- Joined
- Feb 12, 2015
- Messages
- 7,342
- Reaction score
- 3
Your link didnt explain anything. Read post #280The provided link did that. Can you be any more illiterate?
Your link didnt explain anything. Read post #280The provided link did that. Can you be any more illiterate?
This view is extremely bizarre to me. A law was implemented that was not unreasonable and then was hijacked beyond the wildest expectations. This is exactly that slippery slope that anti-gun-control people rail at. Imagine if a law passed that all gun owners had to register their weapons and a year later every person on the list was being raided by police and having their firearms confiscated.
You wouldn't think, "How do we satisfy the requirements of the original registration?" You would think, "Jesus titty-fucking Christ, has the world gone crazy?! We need to shut this down now and then figure out how to make people safer without having the process hijacked to strip people of their rights!"
What alternative source of information do you propose? Bullshit and anecdotes is the usual alternative.
Why does your proposed solution (emboldened) have literally nothing to do with solving the problem of Voter ID laws? This has been the frustrating part of talking about this with you: it seems like you are literally ignoring the actual problem and focusing on the one narrow, relatively-benign component of the laws.
What is your solution to eliminating all the problems I outlined in the OP of this thread?
So now I'm hearing you're totally against an id requirement because you fail to imagine how it could be implemented and enforced equitably over the long-term.
I don't propose any. I'm not the one making the contention that fraud is statistically non-existent currently. All I said was the accuracy of any estimates I find dubious and that the high prevalence of concern is enough for me to support showing id at the polls.
That wasn't a proposed solution. That was a question to you regarding which of the two general directions that are possibilities here that you support. To say that has nothing to do with voter id law problems seems obviously false.
It's frustrating that you keep needing this explained. We either require id or we don't. That's step one. If we don't then what's to discuss?
If we do then the question becomes what id's should be deemed acceptable and how best to make them readily available (which implies preventing them from being unavailable). If you've posted anything that resembles problem-solving I must have missed it.
The simple solution to avoiding those problems altogether is to not require id's. Going in the other direction, the simple route would be to make a national id that states have to recognize.
I've posted about that proposed solution in your thread multiple times already. If you're gonna ignore parts of my posts that deal directly with how to avoid local governments shifting the requirement burden then the problem isn't really with me staying on topic.
I also advocated firing, charging, suing politicians over disenfranchising manipulations. Did you comment on any of those things?
It seems like unless I simply advocate removing all id requirements that you're going to keep accusing me of avoiding the problem. Can't really think of any other reason you're trying to stymie the discussion.
Why not take it a step further? Why doesn't the GOP work to restrict absentee ballots? Those are much easier to fake than in-person votes, right?Lol yes you're very confused.
A birth certificate is sufficient to get an ID. What is supposed to keep people honest is the fact that it's illegal to provide false information to obtain an ID. That's printed in big bold letters at my local DMV. The only reason anyone would provide false information to obtain an ID is if they're up to something illegal.
Here's where you're confused. If someone only needs to show a utility bill to vote, there is nothing preventing a person from voting many times with other people's utility bills.
For example if a convicted felon wants to go vote, but he can't because he doesn't have the right, he can just take his buddies utility bill to go vote. This is why people want a photo ID to vote.
Just be honest & admit voter ID laws are hindering voting fraud.
Lol yes you're very confused.
A birth certificate is sufficient to get an ID. What is supposed to keep people honest is the fact that it's illegal to provide false information to obtain an ID. That's printed in big bold letters at my local DMV. The only reason anyone would provide false information to obtain an ID is if they're up to something illegal.
Here's where you're confused. If someone only needs to show a utility bill to vote, there is nothing preventing a person from voting many times with other people's utility bills.
For example if a convicted felon wants to go vote, but he can't because he doesn't have the right, he can just take his buddies utility bill to go vote. This is why people want a photo ID to vote.
Just be honest & admit voter ID laws are hindering voting fraud.
Not an expert and not well read on this....
If side a wants voter I’d’s and side b doesn’t because it will affect them....then why doesn’t side b put together a few hundred mobile id units and go to the public that cant get to the place to get the Id.
The thing to discuss is that we have voter ID laws drafted specifically to strip American citizens of their constitutional right to vote.
Yes I did. A utility bill isn't sufficient for voting because of what I just said a few times. Only requiring a utility bill allows people to easily commit voting fraud by voting many times for other people. That's why a photo ID should be required.You didn't answer my question. A birth certificate is sufficient to get an ID for voting but you're not saying why it's insufficient for voting.
You trot out some "it's illegal to provide false information to obtain an ID," statement but it's also illegal to to provide false information to vote. So, what prevents you from illegally getting an ID with my stolen birth certificate?
The convicted felon could also take his buddies utility bill and go get a fake photo ID.
Again and again, you fail to explain how using the document to get an ID is different from using the same document to vote. That is the core principle and rather than address it, you side step.
I think the reason is because one side wants to be able to commit voting fraud. I've mentioned a couple times that if these people are truly unable to make it to the dmv, they should be issued state ID's at voting locations.Not an expert and not well read on this....
If side a wants voter I’d’s and side b doesn’t because it will affect them....then why doesn’t side b put together a few hundred mobile id units and go to the public that cant get to the place to get the Id.
That's exactly the topic I've been addressing. I've touched on the validity of purpose, possible ways to improve execution, and punishing those who enact such laws. No matter which angle I'm taking in any given post all you wanna do is complain about my content.
Let's look at your examples from the OP.
First quote box is saying some politicians abuse the system and I've acknowledged that by suggesting they be punished. It's also lamenting the difficulty for some of obtaining an id at the DMV. I've addressed that by basically scoffing and proposing an easily obtainable national id.
Second quote contains the ridiculous notion that a concealed carry license isn't superior to a school-issued id. I already posted about that and you chose not to respond to it. It also mentions there are 7 possible forms of id. Not sure what to say there other than that seems rather accommodating.
Third quote complains that id's need to have an expiration date. Is this really a significant portion of the issue in your mind? Seems easily ignorable since that's pretty much how id's work for everything.
Fourth quote is about lawyers challenging voter credentials. This is addressed by my national id suggestion.
Fifth quote is a bunch of shit and it's reaching the point where you can't reasonably expect people to read every word of your OP.
But going from the top, it sounds like voters were confused about the changes made. That would be what I called shifting the requirements. Again something addressed by having an acceptable national id going forward. Or simply getting a state id that most people already have because so many facets of life require id.
Sixth quote laments how it's more difficult for some than others. Well, no shit. I address this by trying to establish first and foremost the reasonableness of requiring id and pondering what could be easily issued nationally.
Seventh quote is places asking for id when not required as a form of intimidation. Not sure what to say here other than it's pretty fucking easy to find out what your state requires prior to heading to the polls.
This would be addressed under the punishment aspect, although I didn't specifically expand that beyond legislators. Suffice it to say, poll workers making up requirements and preventing lawful votes should also be punished.
Eighth quote is more asking for id when not required and the shuttering of DMV's. Once again this is addressed by an easily obtainable national id.
When intimidating voters by threatening to arrest anyone with warrants. Then the shuttering of polling sites. Id or not, polling sites can still be made more or less readily available. Not sure what to tell you on the warrants other than there should already be laws in place regarding what identification needs provided to police upon demand. The bigger problem here seems to be people with warrants out ducking the po-po. I'd suggest those fools look into absentee ballots.
Tenth quote is more lamentations over implementation.
This is addressed by me trying to establish whether or not to implement the laws in the first place.
So almost all of your prodigious OP I've touched on in one way or another. You're incessant complaints of me being off-topic seem objectively wrong.
The national ID would not solve the problem of politicians abusing the system. You would still have problems with Republican lawyers challenging legal voters and effectively preventing them from voting,
That's an awfully benign way to describe the starkly malevolent actions used to strip people of their voting rights.
Fyi, I don't engage in this type of posting where every little thing needs addressed in a broken up format. I find it tedious and unproductive. So I'll hit on a couple things and if you want to continue that's cool.
If states are required to accept it then it would address a number of problems. People would know the id they have is sufficient. It wouldn't be contestable by state and local jurisdictions due to it being issued federally. In essence it guarantees the voter would be satisfying the voting requirement of an id no matter which state they live in or move to. To not accept the id would be a punishable crime. It could be issued at post offices instead of DMV's. Local politicians would have no ability to shutter them or manipulate the business hours. To augment, the feds could strike a deal with Wal-Mart and make 'em available there too. Statistically speaking, I'd bet good money that If you can't get to a post office or a Wal-Mart then you can't get to the polls either. At some point a voter needs to take a little responsibility themselves. We have no problem has a society demanding it where other rights are concerned.
But go ahead dude. Tell me what you think better addresses the various areas of abuse. Heck, if only we elected scrupulous politicians from the get-go.
Here's an example of wasted effort on your part. I'm not gonna engage in some wallowing pity-party so it's not important that I use more emotive language. If you wanna argue over basic characterizations because they don't meet your standard of outrage then it's hard to believe you're putting forth an earnest effort to exchange ideas. It'd be far more productive to focus your energy on answering questions of substance. So again, how about you lay out your solutions since you don't like mine and don't seem to want to commit to supporting the eradication of id requirements.
Large expense to address a non existent problem, when the easiest solution is simply for governments at every level to protect the rights of all citizens to vote without unnecessary restrictions.
I never started this thread to provide solutions or to ask for solutions. I started this thread because most people don't understand the problem with voter ID laws. That's why I nitpicked you every step of the way: I don't want solutions from you since I doubt you would or could do anything to make an actual difference. I just wanted you to read and understand the problem. I'm finally satisfied that you have and are mostly in agreement about everything.
Also re: emboldened - after attacking me multiple times for wanting to repeal the laws, are you now attacking me because I never wanted to repeal the laws? I'm not sure how to take that, but it seems hilarious to me.
You didn't answer my question. A birth certificate is sufficient to get an ID for voting but you're not saying why it's insufficient for voting.
You trot out some "it's illegal to provide false information to obtain an ID," statement but it's also illegal to to provide false information to vote. So, what prevents you from illegally getting an ID with my stolen birth certificate?
The convicted felon could also take his buddies utility bill and go get a fake photo ID.
Again and again, you fail to explain how using the document to get an ID is different from using the same document to vote. That is the core principle and rather than address it, you side step.
Information... how does it work? Motherfucking magic up in this bitch.
shitty "news" sources = information magic