(01-23-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 07:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 02:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Dems want as many illegals here as they can get. Every policy is meant to maximize illegals. Why would Dems want them so badly?
Voters, now and in the future.
Simple. All the other reasons are just deflections.

Precisely.

The more poor, uneducated people you can bring in, the better, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you will keep 'em voting democrat," works.

I mean, it’s also pretty simple to suggest the only reason Republicans want to build a wall on the southern border is because they’re racist and scared of people of color.

Oh, let me do voter ID laws next!

It is also far simpler to suggest that if you have a fing law, you may wish to enforce it. Lost that one in the mix, did you? Much as you toss aside the amazingly simple proposition that a sovereign has the right, and the obligation, to define both borders and border policy.

As for voter ID laws, one simple reason is that the security of the voting base is paramount in a republic. I will surmise that that will be lost in your next view.

So Occam's razor time:

Democrats want to increase voter base v. spontaneous 'free range' open border theory en masse by Democrats.

Raging racism en masse vs a realization of the right and obligation of a sovereign to define border policy

Raging racism en masse vs the idea of securing the voting right in a republic and representative democracy.

Do those comparisons sound right to you?

Now do tell, going down the list, which is the better answer to each under Occam's razor?

(01-23-2019 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 07:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 02:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Dems want as many illegals here as they can get. Every policy is meant to maximize illegals. Why would Dems want them so badly?
Voters, now and in the future.
Simple. All the other reasons are just deflections.

Precisely.

The more poor, uneducated people you can bring in, the better, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you will keep 'em voting democrat," works.

I mean, it’s also pretty simple to suggest the only reason Republicans want to build a wall on the southern border is because they’re racist and scared of people of color.

Oh, let me do voter ID laws next!

Actually, voter ID laws are a good example of the left wanting barriers to illegals voting removed. There is no good reason voter ID would,discriminate against any lawful citizen:of any race. This come one, come all attitude is one that wants non citizens to vote.

So bring it on,Lad.

I think the Democratic argument is that voter ID laws somehow deter eligible, mostly Democrat-leaning voters from voting. I can certainly see how some voters might say "Heck, if I have to show an ID, it's not worth voting." Even if that's true, it's not clear why the group that would react that way would be disproportionately Democratic. But everyone seems convinced that it would be -- otherwise neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would care so much about it.

It's less that and more that it can create barriers for people who are low income or low mobility since you would be required to procure an ID from the DMV. If the voter ID laws were coupled with a program that say, expanded the number of DMVs, their hours, and transportation to them, then I think you would see a lot fewer of those on the left be concerned about them.

I could care less who these people vote for, I think we should be doing everything we can to make it easier for US citizens to vote, and removing as many hurdles and obstacles as possible.

(01-23-2019 11:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 07:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 02:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Dems want as many illegals here as they can get. Every policy is meant to maximize illegals. Why would Dems want them so badly?
Voters, now and in the future.
Simple. All the other reasons are just deflections.

Precisely.

The more poor, uneducated people you can bring in, the better, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you will keep 'em voting democrat," works.

I mean, it’s also pretty simple to suggest the only reason Republicans want to build a wall on the southern border is because they’re racist and scared of people of color.

Oh, let me do voter ID laws next!

It is also far simpler to suggest that if you have a fing law, you may wish to enforce it. Lost that one in the mix, did you? Much as you toss aside the amazingly simple proposition that a sovereign has the right, and the obligation, to define both borders and border policy.

As for voter ID laws, one simple reason is that the security of the voting base is paramount in a republic. I will surmise that that will be lost in your next view.

So Occam's razor time:

Democrats want to increase voter base v. spontaneous 'free range' open border theory en masse by Democrats.

Raging racism en masse vs a realization of the right and obligation of a sovereign to define border policy

Raging racism en masse vs the idea of securing the voting right in a republic and representative democracy.

Do those comparisons sound right to you?

Now do tell, going down the list, which is the better answer to each under Occam's razor?

It's pretty easy to suggest that the racism card is a lot simpler. Me no like brown people = border fence on the southern border, but not on the northern one.

See why I keep saying this argument about the motivations of an entire group is a bad one to have?

Yet the stunningly obvious, apparent (and for me explicit) motivation of one particular group you studiously wish to avoid. At all costs.
Trust me, I got that. Loud and clear. Glad to know the Democrats are a weirdly odd and statistically wholly improbable rabble of spontaneous 'loose border' or 'zero border' proponents for absolutely *no* fing reason whatsoever. Amazing those odds....

(01-23-2019 11:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 07:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Precisely.

The more poor, uneducated people you can bring in, the better, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you will keep 'em voting democrat," works.

I mean, it’s also pretty simple to suggest the only reason Republicans want to build a wall on the southern border is because they’re racist and scared of people of color.

Oh, let me do voter ID laws next!

Actually, voter ID laws are a good example of the left wanting barriers to illegals voting removed. There is no good reason voter ID would,discriminate against any lawful citizen:of any race. This come one, come all attitude is one that wants non citizens to vote.

So bring it on,Lad.

I think the Democratic argument is that voter ID laws somehow deter eligible, mostly Democrat-leaning voters from voting. I can certainly see how some voters might say "Heck, if I have to show an ID, it's not worth voting." Even if that's true, it's not clear why the group that would react that way would be disproportionately Democratic. But everyone seems convinced that it would be -- otherwise neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would care so much about it.

It's less that and more that it can create barriers for people who are low income or low mobility since you would be required to procure an ID from the DMV. If the voter ID laws were coupled with a program that say, expanded the number of DMVs, their hours, and transportation to them, then I think you would see a lot fewer of those on the left be concerned about them.

I could care less who these people vote for, I think we should be doing everything we can to make it easier for US citizens to vote, and removing as many hurdles and obstacles as possible.

That's probably true for you. But I guarantee that if the voting tendencies of those allegedly disfranchised by voter ID laws were reversed, the positions of the parties toward those laws would be reversed also.

Lad, I am currently at a poker tournament,. To enter, one must present ID.

Blacks and women are very underrepresented compared to national demographics. Aliberal such as yourself could say that requiring ID not only discourages blacks and women from participation, but that is the reason ID is required - to keep poker white and male.

BS, of course.

ID is required for a lot of reasons, in a lot of venues. Cash a check, drive a car,get married, join the military. You wouldn’t dream of saying the purpose of ID is to discourage minorities from marrying, would you.

As for the southern vs, northern argument you present, the southern border is where the majority of problems are. It is called triage - handle the big problems first. We have what,20countries south of us, one north? And the one north of us is one that you liberals hold up as an example of a place where they doing things right. I do agree we need to strengthen both borders, but first things first.

As for availability, sure some places have better availability than others. Somewhere is west Texas, there is a ranch hand named Javier who is 100 miles from a DMV . Tough. He is also 100 miles from a doctor, a dentist,a tax preparer, a grocery store.. my guess is when he makes his once a month trip to town, he goes to all the places he needs to go. DMV no different.

Lad, I am currently at a poker tournament,. To enter, one must present ID.

Blacks and women are very underrepresented compared to national demographics. Aliberal such as yourself could say that requiring ID not only discourages blacks and women from participation, but that is the reason ID is required - to keep poker white and male.

BS, of course.

ID is required for a lot of reasons, in a lot of venues. Cash a check, drive a car,get married, join the military. You wouldn’t dream of saying the purpose of ID is to discourage minorities from marrying, would you.

As for the southern vs, northern argument you present, the southern border is where the majority of problems are. It is called triage - handle the big problems first. We have what,20countries south of us, one north? And the one north of us is one that you liberals hold up as an example of a place where they doing things right. I do agree we need to strengthen both borders, but first things first.

As for availability, sure some places have better availability than others. Somewhere is west Texas, there is a ranch hand named Javier who is 100 miles from a DMV . Tough. He is also 100 miles from a doctor, a dentist,a tax preparer, a grocery store.. my guess is when he makes his once a month trip to town, he goes to all the places he needs to go. DMV no different.

(01-23-2019 12:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, I am currently at a poker tournament,. To enter, one must present ID.

Blacks and women are very underrepresented compared to national demographics. Aliberal such as yourself could say that requiring ID not only discourages blacks and women from participation, but that is the reason ID is required - to keep poker white and male.

BS, of course.

ID is required for a lot of reasons, in a lot of venues. Cash a check, drive a car,get married, join the military. You wouldn’t dream of saying the purpose of ID is to discourage minorities from marrying, would you.

As for the southern vs, northern argument you present, the southern border is where the majority of problems are. It is called triage - handle the big problems first. We have what,20countries south of us, one north? And the one north of us is one that you liberals hold up as an example of a place where they doing things right. I do agree we need to strengthen both borders, but first things first.

As for availability, sure some places have better availability than others. Somewhere is west Texas, there is a ranch hand named Javier who is 100 miles from a DMV . Tough. He is also 100 miles from a doctor, a dentist,a tax preparer, a grocery store.. my guess is when he makes his once a month trip to town, he goes to all the places he needs to go. DMV no different.

I might be a little less scornful of the idea of the idea of 'racism == southern border' that lad holds up as a possibility if the illegal traffic through that northern border rose above the 165 apprehensions for the entirety of 2017; vs the more than 3 *orders of magnitude* more for the southern border.

Funny thing -- facts.

So if one who is dumb enough to posit that mass spontaneous racism is a good answer to that Occam's razor position, and uses the nothern v. southern border as an additional factoid -- they can certainly do so. Not saying that lad supports that position, but his counterexample of a mass view of that is just farcically inane.

(01-23-2019 12:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 11:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, it’s also pretty simple to suggest the only reason Republicans want to build a wall on the southern border is because they’re racist and scared of people of color.

Oh, let me do voter ID laws next!

Actually, voter ID laws are a good example of the left wanting barriers to illegals voting removed. There is no good reason voter ID would,discriminate against any lawful citizen:of any race. This come one, come all attitude is one that wants non citizens to vote.

So bring it on,Lad.

I think the Democratic argument is that voter ID laws somehow deter eligible, mostly Democrat-leaning voters from voting. I can certainly see how some voters might say "Heck, if I have to show an ID, it's not worth voting." Even if that's true, it's not clear why the group that would react that way would be disproportionately Democratic. But everyone seems convinced that it would be -- otherwise neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would care so much about it.

It's less that and more that it can create barriers for people who are low income or low mobility since you would be required to procure an ID from the DMV. If the voter ID laws were coupled with a program that say, expanded the number of DMVs, their hours, and transportation to them, then I think you would see a lot fewer of those on the left be concerned about them.

I could care less who these people vote for, I think we should be doing everything we can to make it easier for US citizens to vote, and removing as many hurdles and obstacles as possible.

That's probably true for you. But I guarantee that if the voting tendencies of those allegedly disfranchised by voter ID laws were reversed, the positions of the parties toward those laws would be reversed also.

I don't think that's 100% true, but that's all gut feeling.

Dems definitely support federal assistance to rural communities that are overwhelmingly republican (like the Farm Bill) and generally expanding government services like rural hospitals.

(01-23-2019 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet the stunningly obvious, apparent (and for me explicit) motivation of one particular group you studiously wish to avoid. At all costs.
Trust me, I got that. Loud and clear. Glad to know the Democrats are a weirdly odd and statistically wholly improbable rabble of spontaneous 'loose border' or 'zero border' proponents for absolutely *no* fing reason whatsoever. Amazing those odds....

First, Democrats are not all for an open border, or even a loose border.

But for those that are (because they definitely exist) they are that way for a reason, no doubt. It's that trying to argue what that reason is, is stupid.

(01-23-2019 12:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, I am currently at a poker tournament,. To enter, one must present ID.

Blacks and women are very underrepresented compared to national demographics. Aliberal such as yourself could say that requiring ID not only discourages blacks and women from participation, but that is the reason ID is required - to keep poker white and male.

BS, of course.

ID is required for a lot of reasons, in a lot of venues. Cash a check, drive a car,get married, join the military. You wouldn’t dream of saying the purpose of ID is to discourage minorities from marrying, would you.

As for the southern vs, northern argument you present, the southern border is where the majority of problems are. It is called triage - handle the big problems first. We have what,20countries south of us, one north? And the one north of us is one that you liberals hold up as an example of a place where they doing things right. I do agree we need to strengthen both borders, but first things first.

As for availability, sure some places have better availability than others. Somewhere is west Texas, there is a ranch hand named Javier who is 100 miles from a DMV . Tough. He is also 100 miles from a doctor, a dentist,a tax preparer, a grocery store.. my guess is when he makes his once a month trip to town, he goes to all the places he needs to go. DMV no different.

Which amendment indicates that cashing a check or driving a car is a constitutional right?

Again, if we want to pass voter ID laws, we need to pass legislation that makes it as simple and easy as possible for someone to get said ID. Instead, states are very often cutting down on the number of DMVs where one can get an ID, for whatever reasons, thus making it harder to vote.

If we deem it is necessary to have voter ID laws, we should also deem it necessary to provide support for all citizens to get those IDs.

You're against this position?

(01-23-2019 04:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet the stunningly obvious, apparent (and for me explicit) motivation of one particular group you studiously wish to avoid. At all costs.
Trust me, I got that. Loud and clear. Glad to know the Democrats are a weirdly odd and statistically wholly improbable rabble of spontaneous 'loose border' or 'zero border' proponents for absolutely *no* fing reason whatsoever. Amazing those odds....

First, Democrats are not all for an open border, or even a loose border.

Like hell they’re not. Of course they are. They see a steady stream of illegals as a steady stream of future democrat voters—at least their kids if not they themselves.

If you want to argue otherwise, fine, start by listing drmocrat-led initiatives to reduce or eliminate illegal immigration. And be advised that, right off the bat, you’re staring out with sanctuary cities and catch and release and abolish ICE on the other side of the ledger.

I know democrats—and you—deny it, but actions speak louder than words.

Quote:But for those that are (because they definitely exist) they are that way for a reason, no doubt. It's that trying to argue what that reason is, is stupid.

And that reason is that a steady stream of illegals appears to them as a steady stream of future democrat votes. “ Keep ‘em dumb, keep ‘em poor, keep ‘em dependent on handouts, and you will keep ‘em voting democrat.”

(01-23-2019 04:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 12:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, I am currently at a poker tournament,. To enter, one must present ID.

Blacks and women are very underrepresented compared to national demographics. Aliberal such as yourself could say that requiring ID not only discourages blacks and women from participation, but that is the reason ID is required - to keep poker white and male.

BS, of course.

ID is required for a lot of reasons, in a lot of venues. Cash a check, drive a car,get married, join the military. You wouldn’t dream of saying the purpose of ID is to discourage minorities from marrying, would you.

As for the southern vs, northern argument you present, the southern border is where the majority of problems are. It is called triage - handle the big problems first. We have what,20countries south of us, one north? And the one north of us is one that you liberals hold up as an example of a place where they doing things right. I do agree we need to strengthen both borders, but first things first.

As for availability, sure some places have better availability than others. Somewhere is west Texas, there is a ranch hand named Javier who is 100 miles from a DMV . Tough. He is also 100 miles from a doctor, a dentist,a tax preparer, a grocery store.. my guess is when he makes his once a month trip to town, he goes to all the places he needs to go. DMV no different.

Which amendment indicates that cashing a check or driving a car is a constitutional right?

Again, if we want to pass voter ID laws, we need to pass legislation that makes it as simple and easy as possible for someone to get said ID. Instead, states are very often cutting down on the number of DMVs where one can get an ID, for whatever reasons, thus making it harder to vote.

If we deem it is necessary to have voter ID laws, we should also deem it necessary to provide support for all citizens to get those IDs.

You're against this position?

I am against taking it to unreasonable lengths. Must we have a DMV on every street corner to satisfy you? in my community,,we have one place to go to get DLs, and no bus service. Yet everybody who wants an ID has one. You are making up a crisis that does not exist to support blind opposition to the entirely reasonable practice of showing you are eligible to vote.

All those things you list as not being the subject of a Constitutional amendment fall under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(01-23-2019 05:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Like hell they’re not. Of course they are. They see a steady stream of illegals as a steady stream of future democrat voters—at least their kids if not they themselves.

If you want to argue otherwise, fine, start by listing drmocrat-led initiatives to reduce or eliminate illegal immigration. And be advised that, right off the bat, you’re staring out with sanctuary cities and catch and release and abolish ICE on the other side of the ledger.

I know democrats—and you—deny it, but actions speak louder than words.

You need to stop speaking for all Democrats. No one appointed you our spokesman. There's a difference between stating an opinion, and stating an opinion and passing it off as a fact.

I don't see illegal immigrants as future Democratic voters. They can vote for whomever they want to once they become citizens. Or not vote at all.

And I'm not for an open border. We really haven't had one in almost 100 years (since 1924). So why would we go back on 100 years of history?

I'm not sure of the current numbers, but as of January 2009, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that it had more than 580 miles (930 km) of barriers in place between Mexico and the U.S.. The total length of the continental border is 1,954 miles (3,145 km).

I'm fine if Trump wants to use the 5.7 billion the House is offering him to ramp up a few more barriers. I'd prefer he not call it a wall because it's certainly not going to be a continuous wall.

(01-23-2019 06:57 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  You need to stop speaking for all Democrats. No one appointed you our spokesman.

I'm not speaking for democrats, I'm describing them. Their actions--sanctuary cities, catch-and-release, abolish ICE--speak louder than their words.

Quote:I don't see illegal immigrants as future Democratic voters. They can vote for whomever they want to once they become citizens. Or not vote at all.

Come on, don't play stupid. I know you're smarter than that. Both you and I and anyone else who studies the issue knows that if illegals are given citizenship or the vote, they will vote predominantly democrat. Pretending that you don't know that is really unbecoming.

Quote:And I'm not for an open border.

So what do you favor? It's easy to say, "I'm not for X." It's harder to describe what you favor instead, particularly when what you favor cannot turn out be de facto what you just said you do not favor.

Quote:We really haven't had one in almost 100 years (since 1924). So why would we go back on 100 years of history?
I'm not sure of the current numbers, but as of January 2009, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that it had more than 580 miles (930 km) of barriers in place between Mexico and the U.S.. The total length of the continental border is 1,954 miles (3,145 km).
I'm fine if Trump wants to use the 5.7 billion the House is offering him to ramp up a few more barriers. I'd prefer he not call it a wall because it's certainly not going to be a continuous wall.

I've made no secret that I'm no fan of Trump's Wall. But in case you missed it, I will repeat it. The Wall is not the way to solve the problem. Will Hurd's SMART Wall is a much more effective and cost-effective way to deal with the problem the Trump is purporting to address. But we need way more than that. We need a rational merit-based legal immigration policy to increase legal immigration. We need an end to catch-and-release and sanctuary cities. We need some disposition for those already here illegally--I favor permanent guest worker ("red card") status with no path to citizenship unless they go back and do it right, or serve a full hitch in the military with an honorable discharge. I have never understood why we don't extend citizenship to anybody who serves in the military. We need some process for dealing with the source of most of out illegals--those who come here legally and overstay their visas.

(01-23-2019 05:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 04:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 12:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, I am currently at a poker tournament,. To enter, one must present ID.

Blacks and women are very underrepresented compared to national demographics. Aliberal such as yourself could say that requiring ID not only discourages blacks and women from participation, but that is the reason ID is required - to keep poker white and male.

BS, of course.

ID is required for a lot of reasons, in a lot of venues. Cash a check, drive a car,get married, join the military. You wouldn’t dream of saying the purpose of ID is to discourage minorities from marrying, would you.

As for the southern vs, northern argument you present, the southern border is where the majority of problems are. It is called triage - handle the big problems first. We have what,20countries south of us, one north? And the one north of us is one that you liberals hold up as an example of a place where they doing things right. I do agree we need to strengthen both borders, but first things first.

As for availability, sure some places have better availability than others. Somewhere is west Texas, there is a ranch hand named Javier who is 100 miles from a DMV . Tough. He is also 100 miles from a doctor, a dentist,a tax preparer, a grocery store.. my guess is when he makes his once a month trip to town, he goes to all the places he needs to go. DMV no different.

Which amendment indicates that cashing a check or driving a car is a constitutional right?

Again, if we want to pass voter ID laws, we need to pass legislation that makes it as simple and easy as possible for someone to get said ID. Instead, states are very often cutting down on the number of DMVs where one can get an ID, for whatever reasons, thus making it harder to vote.

If we deem it is necessary to have voter ID laws, we should also deem it necessary to provide support for all citizens to get those IDs.

You're against this position?

I am against taking it to unreasonable lengths. Must we have a DMV on every street corner to satisfy you? in my community,,we have one place to go to get DLs, and no bus service. Yet everybody who wants an ID has one. You are making up a crisis that does not exist to support blind opposition to the entirely reasonable practice of showing you are eligible to vote.

All those things you list as not being the subject of a Constitutional amendment fall under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I’m not making up a crisis. I’m advocating for a position that attempts to mitigate any potential reduction in voters due to a potential increase in hardships. It isn’t about number of DMVs, but about not increasing the barrier to vote for any eligible voters, regardless of where they live, how mobile they are, and so on.

Making up a crisis is saying that voter fraud is rampant and a voter ID law is needed to combat it...

(01-23-2019 08:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 05:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 04:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 12:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, I am currently at a poker tournament,. To enter, one must present ID.

Blacks and women are very underrepresented compared to national demographics. Aliberal such as yourself could say that requiring ID not only discourages blacks and women from participation, but that is the reason ID is required - to keep poker white and male.

BS, of course.

ID is required for a lot of reasons, in a lot of venues. Cash a check, drive a car,get married, join the military. You wouldn’t dream of saying the purpose of ID is to discourage minorities from marrying, would you.

As for the southern vs, northern argument you present, the southern border is where the majority of problems are. It is called triage - handle the big problems first. We have what,20countries south of us, one north? And the one north of us is one that you liberals hold up as an example of a place where they doing things right. I do agree we need to strengthen both borders, but first things first.

As for availability, sure some places have better availability than others. Somewhere is west Texas, there is a ranch hand named Javier who is 100 miles from a DMV . Tough. He is also 100 miles from a doctor, a dentist,a tax preparer, a grocery store.. my guess is when he makes his once a month trip to town, he goes to all the places he needs to go. DMV no different.

Which amendment indicates that cashing a check or driving a car is a constitutional right?

Again, if we want to pass voter ID laws, we need to pass legislation that makes it as simple and easy as possible for someone to get said ID. Instead, states are very often cutting down on the number of DMVs where one can get an ID, for whatever reasons, thus making it harder to vote.

If we deem it is necessary to have voter ID laws, we should also deem it necessary to provide support for all citizens to get those IDs.

You're against this position?

I am against taking it to unreasonable lengths. Must we have a DMV on every street corner to satisfy you? in my community,,we have one place to go to get DLs, and no bus service. Yet everybody who wants an ID has one. You are making up a crisis that does not exist to support blind opposition to the entirely reasonable practice of showing you are eligible to vote.

All those things you list as not being the subject of a Constitutional amendment fall under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I’m not making up a crisis. I’m advocating for a position that attempts to mitigate any potential reduction in voters due to a potential increase in hardships. It isn’t about number of DMVs, but about not increasing the barrier to vote for any eligible voters, regardless of where they live, how mobile they are, and so on.

Making up a crisis is saying that voter fraud is rampant and a voter ID law is needed to combat it...

Had to show my ID twice more tonight.

Some guy lost his ID and was. Not allowed to collect his winnings.

The potential reduction in voters, nationwide, is probably in the low single digits. People who want to vote will find a way. People who don’t much care will complain of the inconvenience. Plenty of people and organizations willing to take them. ID is free to the poor. It’ not like the right to vote is locked in Fort Knox.

You guys try to make this a big crisis, but it is not. Just another convenient way to paint the GOP as racist. BS, and all of you guys know it.

(01-24-2019 02:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 08:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 05:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 04:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 12:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, I am currently at a poker tournament,. To enter, one must present ID.

Blacks and women are very underrepresented compared to national demographics. Aliberal such as yourself could say that requiring ID not only discourages blacks and women from participation, but that is the reason ID is required - to keep poker white and male.

BS, of course.

ID is required for a lot of reasons, in a lot of venues. Cash a check, drive a car,get married, join the military. You wouldn’t dream of saying the purpose of ID is to discourage minorities from marrying, would you.

As for the southern vs, northern argument you present, the southern border is where the majority of problems are. It is called triage - handle the big problems first. We have what,20countries south of us, one north? And the one north of us is one that you liberals hold up as an example of a place where they doing things right. I do agree we need to strengthen both borders, but first things first.

As for availability, sure some places have better availability than others. Somewhere is west Texas, there is a ranch hand named Javier who is 100 miles from a DMV . Tough. He is also 100 miles from a doctor, a dentist,a tax preparer, a grocery store.. my guess is when he makes his once a month trip to town, he goes to all the places he needs to go. DMV no different.

Which amendment indicates that cashing a check or driving a car is a constitutional right?

Again, if we want to pass voter ID laws, we need to pass legislation that makes it as simple and easy as possible for someone to get said ID. Instead, states are very often cutting down on the number of DMVs where one can get an ID, for whatever reasons, thus making it harder to vote.

If we deem it is necessary to have voter ID laws, we should also deem it necessary to provide support for all citizens to get those IDs.

You're against this position?

I am against taking it to unreasonable lengths. Must we have a DMV on every street corner to satisfy you? in my community,,we have one place to go to get DLs, and no bus service. Yet everybody who wants an ID has one. You are making up a crisis that does not exist to support blind opposition to the entirely reasonable practice of showing you are eligible to vote.

All those things you list as not being the subject of a Constitutional amendment fall under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I’m not making up a crisis. I’m advocating for a position that attempts to mitigate any potential reduction in voters due to a potential increase in hardships. It isn’t about number of DMVs, but about not increasing the barrier to vote for any eligible voters, regardless of where they live, how mobile they are, and so on.

Making up a crisis is saying that voter fraud is rampant and a voter ID law is needed to combat it...

Had to show my ID twice more tonight.

Some guy lost his ID and was. Not allowed to collect his winnings.

The potential reduction in voters, nationwide, is probably in the low single digits. People who want to vote will find a way. People who don’t much care will complain of the inconvenience. Plenty of people and organizations willing to take them. ID is free to the poor. It’ not like the right to vote is locked in Fort Knox.

You guys try to make this a big crisis, but it is not. Just another convenient way to paint the GOP as racist. BS, and all of you guys know it.

Again, I don’t think collecting poker winnings is anywhere in the Constitution...

But this is going nowhere. You seem to be fine with creating extra barriers to voting. I prefer that we do what we can to make sure that the number of eligible voters is not contracted based on new legislation. To each their own.

I do continue to find it hilarious that a person advocating for a solution that solves a problem that doesn’t exist is trying to tell me that I’m making up the big crisis...

(01-24-2019 06:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, I don’t think collecting poker winnings is anywhere in the Constitution...

Actually, it probably is. Private property rights and all that.

Quote:But this is going nowhere. You seem to be fine with creating extra barriers to voting. I prefer that we do what we can to make sure that the number of eligible voters is not contracted based on new legislation. To each their own.

I'm fine with creating sufficient barriers that people who should not vote cannot. Keeping a person who is qualified to vote from voting is disenfranchising that voter. Allowing someone to vote who is not qualified is disenfranchising legal voters, whose voices may be overturned. I agree that the qualification process, such as obtaining and ID, should be as easy as possible. I understand that it may be a hassle for someone to have to go get an ID. But it is similarly a hassle for that person to have to go vote, and nobody seems to mind that hassle.

Quote:I do continue to find it hilarious that a person advocating for a solution that solves a problem that doesn’t exist is trying to tell me that I’m making up the big crisis...

This is the talking point that I most disagree with. It "doesn't exist" because people are not caught doing it. People are not caught doing it because there is no way to catch them. Current numbers provide no legitimate indicator of how many we would catch if we had adequate detection mechanisms in place.

I've used this example before, but let's say you had two roads leading from point A to point B. Let's say the police let it be known that they will have radar traps on road 1, but not road 2. On which road will they detect more speeders? On which road will more people speed? That is the fallacy with the argument you are making. Current statistics regarding voter fraud are meaningless without an adequate detection mechanism for detecting impostor voting.

(01-24-2019 06:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 02:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 08:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 05:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 04:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Which amendment indicates that cashing a check or driving a car is a constitutional right?

Again, if we want to pass voter ID laws, we need to pass legislation that makes it as simple and easy as possible for someone to get said ID. Instead, states are very often cutting down on the number of DMVs where one can get an ID, for whatever reasons, thus making it harder to vote.

If we deem it is necessary to have voter ID laws, we should also deem it necessary to provide support for all citizens to get those IDs.

You're against this position?

I am against taking it to unreasonable lengths. Must we have a DMV on every street corner to satisfy you? in my community,,we have one place to go to get DLs, and no bus service. Yet everybody who wants an ID has one. You are making up a crisis that does not exist to support blind opposition to the entirely reasonable practice of showing you are eligible to vote.

All those things you list as not being the subject of a Constitutional amendment fall under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I’m not making up a crisis. I’m advocating for a position that attempts to mitigate any potential reduction in voters due to a potential increase in hardships. It isn’t about number of DMVs, but about not increasing the barrier to vote for any eligible voters, regardless of where they live, how mobile they are, and so on.

Making up a crisis is saying that voter fraud is rampant and a voter ID law is needed to combat it...

Had to show my ID twice more tonight.

Some guy lost his ID and was. Not allowed to collect his winnings.

The potential reduction in voters, nationwide, is probably in the low single digits. People who want to vote will find a way. People who don’t much care will complain of the inconvenience. Plenty of people and organizations willing to take them. ID is free to the poor. It’ not like the right to vote is locked in Fort Knox.

You guys try to make this a big crisis, but it is not. Just another convenient way to paint the GOP as racist. BS, and all of you guys know it.

Again, I don’t think collecting poker winnings is anywhere in the Constitution...

But this is going nowhere. You seem to be fine with creating extra barriers to voting. I prefer that we do what we can to make sure that the number of eligible voters is not contracted based on new legislation. To each their own.

I do continue to find it hilarious that a person advocating for a solution that solves a problem that doesn’t exist is trying to tell me that I’m making up the big crisis...

TRYING to tell you is the operative word. Hard to tell a closed mind anything.

Most of these guys are professionals, what does the Constitution say about showing ID to get paid for your work?

In fact, since you need it explicitly stated, where does it say people should get paid for their work? What amendment is that?

ID is not much of a barrier. 99.9999999% of us have one anyway. My sister in the nursing home has one. She does not drive. And most of the rest could easily and cheaply get one, if they wanted. No, all this brouhaha over ID has but one goal - to make it easier/harder for for unqualified people to vote. I am on the harder side. You and your party are on the easier side. Wonder why.