I find it interesting that a person without ID is almost unable to function in modern society, but nobody on the left seems to care about anything but making sure they can vote. Can't can a check? No problem. Can't rent an apartment? No problem. Can't buy a beer? No problem. Can't get on an airplane? No problem. Can't vote? OMG, catastrophe.

Democrats don't care about these people as people. They just want their votes. Period.

(01-24-2019 09:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that a person without ID is almost unable to function in modern society, but nobody on the left seems to care about anything but making sure they can vote. Can't can a check? No problem. Can't rent an apartment? No problem. Can't buy a beer? No problem. Can't get on an airplane? No problem. Can't vote? OMG, catastrophe.

Democrats don't care about these people as people. They just want their votes. Period.

But by god they are all for the concept to buy bullets you need 47 forms of ID.

(01-24-2019 09:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 09:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that a person without ID is almost unable to function in modern society, but nobody on the left seems to care about anything but making sure they can vote. Can't can a check? No problem. Can't rent an apartment? No problem. Can't buy a beer? No problem. Can't get on an airplane? No problem. Can't vote? OMG, catastrophe.
Democrats don't care about these people as people. They just want their votes. Period.

But by god they are all for the concept to buy bullets you need 47 forms of ID.

Good point. I should have added, "Can't buy a gun (another constitutionally protected right)? No problem."

I was talking about bullets specifically ---

When you think about it it makes even more of a point.

One would imagine the libertarians on here would be very wary of the government trying to impose requirements on someone exercising their constitutional right...

What if I told you we all have different perspectives that devote slightly from a singular source of mana???

I mean, comparing voting to gun ownership. Someone going into a voting booth and casting a ballot doesn’t provide them with a weapon they can use to kill someone (unless there are paper ballots I guess). Going into a gun store to purchase a firearm on the other hand...

(01-24-2019 09:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that a person without ID is almost unable to function in modern society, but nobody on the left seems to care about anything but making sure they can vote. Can't can a check? No problem. Can't rent an apartment? No problem. Can't buy a beer? No problem. Can't get on an airplane? No problem. Can't vote? OMG, catastrophe.

Democrats don't care about these people as people. They just want their votes. Period.

Again, speaking for all democrats as if you’re the great knower of all things liberal.

Republicans don’t care about voter security - they care about disenfranchising poor people. Period.

This game is getting fun!

Again, for both the issue about the wall and voter ID, it's completely unproductive and really causes more division to try and guess the rationale behind the policies and people's motivations, regardless of if you're saying it's to expand the base or because people are racist.

If we actually want to discuss the issue and our opinions about why these policies are good or bad, then I'd suggest we stop trying to guess how an entire population of people feel, and instead discuss the merits of policy positions. It's a bit less fun and cathartic, but maybe a bit more insightful.

(01-24-2019 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 09:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that a person without ID is almost unable to function in modern society, but nobody on the left seems to care about anything but making sure they can vote. Can't can a check? No problem. Can't rent an apartment? No problem. Can't buy a beer? No problem. Can't get on an airplane? No problem. Can't vote? OMG, catastrophe.

Democrats don't care about these people as people. They just want their votes. Period.

Again, speaking for all democrats as if you’re the great knower of all things liberal.

Republicans don’t care about voter security - they care about disenfranchising poor people. Period.

This game is getting fun!

Democrats oppose voter ID laws for the express purpose of making it very easy for anyone to vote. That's not a straw man; they're quite open and vocal about it.

Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man. "Disenfranchising poor people" is Democrat doublespeak for "limiting the vote to eligible voters".

(01-24-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One would imagine the libertarians on here would be very wary of the government trying to impose requirements on someone exercising their constitutional right...

What if I told you we all have different perspectives that devote slightly from a singular source of mana???

I mean, comparing voting to gun ownership. Someone going into a voting booth and casting a ballot doesn’t provide them with a weapon they can use to kill someone (unless there are paper ballots I guess). Going into a gun store to purchase a firearm on the other hand...

Actually many here are very consistent -- presenting a valid ID to purchase a firearm is not really horribly intrusive and I, and I would suggest may other libertarians and/or conservatives see the societal good that come from that.

And, we view the sanctity of the vote on an equal basis.

Liberals want the sanctity of voting equated to buying a fing lollipop at the 7/11, while the requirement of an ID for a gun doesnt even manage to satiate their raging urge there. Criminy, even having to have ID to purchase bullets doesnt satisfy that lust.

(01-24-2019 11:28 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 09:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that a person without ID is almost unable to function in modern society, but nobody on the left seems to care about anything but making sure they can vote. Can't can a check? No problem. Can't rent an apartment? No problem. Can't buy a beer? No problem. Can't get on an airplane? No problem. Can't vote? OMG, catastrophe.

Democrats don't care about these people as people. They just want their votes. Period.

Again, speaking for all democrats as if you’re the great knower of all things liberal.

Republicans don’t care about voter security - they care about disenfranchising poor people. Period.

This game is getting fun!

Democrats oppose voter ID laws for the express purpose of making it very easy for anyone to vote. That's not a straw man; they're quite open and vocal about it.

Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man. "Disenfranchising poor people" is Democrat doublespeak for "limiting the vote to eligible voters".

No strawman when trying to talk about the motivation for the proposed changes. Republicans want to disenfranchise poor people (because they are the ones most burdened by voter ID requirements) and are using this as a guise. Period.

See, fun! And also stupid. I wonder, why haven't you gotten on your fellow righties about them suggesting the motivation for Dems is just to grow their base? A similarly baseless accusation.

But actually responding to your comment about how Dems want to make it easy for anyone to vote - that doesn't necessarily equate to expanding the base as has been suggested. I'll 100% agree with you that this policy position has the explicit attempt at making it easier for any eligible voter to vote. And as I've said numerous times, if Republicans want to couple a voter ID law with proposals that support facilitate people getting said ID, then it's a good proposal. It would, theoretically, strengthen the voting system and reduce the risk of in-person voter fraud, while simultaneously reducing the barrier to entry that has been established for eligible voters.

IMO, any voter ID law must be coupled with efforts to reduce the barrier put up for eligible voters. Our government should not be increasing the barrier to entry with respect to voting - regardless of what party those potential voters support.

(01-24-2019 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One would imagine the libertarians on here would be very wary of the government trying to impose requirements on someone exercising their constitutional right...

What if I told you we all have different perspectives that devote slightly from a singular source of mana???

I mean, comparing voting to gun ownership. Someone going into a voting booth and casting a ballot doesn’t provide them with a weapon they can use to kill someone (unless there are paper ballots I guess). Going into a gun store to purchase a firearm on the other hand...

Actually many here are very consistent -- presenting a valid ID to purchase a firearm is not really horribly intrusive and I, and I would suggest may other libertarians and/or conservatives see the societal good that come from that.

And, we view the sanctity of the vote on an equal basis.

Liberals want the sanctity of voting equated to buying a fing lollipop at the 7/11, while the requirement of an ID for a gun doesnt even manage to satiate their raging urge there. Criminy, even having to have ID to purchase bullets doesnt satisfy that lust.

Being that lollipops aren't exactly as dangerous as guns, and neither is voting, I'm ok with treating those things differently. That's why there is societal good with asking for an ID to buy a gun.

What is the societal good about creating a proposal that makes it harder for eligible voters to vote?

(01-24-2019 11:28 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 09:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that a person without ID is almost unable to function in modern society, but nobody on the left seems to care about anything but making sure they can vote. Can't can a check? No problem. Can't rent an apartment? No problem. Can't buy a beer? No problem. Can't get on an airplane? No problem. Can't vote? OMG, catastrophe.

Democrats don't care about these people as people. They just want their votes. Period.

Again, speaking for all democrats as if you’re the great knower of all things liberal.

Republicans don’t care about voter security - they care about disenfranchising poor people. Period.

This game is getting fun!

Democrats oppose voter ID laws for the express purpose of making it very easy for anyone to vote. That's not a straw man; they're quite open and vocal about it.

Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man. "Disenfranchising poor people" is Democrat doublespeak for "limiting the vote to eligible voters".

The Fourth Court of Appeals disagrees with you. That liberal hotbed!

I guess technically North Carolina was trying to disenfranchise black voters, but in the South, "black" and "poor" have pretty substantial overlap.

(01-24-2019 11:43 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:28 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 09:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that a person without ID is almost unable to function in modern society, but nobody on the left seems to care about anything but making sure they can vote. Can't can a check? No problem. Can't rent an apartment? No problem. Can't buy a beer? No problem. Can't get on an airplane? No problem. Can't vote? OMG, catastrophe.

Democrats don't care about these people as people. They just want their votes. Period.

Again, speaking for all democrats as if you’re the great knower of all things liberal.

Republicans don’t care about voter security - they care about disenfranchising poor people. Period.

This game is getting fun!

Democrats oppose voter ID laws for the express purpose of making it very easy for anyone to vote. That's not a straw man; they're quite open and vocal about it.

Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man. "Disenfranchising poor people" is Democrat doublespeak for "limiting the vote to eligible voters".

The Fourth Court of Appeals disagrees with you. That liberal hotbed!

I guess technically North Carolina was trying to disenfranchise black voters, but in the South, "black" and "poor" have pretty substantial overlap.

"Expressly" means "with stated intent". As happens too often, the court read into the text language that wasn't there. The law said "voter ID required," the court chose to understand it as saying "blacks can't vote".

(01-24-2019 12:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:43 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:28 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 09:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that a person without ID is almost unable to function in modern society, but nobody on the left seems to care about anything but making sure they can vote. Can't can a check? No problem. Can't rent an apartment? No problem. Can't buy a beer? No problem. Can't get on an airplane? No problem. Can't vote? OMG, catastrophe.

Democrats don't care about these people as people. They just want their votes. Period.

Again, speaking for all democrats as if you’re the great knower of all things liberal.

Republicans don’t care about voter security - they care about disenfranchising poor people. Period.

This game is getting fun!

Democrats oppose voter ID laws for the express purpose of making it very easy for anyone to vote. That's not a straw man; they're quite open and vocal about it.

Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man. "Disenfranchising poor people" is Democrat doublespeak for "limiting the vote to eligible voters".

The Fourth Court of Appeals disagrees with you. That liberal hotbed!

I guess technically North Carolina was trying to disenfranchise black voters, but in the South, "black" and "poor" have pretty substantial overlap.

"Expressly" means "with stated intent". As happens too often, the court read into the text language that wasn't there. The law said "voter ID required," the court chose to understand it as saying "blacks can't vote".

See, I can agree with you here. So Dems aren't expressly trying to increase their voting base. As I've repeated, ad nauseum, when discussing policy positions, trying to infer the motivations for a proposal is bad.

Discussing potential outcomes from it though, makes sense. So discussing that these laws may disenfranchise black voters as a reason to be against it makes sense. Discussing that opposing voter ID laws because they may increase Democratic votes makes sense (well, opposing it for that reason doesn't, IMO, but you get my point).

(01-24-2019 11:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One would imagine the libertarians on here would be very wary of the government trying to impose requirements on someone exercising their constitutional right...

What if I told you we all have different perspectives that devote slightly from a singular source of mana???

I mean, comparing voting to gun ownership. Someone going into a voting booth and casting a ballot doesn’t provide them with a weapon they can use to kill someone (unless there are paper ballots I guess). Going into a gun store to purchase a firearm on the other hand...

Actually many here are very consistent -- presenting a valid ID to purchase a firearm is not really horribly intrusive and I, and I would suggest may other libertarians and/or conservatives see the societal good that come from that.

And, we view the sanctity of the vote on an equal basis.

Liberals want the sanctity of voting equated to buying a fing lollipop at the 7/11, while the requirement of an ID for a gun doesnt even manage to satiate their raging urge there. Criminy, even having to have ID to purchase bullets doesnt satisfy that lust.

Being that lollipops aren't exactly as dangerous as guns, and neither is voting, I'm ok with treating those things differently. That's why there is societal good with asking for an ID to buy a gun.

What is the societal good about creating a proposal that makes it harder for eligible voters to vote?

Because you all absolutely and fundamentally abjectly refuse to balance the potential bad against that act. Just like you exhibit in your last question above. Then go pass out voter ID cards at the fing corner, why dont you? Pretty soon you will see the issue come out.

For instance, the numbers of felons that illegally voted in the 2008 voter election was about 3x the margin of victory for Al Franken. The vote that got Obamacare over the top.

I hate to say it, but in a representative democracy, especially one with the fing supposed evil aspects of state representation in the Senate numbers (another progressive knee jerk topic de jure), small swings can have huge fing consequences.

Or, do as the rest of your brethren want and stand on the corner and hand voting cards out like the fing proverbial lollipops that you seem so eager to defend.

And yes, voting *can* be as fing deadly as a gun when you stop and think about it just a little bit.

I guess you are warm and fuzzy and copacetic to keeping avenues of voting fraud loose and easy with zero restrictions then. Your viewpoint to hold. Pretty fing stupid though.

(01-24-2019 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:43 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:28 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, speaking for all democrats as if you’re the great knower of all things liberal.

Republicans don’t care about voter security - they care about disenfranchising poor people. Period.

This game is getting fun!

Democrats oppose voter ID laws for the express purpose of making it very easy for anyone to vote. That's not a straw man; they're quite open and vocal about it.

Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man. "Disenfranchising poor people" is Democrat doublespeak for "limiting the vote to eligible voters".

The Fourth Court of Appeals disagrees with you. That liberal hotbed!

I guess technically North Carolina was trying to disenfranchise black voters, but in the South, "black" and "poor" have pretty substantial overlap.

"Expressly" means "with stated intent". As happens too often, the court read into the text language that wasn't there. The law said "voter ID required," the court chose to understand it as saying "blacks can't vote".

See, I can agree with you here. So Dems aren't expressly trying to increase their voting base. As I've repeated, ad nauseum, when discussing policy positions, trying to infer the motivations for a proposal is bad.

Discussing potential outcomes from it though, makes sense. So discussing that these laws may disenfranchise black voters as a reason to be against it makes sense. Discussing that opposing voter ID laws because they may increase Democratic votes makes sense (well, opposing it for that reason doesn't, IMO, but you get my point).

Funny thing, I have heard that expressly. Bummer. But I guess if it isnt printed in the New York Times, Buzzfeed, or Vox that wont be good enough for you.

(01-24-2019 12:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One would imagine the libertarians on here would be very wary of the government trying to impose requirements on someone exercising their constitutional right...

What if I told you we all have different perspectives that devote slightly from a singular source of mana???

I mean, comparing voting to gun ownership. Someone going into a voting booth and casting a ballot doesn’t provide them with a weapon they can use to kill someone (unless there are paper ballots I guess). Going into a gun store to purchase a firearm on the other hand...

Actually many here are very consistent -- presenting a valid ID to purchase a firearm is not really horribly intrusive and I, and I would suggest may other libertarians and/or conservatives see the societal good that come from that.

And, we view the sanctity of the vote on an equal basis.

Liberals want the sanctity of voting equated to buying a fing lollipop at the 7/11, while the requirement of an ID for a gun doesnt even manage to satiate their raging urge there. Criminy, even having to have ID to purchase bullets doesnt satisfy that lust.

Being that lollipops aren't exactly as dangerous as guns, and neither is voting, I'm ok with treating those things differently. That's why there is societal good with asking for an ID to buy a gun.

What is the societal good about creating a proposal that makes it harder for eligible voters to vote?

Because you all absolutely and fundamentally abjectly refuse to balance the potential bad against that act. Just like you exhibit in your last question above. Then go pass out voter ID cards at the fing corner, why dont you? Pretty soon you will see the issue come out.

For instance, the numbers of felons that illegally voted in the 2008 voter election was about 3x the margin of victory for Al Franken. The vote that got Obamacare over the top.

I hate to say it, but in a representative democracy, especially one with the fing supposed evil aspects of state representation in the Senate numbers (another progressive knee jerk topic de jure), small swings can have huge fing consequences.

Or, do as the rest of your brethren want and stand on the corner and hand voting cards out like the fing proverbial lollipops that you seem so eager to defend.

And yes, voting *can* be as fing deadly as a gun when you stop and think about it just a little bit.

I guess you are warm and fuzzy and copacetic to keeping avenues of voting fraud loose and easy with zero restrictions then. Your viewpoint to hold. Pretty fing stupid though.

You blind, bro?

Considering you are asking for 'what societal good can come out of making it harder to vote', then no, I dont think I *am* blind there. Bro.

Let me paste your question here if you dont remember:

Quote:What is the societal good about creating a proposal that makes it harder for eligible voters to vote?

Asking for fing ID, and requiring ID actually 'mak[e] it harder to vote', which is the crux of *your* *explicit* question. Or do you just gloss over that?

(01-24-2019 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:43 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:28 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  [quote='RiceLad15' pid='15856392' dateline='1548344854']

Again, speaking for all democrats as if you’re the great knower of all things liberal.

Republicans don’t care about voter security - they care about disenfranchising poor people. Period.

This game is getting fun!

Democrats oppose voter ID laws for the express purpose of making it very easy for anyone to vote. That's not a straw man; they're quite open and vocal about it.

Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man. "Disenfranchising poor people" is Democrat doublespeak for "limiting the vote to eligible voters".

The Fourth Court of Appeals disagrees with you. That liberal hotbed!

I guess technically North Carolina was trying to disenfranchise black voters, but in the South, "black" and "poor" have pretty substantial overlap.

"Expressly" means "with stated intent". As happens too often, the court read into the text language that wasn't there. The law said "voter ID required," the court chose to understand it as saying "blacks can't vote".

Intent does not need to be expressly stated; it can be (and in human experience routinely is) inferred from circumstances. In the North Carolina case, the Fourth Circuit found the circumstances rather damning, especially this one;
"As explained in detail above, prior to and during the limited debate on the expanded omnibus bill, members of the General Assembly requested and received a breakdown by race of DMV-issued ID ownership, absentee voting, early voting, same-day registration, and provisional voting (which includes out-of- precinct voting)."
The court's conclusion that those circumstances indicate racial intent certainly seems supportable.

The Circuit opinion also has a curious ratchet theory:
"When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, 'politics as usual' does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers."

(01-24-2019 12:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Intent does not need to be expressly stated

Agreed, and I did not say otherwise.

Quote:The Circuit opinion also has a curious ratchet theory:
"When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, 'politics as usual' does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers."

That statement isn't even fully logical, but leaving that aside, the gist seems to be "the legislative process can only be used to benefit the party that we agree with."