pennsylvania GOP talking about how the laws helped Romney in the presidential election and your response is: nuh-uh.
Perfectly. You have a long, long history of not answering direct questions in political threads. I didn’t expect an plain answer to this question in this thread. I just wanted to see how many times I had to repeat the question to get you to evade it.
Here’s another: Do vote Democratic because you think of yourself as a good person or do you think of yourself as a good person because you vote Democratic?
I am not moving anything. I do not care about intent. Period. I do NOT agree requiring an ID to indicate you are who say who you are, for making a decision that is far more consequential than buying a damn pack of cigarettes, is a bad thing. Regardless of why some mustache twirler is implementing it, that is how I view the issue.
Clearly, this HAS been implemented in places without mustache twirlers and not resulted in the inevitably “bad” outcome of overwhelming republican wins. TX wins R because it’s friggin Texas. NC, same thing. PA goes R because of Gerrymandering, which is in the process of being remedied. Delaware goes D because it’s Delaware, and no voter ID laws are going to change that.
That isn’t really the point of dispute, so let’s try a question that is: Do you agree that making the required voter ID more difficult to get for some demographics than for others is a problem?
Wait, what? I can’t tell if you’re arguing against the conclusion of the study and the statements by actual politicians who have used voter ID laws to suppress votes or not. Are they all just lying?
And you say that you don’t care about intent. Does that mean that we shouldn’t prosecute the crime of attempted murder?
I answer relevant, thoughtful questions that are part of a genuine effort to discuss a point. Not little gotcha games based on strawmen.
Politics are local. Vote for the person who will get your streets plowed in the winter. That’s what’s important.
While you are there, go ahead and voice your opinion on the national candidates, even if you feel you are shouting into the void.
Not really, as that is something that many states, including your state of Delaware, allow for ID.
Yes, IF I saw evidence that there was a “whites only” ID that minorities simply could not get by any means across the board. IF that is the case, then yes, absolutely, that needs to be remedied. I really don’t care why a minority would not want to show an ID at a voting station. That’s on them. Just like it would be on me if I chose not to vote because I am a republican in a blue state. I’d have my reason, they’d have theirs.
Good. These laws have all been passed with more subtlety than that, but yes, they do (mostly, maybe Delaware is an exception) make it harder for poorer, darker, and more Democratic-leaning people to comply. You’re a little late to the party, but they’ve been discussed on this board and elsewhere in great depth, with plenty of evidence.
It should be remembered that the push for voter ID is of a piece with gerrymandering, closing of offices where people go to get ID. Etc, etc. None of which does the trick by itself, of course, but that’t the thing about “thumb on the scale” stuff. The effect may be small but it imparts an advantage over time.
Like my daddy said: “I don’t have to eat the whole omelette to know it was made with rotten eggs.”
Are those the reasons that a majority of Democrats support voter ID? How does that unfairly help their side out?
Regards,
Shodan
Perhaps, but you certainty wouldn’t know that based on the preponderance of political dialog that is prevalent right now. And I really don’t think local politics has anything to do with “why we’re so hateful”.
The person who gets your streets plowed is the city manager, or DPW director, at any rate a civil servant who isn’t elected. His budget is set by elected officials, sure, but those people know they *will *find the cash to pay for the plow operators somewhere when there’s another snowstorm.
The characteristics worth voting for are found in policies and strategies and development plans etc., and those really are party-differentiable to a large degree.
Well, since I’m seeing little pushback on the concept that some form of identification to prove who you say you are, for a consequential action, is OK, then I think it should be determined what a reasonable form of identification should look like and how it should be obtained. I personally, and not willing to throw my hands up in the air and say that because somebody, somewhere, might find this a hardship, that “reasonable” is an X for a signature.