New poll shows 78 percent are in favor of stronger voter ID laws

[Sunstroke]

Not really. 

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."

[Dave Gray]

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.

[Dolphster]

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 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. 

[Dave Gray]

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

[Dolphster]

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."

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.  

[Dolphster]

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

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. 

[pondwater]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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!

[Spider-Dan]

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?

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?

Now, feel free to tell me why we should restrict the ability of law-abiding adult American citizens their 2nd amendment rights?

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.

[Dolphster]

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 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. 

[pondwater]

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.

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.

I believe it is morally sound to work within the law to eliminate as many firearms as possible from the streets of America.

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?

Do YOU believe that it is morally sound to work within the law to remove legally entitled voters from the voting rolls?

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?

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.

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?

[Spider-Dan]

How is it morally sound if legally entitled citizens have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own legal firearms?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

[pondwater]

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).

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

[masterfins]

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.




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.

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.

[Fau Teixeira]

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.