Read it again, it was talking about REGISTERED VOTERS without identification. Presumably they registered because they have an interest in voting. Get that BS out of here.

Even this is a lie about your original position:

When you thought everyone had an ID, the hurdle was "having an ID". After learning that 600k people who care enough about voting to register don't have the ID, the hurdle jumped to "can they get one". That is how we know you are a dishonest hack who is incapable of learning anything on this subject.

But the point would be that the Dems are letting more people vote (which is good because democracy is good and best when everyone participates) while the GOP are taking people votes away (which is bad because it is undemocratic).

How can that be wrong? I'm struggling to see how one could spin things to make the republicans the good guys there.

It's remaining a content thread. We can address argument we deem stupid or we can ignore them.

Your first assumption is that democracy is good.

And isn't that written into the constitution?

And, the constitution is authority because ...

Rule of law?

More like a monopoly on law. It's the law, because it's the law. The Constitution is not really rooted in reason. imo the market anarchists have the best arguments on society. Why trust the wisdom of crowds? People are just all of a sudden wise on election day? Ha!

The constitution is rooted in learning the lessons of 1,000 years of monarchy in Europe.

In 1651, republicans seized control of government in England, ending the civil war between royaltists and parliamentarians. Oliver Cromwell had Charles I behedded and exiled Charles II.

In 1658 when Oliver Cromwell died ... his son, Richard Cromwell became the new ruler.

Can anyone see what's gone wrong here?

Liberal voices such as John Milton, the architects of the Commonwealth were devastated.

Later, John Locke tried to iron out the problems of what had gone wrong.

The founding fathers of the USA read Locke and tried to put in checks and balances to ensure that the country would not fall into the hands of despotism and that freedom and human rights were protected by law, by constitution.

And now you tell me that reason wasn't at its basis? Proceed. On what grounds do you make this claim?

Please, continue talking about the roots of democracy and the authority of the constitution, it's exactly on topic and not ****ing stupid.

That is one post out of all of my posts on the issue. If I didn't type out the whole thing I'm sorry for getting lazy but I can assure you if you go back and read what I've said on the issue it is pretty clear I meant people who can't vote because they don't have an ID because they can't get one. More specifically I am talking about African American, because I'm not arguing for voter ID laws I am just arguing that is incorrect to call voter ID laws racist unless you are prepared to call a **** load of laws racist.

Again, I am not arguing for voter ID laws. I'm just arguing that if one considers them racist they need to explain why a bunch of other laws aren't racist as well using their same logic.

Since we know for a fact that Republicans have done nothing more than figure out what metrics they can use to stop Democrats from voting, and they're totally okay with that, can Democrats also come up with some incredibly precisely-targeted metrics to make sure, for example, rural whites can't vote?

Like, we've all heard a lot about how farmers will supplement their income by growing pot. Maybe we need to make sure these people aren't drug dealers by forcing them to come into the city to schedule an inspection of their land, which can only be done twice a year, so as to ensure that no rural drug dealers are voting.

I mean, it's just common sense that drug dealers shouldn't vote, so what's the problem here, right? I'm sure the right will agree with this, and anyone who doesn't is basically saying all white rural people are drug dealers, which I find repugnant.

If I was a democrat, I'd be thinking along these lines.

If your enemy is cunning, you have to be more cunning.

Ahh, I see the problem, you are having an argument that no one else is having or has ever had. Maybe you should start a thread about it instead of tarding up other threads in the forum?

Lol. You don't think any liberals on 2+2 think voter ID laws are racist?

So you think banning drug dealers from voting will help dems? Surely you aren't saying to only ban rural drug dealers can't vote, are you?

ummm, its pretty clear in his little example that he thinks banning farmers would be good for dems.

like, reading is not that hard man.

The flimsy drug dealer thing is an excuse to harass rural whites into doing something inconvenient for them, thus making it harder, but not impossible, to vote. (Similar to voter ID) Since the courts have said it's totally fine to discriminate this way against political parties, there's nothing wrong here and is something all conservatives would support, right?

Mostly it's an example that's hopefully clear enough to show why the flimsy voter fraud excuse is a terrible pretense to stop blacks from voting.

Of course, we have actual evidence for my flimsy pretext, unlike the voter ID thing, so I guess they're different that way.

Agree. How is it unreasonable that AAs have to follow a process that everyone else has to?

I thought you democrats were liberals? Isn't one of the fundamental principles of liberalism that the law applies to everyone equally and that includes having to comply with what you are required to be able to lawfully vote?

If they have to get further documents to validate their ID in order to get an identity card that's too bad. Get it done. There are probably organisations out there that will assist them if on their own they feel it is too difficult. Also, whoever administers and issues these identity documents over in the US should have programs in place to assist who they perceive are minority groups which find this task difficult.

And anyway, what the **** is this? We lower the requirements just because they are a certain race?

The thing is, every political discussion boils down in one way or another as to the role of government. There's no way to side-step that, unless you're a liberal mod or something and decide to stick your fingers in your ears and say, lalalala. There's a reason why Ron Paul had to be a Republican. There was essentially no other way to bring the debate on the role of government, or even a limited government view. I mean, I just endured probably the greatest race to the bottom in history, Clinton v Trump, and I'm quiet, and I have fun poking at the candidates, but seriously, there's like nothing rational about these elections at all. An identity politics addict, and a nationalist that made far-right marketable, and a not-so-knowledgeable LPer. But, by all means, everyone bang their head on the left vs. right, because democracy has always been this way, and there's no other solution, and no reason to question the biggest religion of our time, democracy. Check-out, and debate on anti-state.com if you're interested. I'm busy.

I mean, I can look-up and give the history of Russia for the last thousand years, and articulate the status quo, up until the collapse of the Soviet Union. It didn't make it a particularly good model. All these arguments are for the status quo, because it's the status quo.

I'll start a role of government thread at some point if I can free up time. Extra fudge.

Why increase the difficulty at all though if there hasn't been any proof that there is any voter fraud?

Why introduce more new programs to "assist who they preceive are minority groups which find [getting an ID accepted for voting] difficult" when the difficulty was fabricated with the intent on making it more difficult?


You see the problem with your thoughts here? It's much simpler to plug the hole in a bucket than to build a new bigger bucket around the leaky one.

Are the people saying voter fraud isn't an issue literally mean they believe there is 0 instances of voter fraud in the US?