This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Of course there is. There are all kinds of valid arguments for it. just because you can't escape viewing everything thru the prism of race and every little law you don't agree with is some HUGE injustice doesn't mean that it's true and the rest of us are trapped by that.Matthias said:
And this is responsive to proof the new laws were written to disenfranchise minority voters how?
It only happens in states with a republican legislature. If the democrats had a strong enough presence to implement some law to make it easier for people to get IDs, they would theoretically be strong enough to block the ID laws in the first place. Unless you mean paying out of pocket or something? I am not sure how much it would cost, and it would still be easy for the legislature to mess with the process, whether through un-cooperative downstream agencies (DMV etc), or just moving the goal posts once something is done. Either way, 3 judges just concluded the sole purpose of voter ID laws was to disenfranchise minority voters, I am not sure why we are still going over hypotheticals where in-person voter fraud is an actual problem AND that it is a problem that IDs will solve.
Who said drivers license? I know that my motor vehicle has non driver ID card which have the same authority and impact as a drivers license and I believe that most states do the same. So we are not talking about passing any type of test or higher requirement other than building the required points to acquire the best id that they can get.Matthias said:
It's not. It's responsive to a guy who said that we should have online voting because what kind of backwards luddite doesn't have a cell phone in this day and age?
OK so the talking point is that the Rs do not want IDs to be easy to get as it will prevent the Ds from voting. What was to stop the Ds from launching a national ID card when they rammed Obamacare thru onto the country? They could have easily thrown that into the bill, put free ID centers in every crap area that they wanted and gotten all people a nice shiny card if they wanted one or needed one for whatever things life needs.
They do, however have to be able to prove who they are for the 341 hearing. Our trustees require photo ID and proof of SSN. do you not have to do that?Matthias said:
My area of Temecula/MurrietaMenifee has 500K people...one small DMV.
The article and my posts are about NC. As was the thread. You are trying to deflect.MaxThreshold said:
You're doing it wrong then....I can think of 5 off the top of my head:
That's great, but the WI ruling was also added further in the thread.
IDs should absolutely 100% be mandatory. That is NOT discrimination. That's common sense.
Stop yammering about photo ID.BigSteelThrill said:
The bolded is not true. Three judges decided that the purpose of this particular voter ID law was to disenfranchise minority voters. That's not the same thing.
Exactly. People aren't reading the links.
I think you're counting the License Plate Bureaus too. Site just shows Arrowwood, Brookshire, and Independence in Charlotte,,,which is what I remember from the last time I ventured into these hell-holes. Looks like they do Saturday now thought.
I was including any of the places you could get an ID not just drivers license offices. This is just the list in the city limits and doesn't include the other areas of Mecklenburg County not in the city limits that you can go. So when I lived in Charlotte, I'd go to Harrisburg and get things done instead of battling the crowds at the University location for example.
I don't really care if people on public assistance that are filing bankruptcy can't vote. You call that racist. I call it badfinancialdecisionist.Matthias said:
I agree. Complaining about it being hard to vote on other's affairs when you can't take care of your own and need help is pretty stupid.
Must be tough to go thru life when everything you encounter is some form of racism. In your world, EVERYONE is a racist (except you, of course).bananafish said:
A liberal complaining about gerrymandering. That's awesome. Weird how this only a problem for the left when they aren't the ones doing it.Matthias said:
This is something that I'm surprised hasn't gotten more traction. I'd love for everyone to have the day off, hell schools are already closed for Election Day. But, even if it isn't a full day, let people be able to use 2 hours or something to go vote and not have it count against PTO and what not. I know early voting has tried to help alleviate some of the issues with overcrowding on Election Day, but that doesn't always work out for everyone.
I don't think it's necessarily racist. These laws target minorities because of who they vote for, not just because they're minorities.
This is the part i cant get beyond. My bank asked me for ID the other day when I was making a deposit. New policy for cash deposits above $1000. Just so many things in life you need one for. All the dems bring up their little old grandmas that never needed one or the dirt poor( oh wait they actually had ID's but were being used to demonstrate some other point). Perhaps if they spent more time focusing on getting these people more involved in the world to where they would need an ID this wouldn't be an issue.
I'm doubtful that this plan would actually make Republicans happy. That's why they've never tried to do it.
And the thing is, no one would have a problem with it if they gave out free photo IDs to every citizen of voting age.
This. Law. Is. Not. About. ID.
I don't remember you being such a jerk. I remember you being pretty mild mannered and well reasoned. You sound more like a shill than most in this thread right now. Lots of hashtags showing up in your posts. So either you are infatuated with twitter or you now have a mouth like a sailor.Matthias said:
I get you feel strongly about this topic. I get that many of these actions have had very dubious and hidden agendas.Matthias said:
Reasonable minds cannot differ on this topic, in your opinion, because you're defining the topic differently than those you're arguing against.Matthias said:
Not by the collective, no. I don't get why this is a thing in the first place given what takes place in the primaries in this country. I used to think ID was important....it's a symptom of a much larger problem though. I couldn't care less about voting IDs anymore.....one way or the other. I think theMatthias said:
on either side is pretty foolish given the larger reality we face.
It seems to me that if a lot of people were showing up at the polls using fake names, there would be lots of examples of people showing up at the polls and being told they already voted. I'm not aware that there are lots of examples like this.
You acknowledge that some actions have "dubious and hidden agendas" then claim that the NC case was a "simple logical request". You do realize that the evidence shows that this "simple logical request" was made for the purpose of promoting a dubious and a (not so well) hidden agenda, right?
