Republicans Always "Narrowly Win"...

[Jolly_Penguin]

And that's not goading at all...

The point is that everyone should have such an ID, we should ensure they do, and we can then use that to safeguard against election fraud. You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

 

[Elixir]

And that's not goading at all...
The point is that everyone should have such an ID, we should ensure they do, and we can then use that to safeguard against election fraud.

Or maybe we should focus our efforts on where voter fraud actually exists?

...use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

They don't care about being shamed. Mendacity and hypocrisy are the in-vogue right wing Badge of Honor.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The point is that everyone should have such an ID, we should ensure they do, and we can then use that to safeguard against election fraud. You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

You're missing the point. The requirement is not to ensure against voter fraud, which almost never happens. For a small percentage of Americans, acquiring the proper form of acceptable ID is problematic for a number of different reasons. But that small percentage--around 11%--are almost all Democrats and that, of course, is why Republicans push the legislation.

Instead of making it easier to vote, it makes it harder and only then for about twenty million would-be voters, almost all Democrats. That's more than enough to sway every election. As the piece linked to above notes:

A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points, which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state.

In regard to calling a Republican a "hypocrite" when has that ever meant anything to them? You might as well have said, "You can call them poopy heads and it will magically change everything."

 

[ZiprHead]

As I wrote above, that sounds like a much bigger problem than just voting. It should be sorted out regardless of voting.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Canada has saved us again.

And that's not goading at all...

The point is that everyone should have such an ID, we should ensure they do, and we can then use that to safeguard against election fraud. You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

You act as if your original comment was somehow useful or helpful when it was actually simplistic and a waste of anyone's time that read it. Then you get pissy when called out on it.

You act like you're an expert on U.S. politics yet you have to constantly be shown the error of your thinking, as Koy just rightly showed you above.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The point is that everyone should have such an ID, we should ensure they do, and we can then use that to safeguard against election fraud. You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

You're missing the point. The requirement is not to ensure against voter fraud, which almost never happens. For a small percentage of Americans, acquiring the proper form of acceptable ID is problematic for a number of different reasons. But that small percentage--around 11%--are almost all Democrats and that, of course, is why Republicans push the legislation.

Do you read what you respond to? I don't care why you think Republicans want voter ID to be required to vote. That is irrelevant. I also don't care why you think ID is hard to get for some more than others, when I just said we should help everyone to make sure everyone has it. Voting isn't the only reason they should need it. But once you all have it then it makes sense to use it for voting.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And that's not goading at all...

The point is that everyone should have such an ID, we should ensure they do, and we can then use that to safeguard against election fraud. You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

You act as if your original comment was somehow useful or helpful when it was actually simplistic and a waste of anyone's time that read it. Then you get pissy when called out on it.

You act like you're an expert on U.S. politics yet you have to constantly be shown the error of your thinking, as Koy just rightly showed you above.

You continue to demonstrate belligerence and idiocy in each post you write.

I have never claimed to be an expert in anything.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The point is that everyone should have such an ID, we should ensure they do, and we can then use that to safeguard against election fraud. You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

You're missing the point. The requirement is not to ensure against voter fraud, which almost never happens. For a small percentage of Americans, acquiring the proper form of acceptable ID is problematic for a number of different reasons. But that small percentage--around 11%--are almost all Democrats and that, of course, is why Republicans push the legislation.

Do you read what you respond to?

Always.

I don't care why you think Republicans want voter ID to be required to vote.

Who gives a shit what you care about?

I also don't care why you think ID is hard to get for some more than others, when I just said we should help everyone to make sure everyone has it.

Irony. Big fan. What you ACTUALLY wrote was:

You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Irony. Big fan. What you ACTUALLY wrote was:

You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

Which remains true.

 

[ZiprHead]

And that's not goading at all...

The point is that everyone should have such an ID, we should ensure they do, and we can then use that to safeguard against election fraud. You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

You act as if your original comment was somehow useful or helpful when it was actually simplistic and a waste of anyone's time that read it. Then you get pissy when called out on it.

You act like you're an expert on U.S. politics yet you have to constantly be shown the error of your thinking, as Koy just rightly showed you above.

You continue to demonstrate belligerence and idiocy in each post you write.

I have never claimed to be an expert in anything.

I never claimed you were an expert, I said you act like one.

You above doubled down on your looney idea about exposing hypocrisy of the US Republicans as if that would actually work. That's exactly the sort of reasoning and understanding of US politics you fall so far short on.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have never claimed to be an expert in anything.

I never claimed you were an expert, I said you act like one.

Nope. No more than you or anyone else giving an opinion does. You simply disagree and that twists how you read what I write. As I said, belligerence and idiocy.

You above doubled down on your looney idea about exposing hypocrisy of the US Republicans as if that would actually work.

It works frequently in the minds of many. Just not in the minds of many of the Republicans themselves. But even in some of them. You may be unreasonable, and so may many Republicans, but projecting that on everyone is a fallacy.

 

[ZiprHead]

Nope. No more than you or anyone else giving an opinion does. You simply disagree and that twists how you read what I write. As I said, belligerence and idiocy.

You above doubled down on your looney idea about exposing hypocrisy of the US Republicans as if that would actually work.

It works frequently in the minds of many. Just not in the minds of many of the Republicans themselves. But even in some of them. You may be unreasonable, and so may many Republicans, but projecting that on everyone is a fallacy.

[insult removed]You just can't stop [removed] strawmanning me. I clearly said US Republicans, not everyone. The only fallacy is yours.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

[consistency edit] You just can't stop [consistency] strawmanning me. I clearly said US Republicans, not everyone. The only fallacy is yours.

And I didn't. And you were attacking what I wrote and calling it wrong. The fallacy [consistency] is yours. If you only meant Republicans then that doesn't address what I actually wrote. Nor would your point apply to all Republicans. Your snide sniping fails on all levels.

 

[ZiprHead]

[consistency] You just can't stop [cnsistency] strawmanning me. I clearly said US Republicans, not everyone. The only fallacy is yours.

And I didn't. And you were attacking what I wrote and calling it wrong. The fallacy [consistency] is yours. If you only meant Republicans then that doesn't address what I actually wrote. Nor would your point apply to all Republicans. Your snide sniping fails on all levels.

Of course it directly addresses what you wrote.

You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

^^^Your words that started this whole kerfuffle.^^^ Or did you mean some other republicans, not US Republicans.?

Nor would your point apply to all Republicans.

Okay, the vast majority of Republicans. Does that satisfy your useless nitpic?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Of course it directly addresses what you wrote.

You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

^^^Your words that started this whole kerfuffle.^^^ Or did you mean some other republicans, not US Republicans.?

Perhaps like me English isn't your first language? Look up what the word "or" means. Exposing the Republicans as hypocrites DOES have an effect on many, just not on many of the Republicans. I wrote that before too. And your useless belligerent sniping accomplished nothing but derailing the thread. Well done.

 

[Derec]

Yes, we have not heard the last from Abrams. I listened to a speech that she made in a mostly empty city hall (broadcasted on C-span). She is a great speaker, very motivational. She's much more moderate that her foes portray. She will be back.

I don't think so either. But she really needs to set her sights on something like Senate or a House seat and should not be considered for VP just yet. Especially by one of the septuagenarians where the likelihood of Veep taking over is so much greater.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Irony. Big fan. What you ACTUALLY wrote was:

You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

Which remains true.

It never was "true" to begin with, so I'm not sure how it could "remain" so. You claimed:

The point is that everyone should have such an ID, we should ensure they do, and we can then use that to safeguard against election fraud.

First of all, there is no election fraud. At least, not from the people we're talking about. So, there is nothing to "safeguard against" and thus there is no need to require that everyone have a particular ID so that they can vote. Had you bothered to spend ten seconds searching (or just clicked on the link I provided), you would have discovered that, not only are such IDs unnecessary, for the 11% we're talking about there can be excessive costs involved and/or other toils--particularly for disabled individuals and the elderly--that make getting one extremely difficult.

Second, and aside from those facts, Republicans do not actually want people to have such IDs no matter how much they claim they do, so using their own arguments for voter IDs against them won't do any good, nor would exposing them as "hypocrites" work either.

So you have no point. We cannot use the idea that everyone "should have such an ID" or that we "should ensure they do" or that we can "use that to safeguard against election fraud" to "convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs" or we will "expose them as hypocrites if they won't."

None of that would work nor is it "true" nor is it relevant, etc.

Republicans came up with requiring voter IDs precisely because they knew they could essentially booby-trap the legislation to make it too costly and too difficult for primarily poor, elderly, minority and/or disabled people to get them--which they also know typically vote Democrat--for the purpose of suppressing their votes.

So why would anyone who did such a thing give a shit if Dems were to try to strongarm them into ensuring people get something they don't need in the first place?

 

[ZiprHead]

Of course it directly addresses what you wrote.

You can use this point to convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs, or expose them as hypocrites if they won't.

^^^Your words that started this whole kerfuffle.^^^ Or did you mean some other republicans, not US Republicans.?

Perhaps like me English isn't your first language? Look up what the word "or" means. Exposing the Republicans as hypocrites DOES have an effect on many, just not on many of the Republicans. I wrote that before too. And your useless belligerent sniping accomplished nothing but derailing the thread. Well done.

And again, doubling down. Nowhere in your statement does it say anything about anyone else, just republicans. I don't see how anyone can read it otherwise.

Instead of wasting everyone's time, why don't you just say "Sorry, I worded that poorly. My bad. This is what I meant to say." Then do so. But no, you have to [want] people who take your words for what they are.

Since english isn't your first language, what is your first language?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The point is that everyone should have such an ID, we should ensure they do, and we can then use that to safeguard against election fraud.

First of all, there is no election fraud. At least, not from the people we're talking about. So, there is nothing to "safeguard against" and thus there is no need to require that everyone have a particular ID so that they can vote.

This is an incredibly weak argument. Nobody has ever broken into or entered my car without my permission. Does that mean I shouldn't lock it? No. And you don't know if election fraud happens. If people get away with it, you wouldn't count that.

Had you bothered to spend ten seconds searching (or just clicked on the link I provided), you would have discovered that, not only are such IDs unnecessary, for the 11% we're talking about there can be excessive costs involved and/or other toils--particularly for disabled individuals and the elderly--that make getting one extremely difficult.

Your failure to read what you respond to continues to impress me. I address this in the very text you quoted above. That people have barriers to getting ID should be fixed. And for more reasons that for voting.

Second, and aside from those facts, Republicans do not actually want people to have such IDs no matter how much they claim they do

You can't read minds. Much less speak for all Republicans.

so using their own arguments for voter IDs against them won't do any good, nor would exposing them as "hypocrites" work either.

Sure it will. It does. It has. To plenty of people. Just not many hardline Republicans.

We cannot use the idea that everyone "should have such an ID" or that we "should ensure they do" or that we can "use that to safeguard against election fraud" to "convince Republicans to help ensure people have IDs" or we will "expose them as hypocrites if they won't."

Yes you can.

Republicans came up with requiring voter IDs precisely because they knew they could essentially booby-trap the legislation to make it too costly and too difficult for primarily poor, elderly, minority and/or disabled people to get them--which they also know typically vote Democrat--for the purpose of suppressing their votes.

This is like when Republicans argue that Democrats want illegal immigrants to get a path to citizenship just because they are more likely to vote Democrat.

So why would anyone who did such a thing give a shit if Dems were to try to strongarm them into ensuring people get something they don't need in the first place?

They should have it in the first place. Not just for voting.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Perhaps like me English isn't your first language? Look up what the word "or" means. Exposing the Republicans as hypocrites DOES have an effect on many, just not on many of the Republicans. I wrote that before too. And your useless belligerent sniping accomplished nothing but derailing the thread. Well done.

And again, doubling down. Nowhere in your statement does it say anything about anyone else, just republicans. I don't see how anyone can read it otherwise.

I think you fail to see how that applies to anyone else because you choose to. Because you have backed yourself into a corner. But just in case you really cant see it, exposing somebody as a hypocrite doesn't have to mean exposing that to themselves. It could mean (and does mean) exposing them (here Republicans) as a hypocrite to everyone (not just Republicans).

Instead of wasting everyone's time, why don't you just say "Sorry, I worded that poorly. My bad. This is what I meant to say." Then do so. But no, you have to troll people who take your words for what they are.

You are the one who decided to reply to what I wrote with a snide and stupid remark and derail the thread. Perhaps it is you who should apologize to everyone. Set an example for the group, Mr. Admin.

Since english isn't your first language, what is your first language?

Tagalog was my first language. What was yours?

 

[Rhea]

Your failure to read what you respond to continues to impress me. I address this in the very text you quoted above. That people have barriers to getting ID should be fixed. And for more reasons that for voting.

Here’s what you keep failing to prioritize:

That NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON should be prevented from voting while this is enacted.
So however easy or hard it is - irrelevant to whether it affects voting. Until IDs are free, easy and ubiquitous, NO EFFECT ON VOTING RIGHTS.

Anything else is a poll tax - and unconstitutional.

And that’s why the Americans keep wondering why you are so gung ho to talk about getting IDs instrad of preserving voter rights.