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

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

Are you saying that 2A doesn't apply to everyone, only militia?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[Dolphster]

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.

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.   

[pondwater]

2A obviously doesn't apply to everyone.  You can verify this inside of any prison.

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?

A well-regulated militia is merely one example of who the 2A definitely DOES apply to.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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)

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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?

[Spider-Dan]

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 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.

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.

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) is anywhere near enough to implement the scope of the kind of program I'd like to see, though.

[Dolphster]

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) 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 

[ArtieChokePhin]

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) is anywhere near enough to implement the scope of the kind of program I'd like to see, though.

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. 

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Dolphster]

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.  

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.

[Tenshot13]

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.

[ArtieChokePhin]

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.

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.   

[pondwater]

If you're saying that legally barring people from owning a firearm is still permissible under the 2A,

Yes, that's already been established.

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.

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?

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),

Again, voting for president is not a constitutional right.  Here's yet another more recent article from business insider

states are free to appoint their slates of electors as they choose — they just have to do so by the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. While all 50 states hold elections to appoint their electors, the Constitution doesn't require them to do so. And there's no constitutional right to vote for president.

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. 
 

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

[Dolphster]

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.

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). 

[Dave Gray]

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.