(01-27-2017 05:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 10:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Passports are only restricting their rights to travel to foreign countries - passports are not needed to travel within the states.

And I agree that having a more informed voter base would be better, but I still value the ability of more legal voters to vote over having less uninformed voters voting. IMO, voting should be as much of a right as the right to free speech, so we should only restrict it in very limited cases, like if someone is currently incarcerated for a crime they have committed (but I think people who have already served time should be able to vote).

And if you think Dems have the market cornerned on uninformed voters, you've got that wronbr. Plenty of uninformed voters to go around.

Thus my question, which did not have the slant you read into it.

To put it another way, if uninformed and ignorant voters did not vote, would Trump still have won?

We have the right to life, LIBERTY, and...well, you know.

But if you don't have Liberty to leave the country and re-enter, where do you live? Cuba? North Korea?

Point remains, how is THIS instance of requiring ID different from all the others? Maybe we should stop requiring ID to get...well, everything else.

Not having a passport doesn't necessarily stop you from leaving the US it stops you from entering another country or from entering the US. I don't look at entering the US as much of a right as voting within the US is.

And I have no idea who would have won without ignorant votes since plenty of uninformed and ignorant voters voted for Trump, so maybe he wouldn't have? But I have to imagine plenty voted for Hillary too, so maybe he would have won by a larger margin? What's the point you're trying to make with that question?

Yo keep long for a point to argue with, when all I did was ask a question, aquestion to which I don'tt know the answer, but which is open to speculatin of all sorts. Stop trying to discern an intent, and just consider the question.

It seems we have this pair of lists.

List a. Things requiring and ID which are racist.

1. Voting

List B - things requiring an ID which are NOT racist.

1. Everything but voting.

So these lists make sense to you?

I had to,show my ID today. So did some black people. . Was that racist? Without it, none of us would have been allowed in.

It's a simple question. If requiring ID for voting is racis, why isn't alll instances of requiring ID racist? Am you saying it is easier for poor people to get ID f the,purpose is anything but voting?

OO, I'm trying to discern intent because I don't understand the point of the question. Why does it matter which candidate has more uninformed voters when both supporters have them in spades?

And you're oversimplifying the issue here and apparently ignoring a lot of my posts. I will go back to the foundation of my issue with voter IDs - they burden the poor. Until states do something to unburden the process one needs to go through to get an ID, I believe we should not put voter ID laws into place in order for the poor to not be unfairly burdening the poor with respect to voting.

I believe voting is more of a fundamental right than a foreign country granting our citizens access to their lands, to driving a car, to opening a bank account, etc.

I do not believe I have stated during this little debate that the sheer act of requiring an ID to vote is racist. Instead I have argued that it often disproportionately affects people of color or other actions have been taken by states to reduce the ability of people of color to vote.

Just as you bemoan the idea that liberals think everything is racist, it's incredibely frustrating to be unable to discuss race issues with conservatives because as soon as race issues are brought up, the conversation ends.

Sorry, Lad, I did not mean to ignore any of your posts. As mentioned earlier, I have been traveling and involved with other activities most of the day and half the night, and posting from an Ipad, so, maybe I have missed a reply. Or two, or three. It was not intentional.


You didn't state it, but MY argument is that if requiring ID for one purpose (voting) is discriminatory, then ALL instances of requiring ID must need be. The person who is disadvantaged by requiring ID of voting is similarly disadvantaged by requiring ID for any other purpose, it seems to me, and nobody has yet presented an argument as to why this is different. You say voting is more important, and so held to a different standard, but lots of things that require ID are pretty dadgum important. Want to get married, inherit property, buy a house, enter the Pentagon, test drive a car, apply for food stamps, get on disability, fly on a commercial airliner, rent a safe deposit box, renting almost anything, yada, yada, yada, the list is endless. And it includes at least one activity that is an explicitly stated Constitutional right - the right to keep and bear arms.

We are possibly conflating two ideas here, and that is my fault. The idea of requiring ID is discussed above. The idea of imposing educational limits is a separate idea. I see nothing wrong with adding a knowledge test to the requirements. Anybody, of any race or financial situation, passes if they have the knowledge. Nobody is given a pass if they don't. sounds pretty democratic and evenhanded to me. But some people seem to think there is one race that would be disproportionately affected, and that sounds racist to me.

The reasons I would like to see a minimum level of knowledge is that I think we should not be ruled by those who don't understand. I propose the same exact test we require of naturalized citizens. Pass it once and you are a voter for life. Never take it and you have shown you don't care, so why should we care? Fail it, you are allowed more chances - unlimited chances, so what is the problem with voters knowing how many Senators there are and which house controls the purse strings?

It's not as if we have never set limits on voting before, even within the Constitution. We have age limits, when have been changed, we have citizenship limits, and in the past we have had gender limits and others, and those have been changed. I do not know how felons lose their right to vote, but I don't think that is in the Constitution. A free electorate can decide to do this, and a free judiciary can decide if it is fair and legal.

On the matter of which side had the most (BY VOLUME) ignorant voters, that was just a stray thought I threw out there. I don't have a predetermined side or a agenda with it, just thought it was interesting. Ignore it if it helps.