voter ID laws are being used for voter suppression

[JosephDredd]

You're disappointing.

I would never mess around with an internet tough guy of your stature.

 

[JosephDredd]

Spoiler

You're not really saying anything relevant, but in your own brain (that you can apparently have biologically but also not have) you believe you are actually saying something relevant by posting other people's articles.

Spoiler

Information... how does it work? Motherfucking magic up in this bitch.

 

[TSO]

Lol, you are spinning this as a smear campaign and you support Trump, now you say "I didnt even want Roy to win" , yeah I'm the retarded one.
I can't begin to tell you how that hurts coming from a trumpet.

I support Trump just like I did Obama. I voted for both of them because they were the best candidate we had, not because they were good candidates. And yes, you're retarded because you will never vote against party lines because you have no ability to think for yourself.

 

[MMAViewer]

I support Trump just like I did Obama. I voted for both of them because they were the best candidate we had, not because they were good candidates. And yes, you're retarded because you will never vote against party lines because you have no ability to think for yourself.

To assume you know who I voted for and how I will votes in the future shows more of your ignorance.
At this point it is worthless to discuss anything with you because you are willfully ignorant.
Go about your ignorance I will not try to enlighten you again, my bad!

 

[HunterSdVa29]

lot of good those voting ID laws did in Alabama last night.....

 

[MilesAbove]

In Germany, you have to have a national ID when you are 16+ by law.

Fun fact that's actually something the Nazis introduced..

Literally Hitler.

 

[Scrody]

I would never mess around with an internet tough guy of your stature.

Sad and weak, not an impressive combo. I know it's strange to run into capable people, but that's why most people agree with requiring an ID to vote. Run along now, maybe request that this thread be deleted.

 

[TSO]

To assume you know who I voted for and how I will votes in the future shows more of your ignorance.
At this point it is worthless to discuss anything with you because you are willfully ignorant.
Go about your ignorance I will not try to enlighten you again, my bad!

You have zero knowledge to enlighten anyone with though.

 

[MMAViewer]

You have zero knowledge to enlighten anyone with though.

I wouldn't expect someone with such willful ignorance to see anyone who doesn't align with their ignorance as knowledgeable.
Honestly I couldn't care less of a Trumpets opinions. You've lost any and all credibility of intelligence in defending either Moore or Trump in any way!
Go gather your tiki torch and get ready to stand by your men!

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It's a real shame I can't spend time discussing this subject with someone who never once discussed anything in the OP. A real shame.

You could if you demonstrated basic conversational courtesy. Seems that you more just wanna rant and ignore whatever aspect doesn't feed your fire. Fyi, at this point I've noticed your pattern of ducking questions so I won't waster our time asking you any in the future.

My opinion is pretty simple. If a document is good enough to get you a driver's license or state ID then it should be good enough to let you vote. Something can't be good enough to prove your identity and then, on voting day, suddenly it's no longer good enough.

Voting is a basic right, it's not a privilege. So access should be as simple as possible. I have the same opinion on the 2nd Amendment. Another basic right and I think that licensing requirements there are overblown as well.

As a parallel, every time people start talking about putting more barriers between interested firearm owners and the purchase of said firearms, pro-gun people rightly recognize that it is often driven by the desire to restrict gun ownership. But if I point those same people to voting, they suddenly are strong proponents of more government hurdles on exercising basic rights.

To me, it doesn't make any sense. A right is a right. Fewer restrictions on exercising rights is good. More restrictions on exercising rights is bad. The specific right being discussed shouldn't change that math.

That's sensible. But what documents other than a birth certificate accomplish that? Or is that what you're referring to?

I'm all for voting being simple. Showing up with id is hardly a significant burden to the process. Would you be ok with people buying guns and not having to produce id? If not, then there's really not much argument against it for voting.

I think it's hard to paint everyone's motivations with a broad brush here. The fact is there are people in society who are prohibited from voting, same as there are people prohibited from possessing firearms. So for those people genuinely concerned with simply preventing prohibited people from engaging in the respective actions, what's the solution that wouldn't include providing acceptable id?

What do you think about a nationally issued voter id and a law that says it suffices for any state requirement for id? States could still accept whatever they like, but they'd also have to accept the national id. This would meet the outcry for id while curbing any local suppression.

 

[panamaican]

That's sensible. But what documents other than a birth certificate accomplish that? Or is that what you're referring to?

I'm all for voting being simple. Showing up with id is hardly a significant burden to the process. Would you be ok with people buying guns and not having to produce id? If not, then there's really not much argument against it for voting.

I think it's hard to paint everyone's motivations with a broad brush here. The fact is there are people in society who are prohibited from voting, same as there are people prohibited from possessing firearms. So for those people genuinely concerned with simply preventing prohibited people from engaging in the respective actions, what's the solution that wouldn't include providing acceptable id?

What do you think about a nationally issued voter id and a law that says it suffices for any state requirement for id? States could still accept whatever they like, but they'd also have to accept the national id. This would meet the outcry for id while curbing any local suppression.

The gun question first. Yes. I'd be fine with it. I've said in the past, if someone can afford to properly store an ICBM in their backyard, I'd be fine with that too. My opinion on the 2nd Amendment is extremely anti-regulation because it's a right. I recognize that, in practice, that you need certain requirements in place to safely store that ICBM and the government should make some effort to ensure they're there.

As for what ID is good enough to vote - pretty much anything from a utility bill to a state ID should be fine. You have to provide identification when you register.

And I don't care what anyone's particular motivations are. My specific argument is that it's an unnecessary hurdle regardless of motivation, although some motivations are worse than others.

The "let's prevent unauthorized use" argument is fallacious to me because there's a negligible amount of actual fraud. It's been studied and studied and studied and nothing of import has ever been found. But to take this argument to a right where there is actual evidence of abuse...

You're a 2nd Amendment supporter - if someone said we need more gun regulation to prevent unauthorized use, something which has significant documented evidence of occurring, you would probably raise some variant of the "criminals will engage in criminal behavior no matter what regulations we put in place." "Gun laws don't prevent criminals, they only impact the people already inclined to follow the law."

I think those are valid arguments. And they're equally applicable to voting. Because at the end of the day the question is about regulating rights and I cannot understand people who think some rights need restrictions and other rights don't.

A state ID is fine so long as the government issues it at the government's expense and no one has to apply for it. If it's something that just shows up in your mail every year, no questions asked, then that's fine although you couldn't force any state to accept a national ID for state elections because that would be federal overstep.

 

[JosephDredd]

Sad and weak, not an impressive combo. I know it's strange to run into capable people, but that's why most people agree with requiring an ID to vote. Run along now, maybe request that this thread be deleted.

You were especially capable when you ignored any of the information being discussed and angrily typed for me to come at you. That really sent me scurrying for a safe space. Alas! I am bested by an intellectual superior.

 

[JosephDredd]

You could if you demonstrated basic conversational courtesy. Seems that you more just wanna rant and ignore whatever aspect doesn't feed your fire. Fyi, at this point I've noticed your pattern of ducking questions so I won't waster our time asking you any in the future.

I want to mock you and say that you're being very tender, but let's skip that bullshit. I would rather have actually talked to you about this like I have with several other people. I don't know why you're refusing to start any sort of discussion with the info I put together in the OP. I don't know what conversational agenda you're trying to assert, but I am here to talk about the info I put together in the OP. If you don't want to talk about that then I guess we're just not going to talk.

This conversation is not actually about requiring a specific ID to vote, which has some merit. You seemed to want to make the entire conversation about that one component of ID laws, which is the exact problem the OP is trying to address.

 

[Scrody]

You were especially capable when you ignored any of the information being discussed and angrily typed for me to come at you. That really sent me scurrying for a safe space. Alas! I am bested by an intellectual superior.

Solid. Bend that knee.

 

[JosephDredd]

Solid. Bend that knee.

Yep, you're a heavyweight all right. Ideas so complex they can't even be grappled with.

 

[Scrody]

Yep, you're a heavyweight all right. Ideas so complex they can't even be grappled with.

So much effort for so little lulz

 

[TSO]

I wouldn't expect someone with such willful ignorance to see anyone who doesn't align with their ignorance as knowledgeable.
Honestly I couldn't care less of a Trumpets opinions. You've lost any and all credibility of intelligence in defending either Moore or Trump in any way!
Go gather your tiki torch and get ready to stand by your men!

Are you really dumb enough to think what you just posted? I bet you an antifa outfit don't you...lol

 

[JosephDredd]

So much effort for so little lulz

lol the things that bring joy to people's lives on the internet

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The gun question first. Yes. I'd be fine with it. I've said in the past, if someone can afford to properly store an ICBM in their backyard, I'd be fine with that too. My opinion on the 2nd Amendment is extremely anti-regulation because it's a right. I recognize that, in practice, that you need certain requirements in place to safely store that ICBM and the government should make some effort to ensure they're there.

As for what ID is good enough to vote - pretty much anything from a utility bill to a state ID should be fine. You have to provide identification when you register.

And I don't care what anyone's particular motivations are. My specific argument is that it's an unnecessary hurdle regardless of motivation, although some motivations are worse than others.

The "let's prevent unauthorized use" argument is fallacious to me because there's a negligible amount of actual fraud. It's been studied and studied and studied and nothing of import has ever been found. But to take this argument to a right where there is actual evidence of abuse...

You're a 2nd Amendment supporter - if someone said we need more gun regulation to prevent unauthorized use, something which has significant documented evidence of occurring, you would probably raise some variant of the "criminals will engage in criminal behavior no matter what regulations we put in place." "Gun laws don't prevent criminals, they only impact the people already inclined to follow the law."

I think those are valid arguments. And they're equally applicable to voting. Because at the end of the day the question is about regulating rights and I cannot understand people who think some rights need restrictions and other rights don't.

A state ID is fine so long as the government issues it at the government's expense and no one has to apply for it. If it's something that just shows up in your mail every year, no questions asked, then that's fine although you couldn't force any state to accept a national ID for state elections because that would be federal overstep.

When all the barriers to firearms acquisition are removed I'll be fine telling the voter id people to shutup. In the meantime, I'm sick of the arguing about it and don't see it ending until a proper solution satisfies both sides. Requiring no id isn't going to rise to that level. So if it's good enough for the 2nd Amendment it's good enough for voters.

I want to mock you and say that you're being very tender, but let's skip that bullshit. I would rather have actually talked to you about this like I have with several other people. I don't know why you're refusing to start any sort of discussion with the info I put together in the OP. I don't know what conversational agenda you're trying to assert, but I am here to talk about the info I put together in the OP. If you don't want to talk about that then I guess we're just not going to talk.

This conversation is not actually about requiring a specific ID to vote, which has some merit. You seemed to want to make the entire conversation about that one component of ID laws, which is the exact problem the OP is trying to address.

In my very first post I called them scumbags doing shady shit. What more do you need before opening the discussion up to the entirety of the problem? I could have pointed out how stupid it was to compare a concealed carry license to a school id. Someone else did though. Do you just wanna cry incessantly about some assholes manipulating the system or do you also wanna discuss potential resolutions to the ongoing debate?

Let me agree one more time that targeted voter suppression is wrong. Politicians who engage in it should be fired, charged with a crime, sued, whatever. So go ahead and lead any discussion you feel is appropriate. I'll be happy to demonstrate to you how courageous simple it is to answer direct questions.

 

[panamaican]

When all the barriers to firearms acquisition are removed I'll be fine telling the voter id people to shutup. In the meantime, I'm sick of the arguing about it and don't see it ending until a proper solution satisfies both sides. Requiring no id isn't going to rise to that level. So if it's good enough for the 2nd Amendment it's good enough for voters.

And my point is that identification is established multiple times during the process already, thus negating the need to procure specific state ID's to vote. Whatever ID is sufficient to register to vote or to get the state ID should also be sufficient to vote.

That is not a "no ID's ever" argument. It's an argument that recognizes the absurdity of saying that a particular document proves your identity when getting a voting ID card but doesn't prove your identity to actually vote.

If the documents are insufficient for voting...how are they sufficient to get the ID for voting? At the core, it's the same documents being used to prove identity. All that's changed is the output - directly voting vs. a card for directly voting.

No one has explained away that inconsistency regarding state ID's for voting.