Quote:The idea of voter identification has been a contentious topic since well before the 2016 presidential election. Now that the left is suddenly concerned with electoral integrity, now is the perfect time to bait them into supporting something conservatives have been promoting for quite some time.

If you had asked your average Democrat about how he or she felt about voter ID just a few short years ago, you might get answers that suggest that such a requirement is undemocratic. Voter ID, liberals have said, discriminates against people of color because it requires them to go to a government building and obtain it. How that is racist is very questionable, but Republicans have obviously let the issue slide.

But, with Democrats fully up in arms convinced that Russian bots hacked Donald Trump into the presidency, perhaps it’s time to press the issue again. Memes like this have since taken the internet by storm.

Link

Quote:If you had asked your average Democrat about how he or she felt about voter ID just a few short years ago, you might get answers that suggest that such a requirement is undemocratic.

All the polling data I’ve ever seen in this issue showed bipartisan majorities in favor of requiring government-issued photo-ID in order to vote in a US election. Have also seen poll-majorities of African-American voters who support it, although that may have been a small/unreliable sample.

Voter-ID has been “controversial” because the academic/media/political class — Not “Democrats” as such or any racial/demographic grouping — is against it.

I think a major problem being cited is availability and access to administration of the card. I fear a large demographic would show up for election day and due to either ignorance, poor accessibility, or the like might cause even reduced numbers of participation. I would hope it would be free to get as well so we don't have a poor tax to poll.

I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

(07-22-2018 09:35 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  I think a major problem being cited is availability and access to administration of the card. I fear a large demographic would show up for election day and due to either ignorance, poor accessibility, or the like might cause even reduced numbers of participation. I would hope it would be free to get as well so we don't have a poor tax to poll.
I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

So basically, you want to retain the opportunity to complain that any election where your preferred candidate does not win was somehow hijacked, without taking any action to minimize the risk of such hijacking.

(07-22-2018 09:35 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  I think a major problem being cited is availability and access to administration of the card. I fear a large demographic would show up for election day and due to either ignorance, poor accessibility, or the like might cause even reduced numbers of participation. I would hope it would be free to get as well so we don't have a poor tax to poll.

I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

Those you think you are virtue signaling for think you're crazy.

(07-22-2018 11:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 09:35 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  I think a major problem being cited is availability and access to administration of the card. I fear a large demographic would show up for election day and due to either ignorance, poor accessibility, or the like might cause even reduced numbers of participation. I would hope it would be free to get as well so we don't have a poor tax to poll.
I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

So basically, you want to retain the opportunity to complain that any election where your preferred candidate does not win was somehow hijacked, without taking any action to minimize the risk of such hijacking.

Or I said "Sounds like a good idea but the logistics might be a nightmare. When they figure this out I could get on board".

Who **** in your cereal?

(07-22-2018 11:29 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 09:35 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  I think a major problem being cited is availability and access to administration of the card. I fear a large demographic would show up for election day and due to either ignorance, poor accessibility, or the like might cause even reduced numbers of participation. I would hope it would be free to get as well so we don't have a poor tax to poll.
I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

So basically, you want to retain the opportunity to complain that any election where your preferred candidate does not win was somehow hijacked, without taking any action to minimize the risk of such hijacking.

Or I said "Sounds like a good idea but the logistics might be a nightmare. When they figure this out I could get on board".

Where was the "sounds like a good idea" part of your post?

(07-22-2018 11:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:29 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 09:35 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  I think a major problem being cited is availability and access to administration of the card. I fear a large demographic would show up for election day and due to either ignorance, poor accessibility, or the like might cause even reduced numbers of participation. I would hope it would be free to get as well so we don't have a poor tax to poll.
I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

So basically, you want to retain the opportunity to complain that any election where your preferred candidate does not win was somehow hijacked, without taking any action to minimize the risk of such hijacking.

Or I said "Sounds like a good idea but the logistics might be a nightmare. When they figure this out I could get on board".

Where was the "sounds like a good idea" part of your post?

Apparently

Quote:I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

wasnt enough for you so you had to completely make up my stance.

(07-22-2018 11:37 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Apparently

Quote:I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

wasnt enough for you so you had to completely make up my stance.

I certainly don't get "sounds like a good idea" out of any part of that. Grudging acceptance at absolute best, if that.

(07-22-2018 11:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:37 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Apparently

Quote:I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

wasnt enough for you so you had to completely make up my stance.

I certainly don't get "sounds like a good idea" out of any part of that. Grudging acceptance at absolute best, if that.

Yet you somehow found all this:

Quote:So basically, you want to retain the opportunity to complain that any election where your preferred candidate does not win was somehow hijacked, without taking any action to minimize the risk of such hijacking.

LOL OKAY.

(07-22-2018 11:52 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:37 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Apparently

Quote:I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

wasnt enough for you so you had to completely make up my stance.

I certainly don't get "sounds like a good idea" out of any part of that. Grudging acceptance at absolute best, if that.

Yet you somehow found all this:

Quote:So basically, you want to retain the opportunity to complain that any election where your preferred candidate does not win was somehow hijacked, without taking any action to minimize the risk of such hijacking.

LOL OKAY.

Well, I will be candid and admit that I got the totality of that from the totality of your posts. If you have posted anything contrary to that, please provide linky.

But that’s pretty much what your specific quote says.

I believe the argument I've seen here by a poster that's been banned has been the following:

1. People don't have rides to get the IDs.
2. Some people can't afford the IDs even when some states have offered to provide them for free. So see point number 1.
3. DMVs have been shut down in areas so a bus ride to get there wasn't available. Cited a case in Alabama.
4. IDs are racist for all points above.

(07-22-2018 11:29 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 09:35 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  I think a major problem being cited is availability and access to administration of the card. I fear a large demographic would show up for election day and due to either ignorance, poor accessibility, or the like might cause even reduced numbers of participation. I would hope it would be free to get as well so we don't have a poor tax to poll.
I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

So basically, you want to retain the opportunity to complain that any election where your preferred candidate does not win was somehow hijacked, without taking any action to minimize the risk of such hijacking.

Or I said "Sounds like a good idea but the logistics might be a nightmare. When they figure this out I could get on board".

Who **** in your cereal?

Words have meaning, use your words well.

(07-23-2018 05:53 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I believe the argument I've seen here by a poster that's been banned has been the following:

1. People don't have rides to get the IDs.
2. Some people can't afford the IDs even when some states have offered to provide them for free. So see point number 1.
3. DMVs have been shut down in areas so a bus ride to get there wasn't available. Cited a case in Alabama.
4. IDs are racist for all points above.

When speaking with a local politician who is opposed to voter ID right now, I was told there are counties in NC that don't even have DMV offices and that it would be difficult for the poorest people in those counties to obtain them. That sounded like a reasonable argument against requiring everyone to have an ID. However, when I asked him if he would support voter ID laws if every county had a DMV office he said 'no'. So, I guess that's not REALLY the reason.

How are people that have no transportation to get a voter ID able to find it to go vote?

(07-23-2018 07:37 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  How are people that have no transportation to get a voter ID able to find it to go vote?

The Democrat bus swings by to pick them up to vote.

(07-23-2018 05:53 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I believe the argument I've seen here by a poster that's been banned has been the following:

1. People don't have rides to get the IDs.
2. Some people can't afford the IDs even when some states have offered to provide them for free. So see point number 1.
3. DMVs have been shut down in areas so a bus ride to get there wasn't available. Cited a case in Alabama.
4. IDs are racist for all points above.

I've heard similar "arguments" and they all smell like a compost pile.

1) BS. The number of people without a valid ID and who have no access to transportation is minute to non-existent. Even if someone living under a rock in BFE didn't have "access", a phone call to your local politician or political office would result in "a ride". One needs to just put forth the effort.

2) See point one. If you're THAT destitute, someone from the various political parties will make sure you get an ID.

3) States are under no obligation to keep offices open in areas where they no longer make fiscal sense. Even if someone had a evil plan to shut down offices in "oppressed" areas, point 1 would come into play. People can't tell me that if a number of individuals in "oppressed" areas were to call their local "D" official there wouldn't be a bus/van there tomorrow.

4) If one tries hard enough they can find "racism" in anything.

I don't think that expecting a person to put a little effort into it is asking too much. If a person just thinks that government should allow them to sit back, do nothing and provide, that person probably isn't going to make the effort to get out and vote or bother to do a little research into the issues.

(07-23-2018 07:01 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-23-2018 05:53 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I believe the argument I've seen here by a poster that's been banned has been the following:

1. People don't have rides to get the IDs.
2. Some people can't afford the IDs even when some states have offered to provide them for free. So see point number 1.
3. DMVs have been shut down in areas so a bus ride to get there wasn't available. Cited a case in Alabama.
4. IDs are racist for all points above.

When speaking with a local politician who is opposed to voter ID right now, I was told there are counties in NC that don't even have DMV offices and that it would be difficult for the poorest people in those counties to obtain them. That sounded like a reasonable argument against requiring everyone to have an ID. However, when I asked him if he would support voter ID laws if every county had a DMV office he said 'no'. So, I guess that's not REALLY the reason.

I find it hard to believe that no one in this day and age of legal voting age does not have some form of ID.

(07-22-2018 09:35 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  I think a major problem being cited is availability and access to administration of the card. I fear a large demographic would show up for election day and due to either ignorance, poor accessibility, or the like might cause even reduced numbers of participation. I would hope it would be free to get as well so we don't have a poor tax to poll.

I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

Simple solution. Any said VoterID law only goes into effect after a minimum of 2 years notice. Each and every political ad on TV/Radio/Internet must say out loud or have in clear print "Must have ID to vote!" Nobody anywhere could claim ignorance or accessibility issues with two years warning and the constant reminder on every single political ad.

(07-23-2018 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 09:35 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  I think a major problem being cited is availability and access to administration of the card. I fear a large demographic would show up for election day and due to either ignorance, poor accessibility, or the like might cause even reduced numbers of participation. I would hope it would be free to get as well so we don't have a poor tax to poll.

I'm not sure how I feel on the issue. If snags like the above are fully addressed I can get on board I guess.

Simple solution. Any said VoterID law only goes into effect after a minimum of 2 years notice. Each and every political ad on TV/Radio/Internet must say out loud or have in clear print "Must have ID to vote!" Nobody anywhere could claim ignorance or accessibility issues with two years warning and the constant reminder on every single political ad.

Definitely think this is a good idea. I would add in mailed leaflet warnings and possibly some kind of mail service for those without transportation or access (like they do for lost drivers licenses). I don't vote where I am registered due to university setting so I'd be an example of someone that would want to do it via mail.