I dont know anything about that, but Im reading this now:
https://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/14620...-government-id


They say its mostly elderly black people withut IDs I guess.

Well that is messed up. Im trying to think a reason why they have been without ID all their life and how they were able to get by.


They didnt work? They didnt participate in society? I have a lot of questions and not enough answers.
But so much is certain, it is a mess and I didnt expect that.
I thought you are talking about dead beats and low lifes who had no interest in becoming part of society so they shoulnd not have the right to vote.

I was gonna say the right to vote has to be earned, it is not given.

You look at that map and have to notice that this is almost exclusivly a problem in the US. Whats so hard in making a couple laws that fix that problem?

why would anyone not want free id for anyone? That should serve anyones purpose and interest of having a functioning society.
and how the f are you letting them get through with that?
That is a beyond anyones understanding.

A simple letter from Mr. Houdini could fix that problem,
it could go like this:





To: all courthouses and goverment offices in the country



Re: New Laws


Listen up: this is the President speaking----

-------------------------------------------------------



First und top priority:


everyone gets an ID - for free- before we cannot function as a society


...


Sincerely,


the President of the United States,


Joe Biden





ps: YOU better make it happen!

or you ARE ALL FIRED!!!!!
u ****heads!!


sincerely,


BIDEN,


President of the USA

those people, the people that dont want free ID, or easy access to IDs want something else too. they want IDs to be compulsory for voting. bc they dont want people voting. or they dont want certain people voting.

and its not even about making the ID free. these same people are shutting down facilities that provide the IDs and forcing people to travel 20 or 40 miles to get the ID. and lol if you think there is public transport to these places.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d-law-kicks-in

You really can't figure that one out on your own?

And once again, washoe shows that he has no idea how government works in the United States.

You were misinformed because, as usual, you started posting before you had any idea wtf you were talking about.

As for why so many old people don't have IDs, there are a lot of reasons. But here is one scenario. Mr. X had a state-issued driver's license. Now he is too old to work or drive. He has trouble getting around. His driver's license expires. Now he is a person without an ID.

One simple approach to extending easy access to IDs could be to extend the driving licence to include a non-driver status

I assume this is something that every state already does.

Yeah, Chilly and Washoe would be the first in line to bitch and moan if there was a legitimate zero-cost outreach program to get people free gov't IDs.

This is one of the most transparently stupid convos I've seen in some time. There's simply no defensible reason to require these voter ID laws.

You could just replace this sentiment, which i greatly agree with, with the Carlin Meme.

My biggest issue with this forum is people do not understand that simply because they have an opinion they really believe and that makes sense to them, does not make it something they can represent as fact.

We are all allowed opinions and even to hold them strongly, but as soon as you represent it as fac you are in error.

It misses the point though.

Again why is a Hunter License ok in some States but they say a Student ID is not?

Fact is if you keep adding hoops for people to jump (and the ID is not the only one) with each and every successive one, some people will simply procrastinate and otherwise not get it done. As mentioned some may find the burden to high.

Some GOP States seeing increased Native Population voting having been pushing obscure things last minute like needing a 'ZipCode'. Why? Because many who vote from Reserves have only a Reserve ID that does not include a Zipcode. You read the arguments for requiring a ZipCode in those States and it is the same for requiring an ID. 'Oh what is the big deal'???

That is entirely the goal. And instead of saying 'ya I understand the measure XYZ is not needed but why not impose it anyway' you should recognize that voting has always been about the opposite. The premise of voting is that States should be looking for ways to expand it in any way where it does not compromise security and Voter ID does not. In Canada you can show up with a utility bill showing your name and address and that is all, amongst many different ways to vote.

Pretty much everyone in the US agrees that asking white people with valid voter registration cards for an ID in addition serves no purpose. So back when non white people could not get registered, nobody cared about IDs. But now that we're letting people in Fulton County or Detroit register, there obviously needs to be stricter fraud prevention methods.....otherwise how will we know those votes are valid?

They don't want easy access to ID. They want to require everyone to have an ID to vote while also limit the ability to get the ID. Be it closing DMV (or MVD if you're in a weird state) offices in largely blue areas of the state. Underfunding public transportation and ease of access for people to be able to get to a DMV. That is also on top of limiting the number of available polling places in blue districts.

Republicans DO NOT want a large population to vote. They want to restrict the ability for people to vote in the guise of "election integrity" everything they say is a projection of their own machinations.

what other reasons? go ahead. let's lay some out. obviously security isn't a valid one.

Voting is an odd one but generally it's a very bad idea to only put in protection after evidence that a system is abused has been uncovered. Systems should be designed under the assumption that they will be abused or fail in some way.

GA and AZ have voter ID laws as strict as any. Yet when Republicans lost in those states they suddenly lacked faith in the procedures they themselves put in place and claimed it was rigged. Did a single person say “well they check IDs so the totals must be right”? Trump asked specifically for the vote totals to be doctored so it would appear as if he won. Maybe just maybe election security talking points are all just BS?

100%. it's a veil for racism or at minimum a particular form of elitism where people think certain people dont deserve to vote like washoe seems to.

It's not racism from the architects of the policies. It's just naked political ambition and partisanship.

This is yet another place where libs miss the forest for the trees.

I meant make a freaking law that makes sure everyone gets provided w ith a government issued ID. We in Europe have that for ages, why dont you? I really dont get that.

yeah Ill read it later, sounds crazy.

I will repeat though, this misses the point.

it is the same when I tell lozen that he is falling into Right wing talking points and carrying their water for them.

It can be true that there is nothing wrong with shoring up election security to combat the POTENTIAL of abuse, but even that is within limits. I am sure you have heard the expression 'Perfect is the enemy of the Good'. What it means broadly is that in seeking an always improved outcome, when you already have an acceptable and good result you might actually harm the outcome. So while yes, you can say 'that did incrementally increase security' and that can be true, it can actually cause more harm than good.

Beyond that is that the right wing think tanks are currently and always scouring for any demographic advantage where imposing more rules ('must have ZipCode') can cause more imposition to Dem voters than GOP ones. To take each imposition searched for and found and to then yourself, find a way to argue 'the theoretical benefits to security' or other, is just wrong headed and people should avoid it.

I know you enjoy arguing any such 'theoretical possibility or plausibility' and it is kind of your thing and generally you might make that point when no one else is discussing it, but in this area it is quite dangerous.

It doesn't miss the point at all. By default ID make sense. It does not have to be justified by evidence

The arguements that overide this default are very strong imo

It is nothing to do with plausibility or any such nonsense

Is it possible for you to make a single post with truth and without attacks?

I have just stated I am in support of free IDs and for programs to help get them to people. But now you claim, with no substantiation and clear evidence to the contrary, that I would "bitch and moan" if the things I just called for were implemented.

So I am going to speculate by saying Trolly has several political assassinations planned out for next year, starting with all the conservative members of the supreme court.
I base this on his politics as presented on these forums, and that's all that is necessary. However, I believe that he may deny it. If he does, that just proves my point that he also never posts any truth.

I believe in most states that is basically current policy. At least it is in the several states where I lived. You can go to the DMV and get an ID card without driving privileges, and it's less expensive than the one for driving.