Poll: Majority of Republicans believe Trump is President right now

[pondwater]

Bullshit.  It is not a matter of competency but of access.  The DMV in my area is not in the downtown, it is on the outskirts of the city.  The nearest bus stop is a mile away and would require changing buses multiple times to access from the urban areas that are home to most of those people who live in the city center and are carless.  The DMV’s convenient for people who own cars but inaccessible to those who would need it under a voter id law. Round trip by uber we are talking a $40+ poll tax.

It's not anyone else's responsibility that you don't have a car, transportation, or the time to take care of your personal business.

[Dave Gray]

As was pointed out to me from a black liberal ... this is one of the most racists things a person can say. To say minorities aren't competent enough to secure an ID is akin to calling them stupid and less intelligent than white people. White people do not hold a monopoly at the DMV.

It's not me calling anyone stupid.  It's not about competency.  It's about socio-economics and access.  Statistically speaking, those are more likely going to be minorities.  And it's about a long, long history of the conservative party (Democrats before, Republicans now) using bullshit non-problems to make things harder for them.

From my own personal perspective I'd say to those who feel it is unnecessary because there is no problem then why are you fighting against it? It's not like it is a great unattainable burden to get an ID card for a legal resident and if it won't change anything then there is no harm done.

There is harm done.  It's disenfranchising to one side more than the other.  This is not a problem.  Fraud isn't happening.  Republicans know it's not happening.  They aren't passing laws to fix a problem, because they know it isn't a problem.  Their hard on for passing these laws is because it will mean fewer votes for their opposition.

[pondwater]

There is harm done.  It's disenfranchising to one side more than the other.  This is not a problem.  Fraud isn't happening.  Republicans know it's not happening.  They aren't passing laws to fix a problem, because they know it isn't a problem.  Their hard on for passing these laws is because it will mean fewer votes for their opposition.

The slight burden voter ID laws impose don't outweigh a state's interest in preventing voter fraud. Are you guys saying voter ID laws are violating people's rights, unconstitutional, illegal, etc. I'm having a hard time understanding your argument besides, "it ain't fair". Which is totally subjective depending on your political views.

[Fau Teixeira]

There's a reason these laws are only being passed now because the court gutted the VRA. Under the VRA, states weren't allowed to make these sorts of changes that seem benign at face value but in practice serve as a deterrent to voting.

Any single law or statute can seem benign. Or seem harmless. The problems become when you aggregate all the benign statutes and group them up with gerrymandering, and then toss in a bit of statistical analysis to figure out which voters certain laws affect more than others. That you get into a complicated structure of voter suppression.

If we had a voter ID law that also mandated free federal ID cards to every citizen, I think you'd have alot less issues with the law.  If you have a social security #, then you also get a federal ID card. Scan the card to vote in any district in the county you live in and you'd get the right ballot. Problem solved.

[Spider-Dan]

There are two or three "conservative posters who make ridiculous claims that don't have much validity and there are two or three of their counterparts from the liberal side who make ridiculous claims that don't have much validity and all of them are so dedicated to their party politics that it renders them incapable of having a dialog in which they actually consider what the other person is saying because they are too busy coming up with their "gotcha" rebuttal to have any interest in an actual exchange of ideas and consideration of those ideas.

First off: I am under no impression that I am going to convince CF Dolfan or pondwater that Actually, Liberalism Is The Best Answer; that would be delusional.  My responses to diehard conservatives are towards two ends:

1) presenting a progressive counter-argument for the moderate reader who doesn't really follow politics, but is passively exposed to these kinds of right-wing arguments
2) giving ammunition to fellow leftists who have to deal with these kinds of right-wing arguments in other circumstances

That's it.  I don't think you can convince a dedicated partisan through debate.  If they ever change their mind, it won't be because of anything I say; it'll be on their own terms.

Second, I think the comparison you are making is unfair.  I personally consider myself a radical leftist (and I imagine Fau considers himself one as well), so I'm quite aware that my "ridiculous claims" do not represent mainstream liberalism.  In contrast, based on previous statements it seems that CF and pondwater consider themselves completely mainstream conservatives, and that their "ridiculous claims" are not only Totally Reasonable, but represent the silent majority of this country.

As I just recently said: what passes for radical partisan extremism on our side of the fence are the bog-standard vast majority of the movement on their side of the fence.

[Fau Teixeira]

I consider myself a democratic socialist. On the European scale I'm a little left of center.  There's way farther left  places to be and I'm not there. On the American scale I guess I'd be radical on fox news, and progressive on msnbc. Probably a populist elsewhere. But in America anything even sorta kinda resembling a little socialism is all lumped together as full bore marxist communism. So the scale is a bit off from reality.

[Spider-Dan]

If massive, populated areas (say my home town, Oakland) where there would be true barriers to voting for simply proving I am me, and not Lou, I would be interested in knowing why that is a bad thing.  If I order a 70' TV today from Best Buy for pick up and Lou, and not me, picks it up...there would be hell to pay.  Yes?

This is definitely one area I have always been confused by (but I am super open minded about).  Someone educate me, I am all ears (or eyes, as it were).

I'm not quite clear which side you're coming down on for this, but I can definitely explain one part of the equation that's missing.

The "tick" is passing laws that require photo ID to vote.
The "tock" is... immediately moving towards mass closure of DMV offices:

Facing a budget crisis, Alabama has shuttered 31 driver's license offices, many of them in counties with a high proportion of black residents. Coming after the state recently put into effect a tougher voter ID law, the closures will cut off access -- particularly for minorities -- to one of the few types of IDs accepted.

Tick tock. Tick tock.

[Spider-Dan]

As was pointed out to me from a black liberal ... this is one of the most racists things a person can say. To say minorities aren't competent enough to secure an ID is akin to calling them stupid and less intelligent than white people.

Funny how this "the true bigotry is to assume that people need extra help and not a level playing field" argument never seems to be applied towards, say, lower tax rates on capital gains, or extra tax deductions for businesses, or tax exempt status for churches.

No, in THOSE situations we want to make things as easy as possible for the recipient!

[Phishfan]

If i had an uncle Lou, it may not swing the election but I would be pissed about it.

[Spider-Dan]

Voter fraud is not even close to a problem.  For every ONE person charged (not convicted, merely charged) with fraudulent voting of the kind that would be stopped by photo ID verification at the polling booth, tens of thousands of legitimate voters will be turned away at the polls.  The point is to reduce Democratic turnout.

Or, put another way:

[pondwater]

Voter fraud is not even close to a problem.  For every ONE person charged (not convicted, merely charged) with fraudulent voting of the kind that would be stopped by photo ID verification at the polling booth, tens of thousands of legitimate voters will be turned away at the polls.  The point is to reduce Democratic turnout.

That's just your opinion or more like liberal propaganda talking points. You still haven't given any actual legal reasons why ID shouldn't be required. All you've claimed is that voting is a right. Again, what does that have to do with it?

[Tenshot13]

Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/

Aliens and Voter Fraud
https://cis.org/Huennekens/Aliens-and-Voter-Fraud

If you don't think illegal immigrants are voting for president, think again
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/440136-if-you-dont-think-illegal-immigrants-are-voting-for-president-think-again

Illegal Voting – Some Uncomfortable Facts and Findings
https://themarketswork.com/2017/06/20/illegal-voting-some-uncomfortable-facts-and-findings/


Presenting some sort of ID will solve this.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

 :All of those articles are of the same bogus report.  If even the rightwing mouthpiece such as the  WSJ won't run the rightwing talking point then you should be suspicious of its veracity.


And voter id laws would do absolutely nothing to stop the such a problem if it existed.  Voter id laws would prevent the mythical problem of someone voting for someone else.  But nothing to prevent the mythical problem of improper registrations.

[CF DolFan]

Voter fraud is not even close to a problem.  For every ONE person charged (not convicted, merely charged) with fraudulent voting of the kind that would be stopped by photo ID verification at the polling booth, tens of thousands of legitimate voters will be turned away at the polls.  The point is to reduce Democratic turnout.

Or, put another way:

I'm sure you are aware that a judge overturned the California assault weapons ban because the right to own a gun is a constitutional right. If requiring an ID to vote was unconstitutional then you'd have nothing to worry about. What's common sense for me isn't so common for you but we do have laws that we agree to abide by when we choose to be an American citizen.

Mass killings have happened with bombs, trucks, knives and even kool aide.  The Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 and wounded hundreds more with fertilizer. It doesn't really matter the weapon if a person is crazy and wants to do it they will find a way.

Basically the US of A guarantees the right to own guns to protect ourselves because the people who wrote our laws had just fought a tyrannical government to gain freedom. No law can be placed to remove that right.  You can agree to accept it or leave for one of those countries you keep referring to that are doing it so much better than us. I keep hearing how socialism is so great yet everyone is running from socialism to come here and live in our dangerous and racist country that is overcome with toxic masculinity. Logically that makes absolutely no sense.

[Spider-Dan]

You still haven't given any actual legal reasons why ID shouldn't be required.

It is an unnecessary burden to voting that does virtually nothing to reduce the already-miniscule amount of voting fraud in the US.

If tens of thousands of legitimate voters will be prevented from casting their ballots due to a lack of approved photo ID, the onus is not on me to prove why photo ID should not be required to vote; the onus is on you to prove why disenfranchising that many legal voters is necessary.  And a couple dozen alleged cases of voter fraud out of hundreds of millions of votes cast is not anywhere close to sufficient justification.