Voter ID = discrimination -- admitted

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/when-politicians-tell-truth-voting-restrictions

Oops, a few politicians told the truth. Damning.

 

[zorq]

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/when-politicians-tell-truth-voting-restrictions

Oops, a few politicians told the truth. Damning.

Despite the persistent denial from those insisting on Voter ID, the truth has always been obvious to everyone involved. It's not at all surprising that some of the Voter ID backers would forget that they're supposed to lie about the real motivations all the time when nobody but the rubes were ever fooled by it.

Republicans, the Grand Ol' Party.

 

[dismal]

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/when-politicians-tell-truth-voting-restrictions

Oops, a few politicians told the truth. Damning.

Despite the persistent denial from those insisting on Voter ID, the truth has always been obvious to everyone involved. It's not at all surprising that some of the Voter ID backers would forget that they're supposed to lie about the real motivations all the time when nobody but the rubes were ever fooled by it.

Republicans, the Grand Ol' Party.

Yeah, the truth is this is the 21st century and most people will think you're a batshit crazy luddite if you think it's some massive struggle for someone to get an ID.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Despite the persistent denial from those insisting on Voter ID, the truth has always been obvious to everyone involved. It's not at all surprising that some of the Voter ID backers would forget that they're supposed to lie about the real motivations all the time when nobody but the rubes were ever fooled by it.

Republicans, the Grand Ol' Party.

Yeah, the truth is this is the 21st century and most people will think you're a batshit crazy luddite if you think it's some massive struggle for someone to get an ID.

Well, not if you don't deliberately put a number of barriers in the way of those people getting an ID to go along with the requirement for an ID. However, there's a reason that the two things always go hand in hand. Voter ID requirements are about voter suppression for poor minorities and nothing more.

 

[dismal]

Yeah, the truth is this is the 21st century and most people will think you're a batshit crazy luddite if you think it's some massive struggle for someone to get an ID.

Well, not if you don't deliberately put a number of barriers in the way of those people getting an ID to go along with the requirement for an ID. However, there's a reason that the two things always go hand in hand. Voter ID requirements are about voter suppression for poor minorities and nothing more.

1) I'm against there being barriers in getting an ID
2) Most of us, including myself, have personally managed the harrowing process of getting an ID. This is why these sorts arguments generally fall flat among the sane.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, not if you don't deliberately put a number of barriers in the way of those people getting an ID to go along with the requirement for an ID. However, there's a reason that the two things always go hand in hand. Voter ID requirements are about voter suppression for poor minorities and nothing more.

1) I'm against there being barriers in getting an ID
2) Most of us, including myself, have personally managed the harrowing process of getting an ID. This is why these sorts arguments generally fall flat among the sane.

Well, #1 means that your position is unrelated to the argument about voter id laws. The reason that people oppose them is because they are constantly paired with the creation of these barriers in order to make getting the id more difficult for certain segments of the population which the current government feels would most likely vote for the other guy. Without that happening, there's not much of an issue with voter id laws - they're simply a pointless solution to a nonexistent problem.

Voter id laws are really kind of like communism. They're fine in theory, but whenever they're applied to the real world, they mess up far more things than they solve.

 

[dismal]

1) I'm against there being barriers in getting an ID
2) Most of us, including myself, have personally managed the harrowing process of getting an ID. This is why these sorts arguments generally fall flat among the sane.

Well, #1 means that your position is unrelated to the argument about voter id laws. The reason that people oppose them is because they are constantly paired with the creation of these barriers in order to make getting the id more difficult for certain segments of the population which the current government feels would most likely vote for the other guy. Without that happening, there's not much of an issue with voter id laws - they're simply a pointless solution to a nonexistent problem.

Voter id laws are really kind of like communism. They're fine in theory, but whenever they're applied to the real world, they mess up far more things than they solve.

Again, the problem you have with convincing people there are exceptional barriers in place that prevent people from getting IDs is their own actual real world experience getting IDs.

I personally do not recall encountering any exceptional barriers in the half dozen or so times I've done it in several different states.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And I'm sure you were in inner city minority communities between 8 and 10 on the third Wednesday of the month when you go those ids. If you were where white people live, of course you didn't have any problems. That's kind of the entirety of the point.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you had universal single payer healthcare, you would have health cards, which is a form of ID. Two problems solved.

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, the truth is this is the 21st century and most people will think you're a batshit crazy luddite if you think it's some massive struggle for someone to get an ID.

Well, not if you don't deliberately put a number of barriers in the way of those people getting an ID to go along with the requirement for an ID. However, there's a reason that the two things always go hand in hand. Voter ID requirements are about voter suppression for poor minorities and nothing more.

Apparently that - the central thesis of the OP - is not something that some people want to admit or discuss. The disproportionate effect is to be glossed over or ignored, for the greater good of mitigating the rampant-though-never-evidenced "problem" of voter fraud.

 

[dismal]

And I'm sure you were in inner city minority communities between 8 and 10 on the third Wednesday of the month when you go those ids. If you were where white people live, of course you didn't have any problems. That's kind of the entirety of the point.

The requirements to get an ID are different for inner city minorities?

Cite?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you had universal single payer healthcare, you would have health cards, which is a form of ID. Two problems solved.

But then you'd not only get negroes voting, but also getting free medical services when they get shot while living their thug lifestyle. Is that the America you want?

- - - Updated - - -

And I'm sure you were in inner city minority communities between 8 and 10 on the third Wednesday of the month when you go those ids. If you were where white people live, of course you didn't have any problems. That's kind of the entirety of the point.

The requirements to get an ID are different for inner city minorities?

Cite?

Dude, it's not your first discussion of this topic. You don't need to dismal up every single thread by pretending to misunderstand what people are saying.

 

[Bronzeage]

Well, not if you don't deliberately put a number of barriers in the way of those people getting an ID to go along with the requirement for an ID. However, there's a reason that the two things always go hand in hand. Voter ID requirements are about voter suppression for poor minorities and nothing more.

1) I'm against there being barriers in getting an ID
2) Most of us, including myself, have personally managed the harrowing process of getting an ID. This is why these sorts arguments generally fall flat among the sane.

There is a legal concept known as "color of law." This is when legal power is used to violate the law, or deprive someone of their rights. While it's easy to argue that getting an ID is not that difficult, the purpose of the law is to reduce the voting roles in certain places.

Our legislators should not be allowed to set voting requirements which intentionally favor the party in power, even if rational arguments can be made to justify it.

A law has to be examined for its effect in the real world, not just the words on the paper.

 

[dismal]

1) I'm against there being barriers in getting an ID
2) Most of us, including myself, have personally managed the harrowing process of getting an ID. This is why these sorts arguments generally fall flat among the sane.

There is a legal concept known as "color of law." This is when legal power is used to violate the law, or deprive someone of their rights. While it's easy to argue that getting an ID is not that difficult, the purpose of the law is to reduce the voting roles in certain places.

Our legislators should not be allowed to set voting requirements which intentionally favor the party in power, even if rational arguments can be made to justify it.

A law has to be examined for its effect in the real world, not just the words on the paper.

I suppose it's possible that sometimes perfectly reasonable and widely popular policies like showing an ID to vote help one party more than another.

This does not mean they are not perfectly reasonable and widely popular.

 

[dismal]

But then you'd not only get negroes voting, but also getting free medical services when they get shot while living their thug lifestyle. Is that the America you want?

- - - Updated - - -

And I'm sure you were in inner city minority communities between 8 and 10 on the third Wednesday of the month when you go those ids. If you were where white people live, of course you didn't have any problems. That's kind of the entirety of the point.

The requirements to get an ID are different for inner city minorities?

Cite?

Dude, it's not your first discussion of this topic. You don't need to dismal up every single thread by pretending to misunderstand what people are saying.

So, to summarize, you do agree that if I did live in the inner city and were a minority the requirements to get an ID would be no different than the modest requirements I have actually personally encountered the many times I have gotten IDs in the several states where I have done it.

 

[Elixir]

So, to summarize, you do agree that if I did live in the inner city and were a minority the requirements to get an ID would be no different than the modest requirements I have actually personally encountered the many times I have gotten IDs in the several states where I have done it.

That's not a summary, it's a leading question.
If you were an inner city minority with little or no education, the requirements might be the same, but your ability to complete them might not.
Is that so hard to comprehend?

 

[dismal]

So, to summarize, you do agree that if I did live in the inner city and were a minority the requirements to get an ID would be no different than the modest requirements I have actually personally encountered the many times I have gotten IDs in the several states where I have done it.

That's not a summary, it's a leading question.
If you were an inner city minority with little or no education, the requirements might be the same, but your ability to complete them might not.
Is that so hard to comprehend?
I

Yes, and most of the people who can't comprehend complex ID-getting processes like "show up at place X with proof of who you are" are Democrats, so we want to be sure they vote.

Even though voting also requires showing up at place X with proof of who you are so they probably won't be able to figure out how to do it.

 

[Elixir]

...the requirements might be the same, but your ability to complete them might not. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Yes

You could have stopped right there. It answers my question. thanks.

 

[marc]

Some seem to forget, or just want to ignore, how this works.

Wisconsin signs law requiring voter ID's. Then proceeds to close 10 DMV offices in Democratic leaning areas, while extending the hours of DMV's in Republican leaning areas. Some people also seem to forget not everyone has a car, and that some people have to work multiple jobs, so finding the time to get to an overburdened office to get an ID can be a big problem.

Oh, and state workers are discouraged from actually informing people about getting IDs or that they are free.


hmmm... This seems to be part of a trend.. not the voter ID trend, but the trend among conservatives not to see anything wrong with some law, policy, or deny some social problem, until it affects them personally.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is a legal concept known as "color of law." This is when legal power is used to violate the law, or deprive someone of their rights. While it's easy to argue that getting an ID is not that difficult, the purpose of the law is to reduce the voting roles in certain places.

Our legislators should not be allowed to set voting requirements which intentionally favor the party in power, even if rational arguments can be made to justify it.

A law has to be examined for its effect in the real world, not just the words on the paper.

I suppose it's possible that sometimes perfectly reasonable and widely popular policies like showing an ID to vote help one party more than another.

This does not mean they are not perfectly reasonable and widely popular.

Why should the party in power be allowed under law to manipulate voter roles in their favor? Is there an impelling argument that this is good for society?