The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Again ... unless you are in the media, Hollywood, or a liberal politician ( I should probably add TDMMC poster) you probably support stronger voter laws. The media and politicians are trying to make you think you are in the minority and most people are against it or it's evil and all but the reality is much, much different. I've seen this type of thing mentioned several times but this latest poll seems to have shaken some people.

The phone survey — which was conducted June 8-June 13 with 800 registered voters, 31 percent of whom identify as Democrats, 29 percent as Republicans, and 36 percent as independents — found 80 percent of its participants feel verifying voter ID “is an important security measure,” while 89 percent said that they are in favor of “purging voter rolls” after individuals
....

McDaniel added that some former critics of voter ID laws, including voting rights activist Stacey Abrams, have come around to voice support for the change despite previously criticizing the push, crediting numerous polls for their change in heart.

“Stacey Abrams in April was against voter ID, it was voter suppression, all of the sudden she says, I was always for voter ID,” she said.
HAHAHA ... you can't make this up.




New poll shows 78 percent are in favor of stronger voter ID laws
https://nypost.com/2021/07/08/new-poll-shows-78-percent-are-in-favor-of-stronger-voter-id-laws/

Apparently, not only CAN you make this up, you HAVE to:

"We are always for voter ID. We are never for disproportionate voter ID,” Clyburn added. “When you tell me that you got to have a photo ID, and a photo for a [college] student for an activity card is not good, but for a hunting license it is good, that’s where the rub is.”

Manchin initially offered his compromise last month as one of a series of proposed changes to the For The People Act, the massive federal election reform measure that passed the House of Representatives along party lines in March. Senate Republicans used the legislative filibuster to defeat the legislation last month, but congressional Democrats and the Biden White House have promised to revisit the issue.

The Manchin proposal would mandate that states check for some form of ID, but allow election officials to accept documents like a utility bill as proof of identification. Currently 15 states have adopted that requirement, including Manchin’s home state of West Virginia. The compromise was endorsed by former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams — a key Democratic spokesperson on election law — but rejected by Senate Republicans who insist on photo ID requirements.

Glad to see you guys now believe in polls again, though!

I would like to see how the questions were worded, before I put too much stock in thar poll. 

As for ID laws.  I am okay with them as long as they are liberal enough to not disadvantage poor people and minorities.  Such as allowing a utility bill or an EBT card as an id.

I'd require a picture ID plus one of those so you can prove your residence.  That way you don't have issues like the 1997 City of a Miami Mayoral election

Why would you need a picture ID plus a utility bill?  If you don't believe the address on the photo ID, why would the address on the utility bill be any more convincing?

I don't even understand what your goal is, here.  The voter's address is established when they register to vote.  Isn't the point of these laws to prevent a person from pretending to be someone else and casting a fraudulent vote?  Or are you saying that we need to overhaul our election system to stop the scourge of... legal registered voters casting their ballots in the wrong districts?

Requiring voter ID would have had absolutely zero impact on the 1997 Miami mayoral election, as the fraud was done via absentee ballots.

Now, if you think we should abolish absentee ballots to avoid another 1997 Miami mayoral election, then say so.  But voter ID has literally nothing to do with it.

That election is constantly brought up because literally the only significant case that has occurred in the last 50 years.  One incident in 50 years.  None in the last 20 years.

you could always do what Europe does and provide every citizen with a citizen card .. that's a combination of voting id, social security, healthcare and tax id card all rolled into one with a chip like a credit card for security. Then sure .. everyone gets id'd.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Cart%C3%A3o_de_Cidad%C3%A3o_Portugu%C3%AAs.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/CDC4.png)

It actually looks alot like a green card that the US government already issues.

But we don't want to treat all citizens equally .. we want to craft laws that allow the republicans to suppress the poor vote enough to win elections.

I'm not like frothing at the mouth agog that the GOP are pushing these.

On the surface, I understand the argument.  I just don't take them at face value that they give one iota of shit about election security.  They're trying to shave votes.  This is a solution seeking a problem.

But whatever, we just have to do whatever we can to make sure that this doesn't disproportionally affect one voter block over the other.

Dave is typically a voice of reason here who seems to care more about facts than party loyalty.  So I want to kind of piggyback on his comment about the GOP pushing voter ID to shave votes.  If we can all step aside from what we want for our parties, I think the fact of the matter is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats give nearly as many F's about people as they do their own power.  And that is what the whole voter issue (as well as the immigration issue) really boils down to.  The Republicans would be more than happy to limit low income people voting for the same reason they want to limit "undocumented immigration".   Both of those demographics are extremely likely to be Democrat voters.  And the converse is true as well.  Democrats seek to limit the enforcement of both voter ID laws and "undocumented immigration" because of the plethora of votes in those demographics.  That is really what it comes down to.  Both parties use people as pawns to their own benefit and their posturing themselves as "fighting for the little guy" or as "fighting for morality" make me want to puke.  As it would make each and every one of you want to puke if you would set aside your blind party loyalty to your respective political overlords and see things as they really are as opposed to the marketing that they sell you on. 

If so, it would also disproportionally affect those same people when it comes to their 2nd amendment rights. If you need a certain type of ID to buy a gun. Common sense would dictate that those are the same IDs that should be required to vote.

There is a rather significant moral difference between "trying to maximize the voting access of demographics that are favorable to you" and "trying to curtail the voting access of of demographics that are unfavorable to you."

You don't see Democrats trying to make it harder for rural Americans or wealthy Americans to vote, under the auspices of reducing voter fraud or some such BS.

Not really.  They are both utilized as ways to stack the deck in favor of their respective parties. Neither party is particularly moral in my opinion.  But I do get your point.  And you are right that it is BS for the Republicans to act like it is about reducing voter fraud.  Just like it is BS that the Democrats care about the poor immigrants and inner city folks who may not have a valid ID to show for voting.  Both parties are just using those as excuses for trying to stack the deck. 

True.  The Democrats don't try to make it harder for rural Americans or wealthy Americans to vote.  Repressing the vote is the Republican tactic to stack the deck.  Trying to bring in huge numbers of "immigrants" and avoid Voter ID laws is the Democrat tactic to stack the deck.  Just different sides of the same slimy coin. 

When it comes to politics, neither party has a leg to stand on when it comes to morality.  I don't know why everyone is so reticent to accept that.  

Again, how is it any different from curtailing 2nd amendment rights by requiring ID. Poor black Americans and minorities have the right to own firearms too. Seems discriminatory, maybe we should allow a utility bill or an EBT card as an id for firearm purchases. I mean since you guys are fighting for the rights of the minorities. Fight for their 2nd amendment right too. It's a actual right protected by the constitution, voting isn't.

Set the partisan politics aside.
Do you even have an opinion on what the morally correct action is?  Or is everything boiled down to "Team A wants this, Team B wants that, therefore Both Sides Are Greedy and a pox on both houses"?

It is not only possible, but ethically necessary, to be able to say whether unnecessarily making it harder for legally entitled citizens to vote is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.

Again, your choice to look at the issue solely through the lens of partisan benefit is misguided.  If you believe that the right thing to do is to make it easy and straightforward for legally entitled citizens to vote, then we shouldn't AVOID doing that solely because one party benefits from it more than the other.

If one party gains a greater benefit from maximized enfranchisement of legally entitled voting, the appropriate response is NOT to stop said enfranchisement.  The appropriate response is for the other party to change their policies so they are better at winning votes.  That's how a democratic republic is supposed to work.

If you want to make an argument against immigration, then make that argument.
If you want to make an argument for Voter ID laws, then make that argument.
But don't hand-wave away Republican voter suppression and expect that "both sides" is to be accepted as justification.

You criticize us for being unwilling to accept that neither party has a moral leg to stand on... but you can't even bring yourself to stand up for whatever it is that YOU believe to be the greater good.  Because then you'd be picking a side, which must be avoided at all costs.  So instead, you denounce Both Sides while staying safely above the partisan fray.

I'll tell you the spin-free difference between voting rights and gun rights:

The rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment are necessarily finite and intentionally limited.
And until the day that any 18-year-old can walk into a store and buy an RPG, the American judicial system agrees with that claim.

But maybe I'm wrong.  Feel free to tell me how and why we should restrict the ability of law-abiding adult American citizens to vote.

Have to disagree with ya on this one.  The difference is that BOTH parties should try "to maximize the voting access of demographics that are favorable to you" and NEITHER party should try "to curtail the voting access of of demographics that are unfavorable to you."

I don't doubt that the reason that the Dems are pushing so hard to stop this is because it disproportionally affects them.  I realize that's the politics of it and you need to find issues that you care about AND help you win elections.  This is probably both for them.

I admit, if it was turning away voters, in general, that would be a little bit bad -- but it's way worse that it's going to hurt one side more than the other.

I don't know how I'd actually feel if the show was on the other foot, but I'm guessing that if there was some bullshit red tape keeping conservatives from voting disproportionally, like you needed to prove COVID vaccination first, that I'd be against that -- even though I support getting people vaccinated.  The circumstances behind it matter.

I wasn't trying to be argumentative with you.  I was specifically making an effort NOT to choose a side or to make an argument for or against one practice versus the other.  If I were trying to do that, it would have invalidated everything I said because I would have then been posting something to support my own agenda.  I was trying to give an unbiased view of the self serving nature of politicians from both parties.  As for "sides", I take great pride in not having one.  I make up my own mind how I feel about each specific issue.  That is why some of my views are considered conservative and others are considered liberal by people who listen (read) to what I say.  So I guess when you say that I "denounce Both Sides while staying safely above the partisan fray" you are correct.  Not because I am trying to avoid conflict.  I love a good fray more than most people.  lol   My intentional decision to stay above the fray was to so that my comments would be as unbiased as possible.  My entire post was not about the topics (voter suppression, deck stacking, etc), but it was about the power players who exploit those topics and those involved for their own selfish gain. I have zero party loyalty which I believe affords me the opportunity to see things without the altering PRISM of making sure that I am espousing "my party's" platform.  

I don't expect everyone here to agree with me nor do I even really care if anyone agrees with me.  This place is just idle chit chat for me.  But I think that the fact that I have personally dealt with members of Congress to a decent degree on and off for the past 12 years or so renders it foolish to just dismiss what I say.  And I'm not saying that as a point of bragging.  In fact, I would be delighted if I never spoke/emailed etc. with a single politician for the rest of my career.   lol

I will however, concede (as I'm getting ready to in a response to Sunstroke also) that the same interactions with politicians that give me more insight into them, also have unfortunately made me biased against them and I'm sure that I unfairly don't give them the benefit of the doubt.  So I know that fact erodes some of my credibility when I claim to be unbiased.  I consider each of them to be lowlifes until they prove differently rather than the other way around.  I'm not proud of that fact, but I'm just trying to be as upfront here as I can be.  Over a decade of dealing with these people has jaded me.  I'm definitely guilty of that.  But I don't think that makes the things that I say to be without merit. 

What do you do that puts you in front of congressmen?

Hell, dude, I like it when you disagree with me because you are one of the people who I respect on here.  So when you disagree with me, I take notice and make an extra effort to understand where you are coming from.  I would be bored shitless if I surrounded myself with people who only thought like I do.  :)    I get what you are saying in your response to me.  I actually agree with you that neither party should try to curtail the voting access of demographics that are unfavorable to them and both parties should try to maximize the voting access of demographics that are favorable to them.  I think where we disconnect is that the two concepts of maximizing voting access to demographics that are favorable and limiting the access of those demographics that are unfavorable are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, they typically go hand in hand because when a party is trying to maximize the favorable demographic they are typically simultaneously trying to minimize unfavorable demographics as either an intentional or unintentional consequence.  Probably not a great analogy, but I'm thinking of a comparison to a football team that wants to maximize their winning chances by not only putting the best offense on the field that they can, but also putting the best defense on the field that they can.  

Unfortunately, with the fairly substantial amount of interaction that I have had with politicians from both parties I have to say that the ideal of neither party trying to curtail the voting access of demographics unfavorable to them, while admirable, is a pipe dream.   Now I will say that while the experience I have had with politicians has given me more insight than most people, it HAS created a bias in me against politicians that has probably made me very suspicious and negative towards them all.  I do try not to be unfairly biased against any of them, but if I were to say that I'm able to do that 100% of the time, I'd be lying.  

Without going into detail, I am in a leadership position with a federal law enforcement agency in which I from time to time have to respond to Congressional inquiries, etc. Most of the time, these inquiries are general questions about the agency's mission, but sometimes they are centered on specific aspects of the mission (typically things that they fear will have a negative impact on their party or an opportunity to exploit things to positively impact their party).   Sometimes these communications are via written word and sometimes phone conversations with the very rare incidence of face to face meetings.  Probably half of these interactions are with Congressional staff and half are with the politicians themselves. 

That's a red herring, all rights and privileges are finite and intentionally limited. SCOTUS ruled that voter ID was legal and constitutional, therefore the ability to vote is also intentionally limited. The ID requirements for both have been settled in court, not sure what you're even arguing about?

If showing a government issued photo ID disenfranchises minorities in regards to voting. Then doesn't it also disenfranchise those same minorities from exercising their 2nd amendment right? If you're going fight for the rights of disenfranchised legally entitled minorities, be congruent in your views and fight for all of their rights. Not just the ones that support your agenda along the partisan line.

Why? Because the SCOTUS says so. Don't you agree that the SCOTUS has the final say on the finite and intentionally limited nature of all rights and privileges? 

Now, feel free to tell me why we should restrict the ability of law-abiding adult American citizens their 2nd amendment rights? You're putting the cart before the horse. First we must address overall, whether mandating government issued photo ID is a disadvantage to poor people and minorities for things they are legally entitled to.

Instead of determining where the partisan battle lines are on a given issue, and then carefully threading the needle to avoid any appearance of favoring one side or the other... why not just evaluate your own belief on the right course of action and then advocate for that outcome?

This is what I'm talking about.  You (and others who relentlessly focus on the "both sides" narrative) are so busy making sure not to be seen favoring one side or the other that you've lost all sight of trying to do the right thing (whatever you personally believe that to be).  It's all just teams to y'all; if you stand up and declare a preferred course of action, you will "invalidate everything you said" because now you're advocating for actual results.  And there's nothing more biased than that!

The most serious offense one can commit in that realm is actually caring about what happens to people.  That would be so partisan!

I'm not talking about legality.  If I'm not mistaken, you are anti-abortion, so you should be intimately familiar with the idea that something can be technically legal but morally wrong.

I believe it is morally sound to work within the law to eliminate as many firearms as possible from the streets of America.
Do YOU believe that it is morally sound to work within the law to remove legally entitled voters from the voting rolls?

Easy: firearms are lethal weapons that must be restricted to provide for the general Welfare of Americans.  This is why I'm not allowed to defend my home with surface-to-air missiles or claymores.  And for all the shit the Second Amendment crowd talks about SHALL NOT BE REGULATED, you don't think people should be able to buy a Scud missile on eBay, either.

I'm honestly not sure why you think my personal stance on issues is more important than the entire nation being played by our politicians. It is pretty funny that you think my not taking a stance means I have lost sight of doing the right thing but apparently you don't care that Congress has absolutely no interest in doing the right thing.  It isn't that I don't have a stance, in fact I'm extremely opinionated.  But my stance had nothing to do with my post.   Apparently my stance on issues is all you care about, so here ya go. 

Voter ID and Voter Suppression:  I believe that a photo ID should be required in order to vote.  However, I believe that access to exercise the right to vote should be extended to as many people as feasible, meaning there should be ample polling places in inner cities and in sparsely populated areas and where that isn't possible, there should be free transportation for anyone who needs it to get to polling places. I also believe that poll hours should be expanded to make voting easier. That way the opportunity to vote is not being denied to anyone who is LEGALLY entitled to vote. I also believe that accommodation should be made to allow those who can't afford to get a photo ID or can't get to a place where a photo ID can be done, this could again be done by free transportation and free photo ID.  This way, the integrity of the voting process is strengthened by requiring photo ID, but nobody is denied the opportunity to get that photo ID.  And no, I'm not saying that any recent elections were "rigged" when I say that the integrity of the voting process needs to be strengthened.  It needs to be strengthened because the current system sucks and voting is a cornerstone of democracy and needs to be airtight. 

Illegal Immigration: There should be none.  There are legal avenues for immigration and I highly encourage those.  And I know this sounds "heartless" or whatever insulting term is going through your mind right now, but I don't care.  A huge percentage of the world lives in squalor compared to the standard of living in the US.  That is sad, but it is also not our responsibility.  We aren't the daddy to the world.  If we allow everyone in the world who wants to come to the US to do so, our economic collapse would be swift and permanent and we would then become the same 3rd world society that they are trying to flee in the first place.  It sucks that there are so many shithole countries in the world.  And I understand that it is by pure dumb luck that I was born here and not in one of those shithole countries.  Life is hard and it isn't fair.  Always has been that way, always will be that way.  Anyone caught entering the US illegally should be sent back immediately.  Try again through legal channels.  It would be nice if we could make exceptions on a case by case basis for particularly difficult situations.  But we can't because exceptions become a slippery slope and what starts as one exception turns into a thousand.  If you want to come here, go through legal channels.  Oh, and not for nothing, but Afghani and Iraqi translators who saved many of my men and women in the war are being ignored by our government as they plead for asylum here.  As the Taliban once again takes over Afghanistan, they will hunt down every single translator who assisted the US and they and their families will be murdered (after being tortured).  It is pretty fucked up that we welcome people who illegally enter the US, but we are more than willing to sit back and allow people who actually tried to help to be mercilessly slaughtered.

I'm sure you are frothing at the mouth at this point at what a "horrible prick" I am.  I don't care.  I've been called a prick by plenty of people and plenty of people better than you.  Being well liked is pretty far down on my list of life priorities.

If there is any other topic that you want my personal opinion on, feel free to ask and I will tell you.  I just don't understand why you or anyone else would care about my personal opinion when there are much bigger and important things to discuss.

You are a smart guy, Spider.  I mean that sincerely.  And although I disagree with the majority of your stances on things, I agree with you on some things and I respect that you are passionate about the world around you.  I'll take someone like you who passionately cares about things over someone who doesn't give a crap and sees the world only through their "what is in it for me" glasses any day.  I think that you could be a part of some great and stimulating discussions here, but like several others you are much more interested in showing that you are right and the other person is wrong (at least in your opinion) than you are in actually discussing something.  Like you did in this thread by focusing on what you perceived to be my lack of taking a stance on topics rather than what was actually important....the scumbaggery and selfishness of politicians.  You are often so busy working to come up with your rebuttal that you don't even take the time to actually give any thought to the other person's point that you are refuting.  You really do have a lot to add to discussions here, and that makes it a bigger shame that you are more interested in winning a point than you are in a productive discussion.  This isn't meant as a personal attack on you as a person.  You might be the nicest guy in the world and someone I would ask to be the god parent of my kid if I knew you in real life.  I'm just not a fan of the methodology you use in discussing things here.  Having said all that, I realize that you don't care about my opinion of you anymore than I care about your opinion of me.  LOL   It's all good.  This place is just idle internet chit chat BS'ing with strangers. 

You are mistaken, I'm not anti-abortion on a moral level. Morals are subjective, and basically just opinions. That's why we have law, to draw a line and remove that subjectivity.

How is it morally sound if legally entitled citizens have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own legal firearms? So you want to remove people's rights?

Yes, just like buying a firearm. If you don't have the proper government ID, you are not legally entitled. Is a 45 year old legally entitled to buy a bottle of Tito's Vodka if they can't produce their proper ID?

Since you're so concerned about providing for the general Welfare of Americans. Maybe you should be jumping up and down to restrict cigarettes and alcohol. Go ahead, crunch the numbers and stats to see what would be better for the the general Welfare of Americans. See I can spin, pivot, and move the goalposts too. But ultimately this conversation isn't about scud missiles, bazookas, cigarettes, or alcohol. It's about ID.

Now in general, is mandating government issued photo ID is a disadvantage to poor people and minorities for exercising their rights and things they are legally entitled to?

I think they should be allowed to bear arms to the minimum extent the law provides (for example: by being a member of a well-regulated militia).

But that's the difference: I'm willing to say that guns are dangerous weapons and we should limit their availability to the very smallest number we can legally pull off.  In short: gun proliferation is unfortunately legal but dangerous, and should be discouraged (within legal bounds, of course).

So if you want to continue to frame this as an apples-to-apples comparison, then let's do so: do you feel the same way about voting?  Is voting unfortunately legal but dangerous?  Should we try to limit voting to the smallest number of people that the courts will let us get away with?

We already tried a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol.  It was a disaster.  And from that experience, we learned that in some cases, making something expensive and cumbersome is more effective than a ban... which is the approach being taken with cigarettes.

Ideally, it's a disadvantage to everyone.  Buying a gun should be as cumbersome, expensive, and annoying as legally possible.

Do you feel the same way about voting?

Are you saying that 2A doesn't apply to everyone, only militia? If so, you're not reading 2A correctly. Either on purpose or through ignorance and/or brainwashing. You need to break a few things down in order to figure it out.

1. Are ordinary citizens and a well regulated militia the same thing? ​
2. If not, why does the 2nd amendment reference both?

SCOTUS already shot down your well-regulated militia argument.


That's only your opinion, which is false and really doesn't mean much. Firearms aren't anymore dangerous than many everyday objects that kill more people annually. Again, the more people that something kills or injures = the more dangerous it is. The numbers and statistics back this up in regards to firearms.

You're framing firearms as unfortunately legal but dangerous, not me. I don't consider either one unfortunately legal but dangerous. Mandating a government photo ID to vote is not limiting voting to the smallest smallest number of people that the courts will let us get away with? The number of people that actually don't have a government ID is statistically small.

It doesn't matter that you want to restrict them to the smallest amount possible, that's a separate issue. Right now, today, firearms are legal and commonplace. It's a right the we all have whether we decide to exercise it or not. Now according to the left, requiring a valid government photo ID to vote is racist because it targets minorities, specifically black people. Then anything requiring that same ID is also racist because those same black people don't have access to a government ID. Requiring ID is either racist or it isn't. Doesn't matter if it's voting, firearms, or alcohol.

Old black man has no ID, because do to his color he doesn't have equal access to obtain one. Therefore he:

can't vote = racist

can't buy alcohol = not racist
can't buy a firearm = not racist
can't get a hotel room = not racist
can't get a bank account = not racist
etc, etc, etc.

It's comical watching you try and dance your way around how requiring ID is only racist for voting, but not for anything else. As long as you tie "requiring valid ID" to being racist. Then it applies to everything. You can't pick and choose.

This is really a great idea for more reasons than voting.  The existing paper SS cards issued that haven't ever been changed, as far as I know, are a joke.  A new card, with better security features could greatly reduce identity theft.  The Federal government forced all States to improve drivers' licenses, they should take their own advice.

Although some voting legislation may be designed to suppress voting, I don't think having ID to vote is one of them.  The Democrats could spend 1/100 the time and money to get voters ID cards and it wouldn't be an issue.  The problem I see is lack of access to polling places.  There needs to be more early voting availability so people don't have to wait in line hours to vote.  Sadly, I would probably never vote if I had to do that; i'm in and out of my polling site in less than 5 minutes.

If you had citizen cards like the one linked, you could vote at any location, library, post office, police station, fire dept, dmv, social security office, or a city call. Your district is already recorded, no wrong ballots, no long lines since everyone could vote everywhere. Hell you pay taxes online, register your car online, sign up for unemployment online. Why not vote online as well.

And here's the difference between us:  I think focusing on "the scumbaggery and selfishness of politicians" (so: not a specific politician, but just politicians in general) is a complete waste of time.  It's less than useless.  No possible point of value can be made by focusing on the selfishness of politicians; no meaningful change can be brought about.  Yes, politicians on both sides are greedy and selfish... so what?  If you propose a solution to make it better, I'm all ears.  Otherwise, why even talk about it?  It's like complaining about humidity in Florida.

So, again: when you want to make a point about voter ID, or illegal immigration, then make that point and we can discuss the pros and cons.  But talking in generalities about corrupt politicians on both sides is a waste of both of our time.

In this case, it's not even about being right.  I'm just tired of the "both sides" fence sitting, where we can't even have a discussion about what we should or shouldn't be doing because the speaker is too busy trying to NOT take a side and won't state their own policy priorities.  And this is far from limited to you; South Park, in particular, has influenced an entire generation of people to believe that caring is the lamest thing you can do and the Truly Enlightened just sit back and bash everything.  It's political nihilism, and it's terrible for our national discourse.

2A obviously doesn't apply to everyone.  You can verify this inside of any prison.
A well-regulated militia is merely one example of who the 2A definitely DOES apply to.

That's not how danger works.  Talking about the numerator is meaningless without the denominator.
More people have been killed in car accidents than by Islamic terrorists; that does not mean that Ford is more dangerous than ISIS.

I'm glad that you brought this up.  First off, there is no government regulation that requires a photo ID to open a bank account or book a hotel room.  A bank might have to verify your identity, but there's no regulation that says it MUST be a photo ID.  Of course, these businesses may CHOOSE to require a photo ID before they do business with you, but that's just capitalism; if you don't like it, take your money to a competitor.

Now, let's clear up a misconception you have repeatedly made:

Your identity is always verified when you register to vote.
This is the case in every state, and has been for many, many decades.

So, just as you are required to verify your identity when buying alcohol, or (SOMETIMES) required to verify your identity when buying a gun, you are required to verify your identity when you REGISTER to vote.  Consequently, the correct analogy to verifying your identity AGAIN every time you cast a ballot would be:

a) if you had to present ID every time you took a sip of alcohol (after already verifying your identity when you bought it)
b) if you had to present ID every time you shot your gun (after already verifying your identity when you bought it)

And if we're going to talk about widespread fraud, the number of instances of voter fraud is absolutely microscopic compared to:

a) the number of people who have consumed alcohol that they were legally unable to buy
b) the number of people who have fired a gun not in possession of the legal owner

Somehow, I doubt you are as concerned about stopping either of those things.

You make an excellent point about it being useless to focus on the scumbaggery of politicians.  Actually, I will say that it is useless to focus on the politicians from the perspective that they will never change.  On the micro level it makes everyone feel a little better to vent and bitch about something that sucks though.  lol  But you are absolutely right about the fact that it doesn't do anything to change the problems. 

I also get what you are saying about fence sitting.  And that is why in my post that you responded to, I did explain (probably in too much detail) where I stood on the issues of Voter ID, vote suppression, and immigration.  I'm admittedly not smart enough to offer up a solution on the macro level about getting those at the bottom of the economic ladder out of it.  But I actually do have some ideas on a more micro level.  Let's take the economic plight of those in inner cities, specifically minorities.  I don't know how successful this would be, but trying something is better than trying nothing.  Racism obviously plays a role in the struggle to get out of economic plight for African Americans in the inner city.  But racism is always going to be there to one extent or another.  So there has to be something more specific than "end racism" to solve the problem.  Honesty is sometimes uncomfortable.  The following are generalities and not 100%.  And The uncomfortable truth is that Asian American culture places a huge priority on education.  White American culture places a fairly large priority in education.  African American culture places a much lower priority on education. This is backed up by statistics regarding parental involvement in the children's school activities, parent teacher conferences, etc.  I like the idea that there are a lot of college scholarships, grants, etc. available to African Americans.  But if you look at the percentage of those things that result in attaining a degree, it is disappointingly low.  But it is important to keep those opportunities there. There is a large percentage of inner city black youth who just don't do well academically.  So what can we do to give them opportunities to get a good career and escape the endless cycle of poverty?  I would love to see an effort to to make trade schools a much more viable option for inner city residents.  Vocational schools are a great avenue for that.  Trades such as plumbing, technicians for auto repalir, a/c repair etc as well as vocational training for fields that have unions for tradesmen.  You can make a very good living in these trades without a college degree.  But most vocational schools are located in suburban areas.  I would bring back some of the ridiculous sums of money that the federal government feeds to other countries and use that money to set up vocational school IN the inner city and some of the money for financial assistance for inner city residents who are willing to go to those vocational school.  Further, provide opportunity to grow even beyond those trade skills via entrepreneurship.  There are lots of government programs for small business loans.  To bolster job opportunities AND business ownership opportunities for inner city residents, use some of that money to establish grants (not loans) for minorities to establish trade businesses such as electricians, plumbers, etc. IN the inner city.  That way, those who take advantage of the vocational schools established in the inner city can then take that skill and grow it into owning their own small business also in the inner city.  This gives the the opportunity for even greater financial success AND creates more jobs in the inner city that are skilled trade jobs that pay well AND gives the residents of those inner cities the opportunity to support their neighbors and friends by utilizing those businesses.  That is just one small thing, but hey, at least it is an attempt to do something and even a small thing is better than nothing.    So please stop saying that I don't take a stance on things and I don't offer up any solutions.  :) 

Yes, obviously it doesn't apply to everyone. I thought about putting that in there, but I figured that you were coherent enough to understand that it was implied. So let me rephrase my original questions.

Are you saying that 2A doesn't apply to everyone (not legally barred from owning a firearm)?

Are ordinary citizens and a well regulated militia the same thing? ​

If not, why does the 2nd amendment reference both?


Does 2A apply to ordinary everyday citizens who are legally entitled to own a firearm?

No, it means traveling in a motor vehicle in the United States is more dangerous that a terrorist. If you have a greater chance of being robbed and shot in Jackson, MS than you do in Ocala, Fl. Then yes Jackson, MS is more dangerous.


It doesn't matter if it's a government requirement or not. Is discrimination based on race illegal? I mean can you legally deny a mortgage, bank account, or to rent a hotel room based on someone's race?   

The left's claim is that requiring government photo ID is racist because of lack of equal access to that type of ID. That means it's racist for ANYONE that requires a government photo ID.

Is requiring a government photo ID racist? It's a simple yes or no question.


Likewise, there is no government regulation that requires a photo ID to vote. Some states may CHOOSE to require a photo ID before they do business with you, but that's just capitalism; if you don't like it, take your money to a competitor. There are 50 of them to choose from...

Does that mean that since I had to verify my identity when I opened my bank accounts that I don't need to verify my ID to go make a withdrawal since I already verified my ID? Are you saying that if I buy and register a firearm that I shouldn't have to produce my ID on subsequent purchases?

You had to verify your ID when you actually got the ID. But yet every time you buy a new firearm, buy alcohol, or get pulled over you are required to show your ID over and over and over. The point is if you can verify your identity one time, it should be no problem to verify it again.

There's a reason why criminals that get pulled over don't want to show the LEO their ID.

If you're saying that legally barring people from owning a firearm is still permissible under the 2A, then the question you are asking me is, "Does the 2A apply to everyone (except those that it doesn't apply to)?"  That's a tautological question, and the answer is yes.

The words "ordinary citizen" aren't in the 2A, but the words "well regulated militia" are.  That makes gun advocates' insistence that the words "well-regulated militia" have no legally enforceable impact rather puzzling.

No.

Banks, mortgage brokers, and hotels aren't the organizations in charge of issuing government photo IDs.  This matters because if the government is going to require a government-issued photo ID in order to use your constitutional right to determine who is in control of our government (i.e. by voting), the government needs to make sure that every valid voter is provided a photo ID.  Fau already gave an excellent example of a way to solve this problem - by making a national ID card freely available to all citizens - but conservatives don't want to do that, because that's not the point.

See, because voter fraud is not actually a problem in this country, spending the necessary funds to make sure every citizen has an ID WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE!  After all, you can't stop fraud that doesn't exist!  Voter ID laws have one purpose: to reduce the number of people who are voting.  And any sort of workaround that that verifies identity but doesn't reduce the number of votes cast isn't doing the job.

Again, this is why new voter ID laws are frequently followed up with mass DMV closures.  The point is to reduce access.

If you think voting is "capitalism" ran by a "business," that explains a lot of your positions in this thread.

That's correct.  If you've ever used an ATM, or made an online withdrawal, this should be obvious.

If you buy a new firearm, or buy more alcohol, you have to provide your identification again, just like if you have to re-register to vote.

Like I said: you DON'T have to provide ID every time you take a swig or fire a shot.  But apparently, you're fine with such a requirement...?  I mean, if you provided an ID when you bought the beverage, you can provide it again every time you take a sip, right?

I think you're miscategorizing the issue.  Many more Asian Americans are 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-generation immigrants, and among immigrants, there is a strong selection bias towards smarter, harder-working, and generally overachieving people.  (The dumb and/or lazy people usually don't make it out of the old country.)  Those immigrants teach their work ethic to their children, and their children to their grandchildren.  Of course, as generations proceed, you will eventually get kids who are screwups, who then teach those values to their own kids... but it usually takes several generations for those screwups (and their kids) to collectively become a notable portion of an immigrant community.

I think if you compare more recent African American immigrants (say, from Nigeria) to similar generation Asian American families, there will be more similarities.

Trade schools are a great idea for lower-income Americans, in and out of the city.  I don't think the relatively small amount of money we send to other countries (less than 1% of the federal budget (https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/what-every-american-should-know-about-u-s-foreign-aid/)) is anywhere near enough to implement the scope of the kind of program I'd like to see, though.

Excellent points about multi generational immigrants versus recent African American immigrants.   I hadn't thought about that but I completely agree.  A lot of the nurses at my wife's hospital are relatively recent immigrants from Africa and she says that generally speaking they are the hardest working and ambitous of any of her nursing staff. 

Yeah, I know that using some of the money from foreign aid wouldn't foot the entire bill for my plan.  But it would at least be a decent start and if I'm going to be honest, the reason I thought of that funding source is because i have kind of a red ass about SOME of our foreign aid spending to begin with.  LOL 

Why limit trade schools to lower income Americans?   I'm a blue collar guy and I grew up in middle class home.  I'm in my trade because I want to be.  Some people like working with their hands or equipment. 

To clarify: trade schools should be available to any and everyone.

I singled out lower-income Americans because those in the middle- and upper-income classes generally prefer to send their kids to college (which they can afford).  Lower-income Americans have a much harder time affording college, particularly since one of the main benefits you get from college is NOT the education you receive (much of which you can get for free at the public library), but rather the connections you make and the prestige your degree affords you.

I know you were responding to Spider, but when I talked about trade schools in my own post, I should have added that trade school should be available to ANYONE, not just lower income Americans.  My father was a high school dropout and eventually worked his way into a trade school which allowed him to make a decent living and provide enough for us to a fairly comfortable middle class (well, maybe lower middle class) family when I was a kid.  So I have great respect for what you do.  I'm also a little envious because I suck at any skills that would be needed in any of those types of trades.  My dad could take apart a car engine and put it back together and I can barely change my own oil.  LOL   So huge kudos to you and everyone like you who has the skill to make a living with your hands.

I am a college graduate that now works in a trade, and the trade is 100x more lucrative than anything I did with my college degree.  Having said that, working shit jobs I only could have got with my college degree showed me first hand how a larger successful business should be run, and I've applied that to the trade business.

Everyone has different skills and is blessed with different talents.  The key to being successful and happy is using the talents you have to make the best living you possibly can.   

Yes, that's already been established.

Are you going to have a rational discussion or play your little narcissistic semantics? Ordinary citizen = People. Or are you not bright enough to figure that out?

The 2A references the "militia" and the "people". Why does the 2nd amendment reference both?

Again, voting for president is not a constitutional right.  Here's yet another more recent article from business insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/why-trump-cant-be-reinstated-as-president-by-august-2021-6?r=US&IR=T)

Can states technically bypass elections and appoint their electors without input from the voters? YES or NO?

If yes, you have no actual right to vote. 
 

A drivers license or state ID card isn't hard to get. You have one, I have one, and almost everyone has one. Because most things that people do in modern society require an ID for everyday mundane things. If you don't have one it's your own fault.

You claim that it's so hard to get a Driver's license or state ID. But yet the vast majority of people have them. Do you have one Spider? How hard was it to get?

I'm just using your logic. You said that if people didn't like banking at a bank that constitutionally and legally required a valid photo ID, they are free to go somewhere else that doesn't have the ID requirement.

Likewise, if some states constitutionally and legally choose to require a valid ID to vote (per SCOTUS), then voters are free to go somewhere else that doesn't have that ID requirement.


Another red herring. Voter ID laws are targeted at voting in person. Now, the proper analogy would be if you physically walk up to a bank teller in the local office. Would the teller require a valid photo ID to withdraw money? YES or NO?

Again, your word games are childlike. Most things like firearms and liquor that require ID are at point of sale or transaction. Casting your vote is the point of transaction. You go to the gun shop, liquor store, or voting place. Show your ID and finish your transaction.

That is outstanding.  You sound like you approach life with the concept of making your life the best it can be by taking whatever you can from your life experiences and using that knowledge to apply to other areas of life (or career). 

College degrees are great, but so are trade skills.  I think it's a disservice to paint people into one camp or the other.  We need both to function and both have value.

I have benefitted a lot from my college degree.  It gave me a lot of skills, not just in knowledge, but in team and personal management and meeting expectations, that I use, when paired with the actual stuff I learned on the job.

But I have friends who were never cut out for college and forced that route on themselves and it just delayed their productive eventual careers.  But some form of schooling (like to help them run their finances and stuff) would've been helpful.

Absolutely!  I couldn't agree with you more.  Hell, I think TDMMC might have finally stumbled onto a topic (the value in trade schools) that the highest percentage of us has ever agreed on.  LOL

100%

Also beyond trade schools, formal apprenticeships would also be a good system to pass down skilled trades.

Citizens are allowed to vote for much more than just President, so I don't know why you keep bringing this up.
We already went over this. (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=26782.msg377608;topicseen#msg377608)
 
If it's not hard to get, surely you won't object to every citizen being guaranteed a free state ID before we implement voter ID laws.

Yes, because our government is a democratic republic and banks are a capitalist business.  Those things are not the same.
Telling people "Go find another government if you don't like this one" is a ridiculous comparison to choosing a bank.

The answer is maybe; it depends on the bank.
I assure you that I could prove my identity at my own bank without a photo ID.

You're making a circular argument: things are the way they are because that's the way they are.  There's no reason we can't require photo ID every time you fire a gun, just like you want to require photo ID every time you cast a vote.  And your decision to call voting a transaction is arbitrary; it is not necessary to have an interaction between people to cast a vote.

For sure!  I hadn't even thought about formal apprenticeships.  That would be an excellent idea.

I'll keep correcting you as long as you keep pushing the lie that peoples "constitutional right to determine who is in control of our government" are being violated by voter ID. It's a moot point anyhow. Because the SCOTUS has ruled government-issued photo voter ID legal and constitutional. Therefore, no one's rights are being violated and you are wrong and/or lying.


Sure, I don't object to a free government ID that functions as a government photo ID, voter ID, Driver's licence, and nationwide CCW reciprocity card. As long as applying in person and following the REAL ID compliant protocol when issued. Which includes providing approved forms of: Proof of primary identification, proof of Social Security, and proof of residential address.


It's not ridiculous to move to another state or country that fits your political views better, it's called freedom. It's what this country was founded on. Thousands of people do it every week.

The whole point of different states is that they are different. The whole point of different countries is because they are different. If you prefer to not deal with legally and constitutionally being required to submit valid government photo ID to vote. By all means, exercise your freedom and go somewhere that better fits your belief system and doesn't require voter ID. No one is being forced to do anything, at this point everyone has a choice.

I know that the left wants to force their agenda on everyone and make all the states the same and model the country like other countries, but everyone doesn't agree with that agenda. What a shitty world it would be if that agenda ever happens.


Well I'm glad that you're some kind of special unicorn. But I'm pretty sure that almost all banks require ID to make a withdrawal in person at the teller window.

Now that begs the question. Why would Spider-Dan try to prove his identity without a commonplace photo ID? What's the point? I thinks someone is either bullshitting and/or high on some illegal substance so they can pat themselves on the back.

Go to the location, show your ID, secure your firearm, you're done until you have to come back to pick another firearm, then rinse and repeat.

Go to the location, show your ID, secure your liquor, you're done until you have to come back to pick another bottle, then rinse and repeat.

Go to the location, show your ID, secure your candidate, you're done until you have to come back to pick another candidate, then rinse and repeat.

Definitely.  Don't take my appreciation for trades as a repudiation of college or education.  I think college is still great.  So is the military.  So are trade schools, apprenticeships.  So are the police or fire academy.

College is a path for certain skills, but in addition to trade skills, certain technical skills when I was in my late teens were advancing faster than the school could build a curriculum.  If you wanted to be on the cutting-edge of programming, I'm not sure that college was the best place for you.

It's really about plugging yourself into to some kind of network where you can continue to learn as you progress, but also give back to your community and become part of it so that you have a group of people to find work, build professional relationships, etc.