Yes like I said, chez can never not miss the point.


If you and I were talking about the weather, it would still be true that 'by default having good ID will make sense generally'.

You can interject that there anywhere it won't make it less true.

But we are discussing WHY the GOP is pushing for ID and it is NOT 'because by default having good ID makes sense'. They care nothing about that and it if more GOP voters were impacted by that, they would be pushing for loosening requirements and making the opposite arguments.


So while i have zero confidence you will understand this and you will just repeat 'it makes sense', the GOP is using people like you to carry their water. They completely know they can manipulate you to make a tangential argument that NO ONE is discussing 'AS IF' it is a reply to the current debate when it is not.

What is so hard to understand? Helping everyone to get an ID and then requiring an ID to vote would be a net negative for Republicans at the polls, which is why they don't support that combination of policies.

It simply is not. That is the factual answer 'It is not'.

With guys like Trolly and uke, the mere fact that you disagree with them at all is not something they can tolerate. As such, if you are making arguments that if they quote and try to counter, they will not have much they can say, they will then just change what you say to more 'bad' version and argue against that.

It is an online tactic that evolved mostly on the far left, where they learned truth or facts simply do not matter. Ascribe the person the views you want them to have and allow multiple others on the far left to repeat and pile on as if true, and then it will become true or thought to be true by others who simply cannot comb thru the mess to find the truth.

I honestly do not think either Trolly or uke realize they do it so casually and easily at this point as it has become such second nature they don't even think about it when they do it.

If there were a serious effort to ensure that most every American had a free ID, I wouldn't care nearly as much about voter ID laws. In that hypothetical world, it would be much easier to believe that voter ID laws were being implemented for some reason other than voter suppression.

But in that hypothetical world, I suspect that Republicans would mostly lose interest in voter ID laws.

No your missing the point

I'm talking about voter ID and what to do about it. The motives of the GOP dont change anything much. let's assume they are totals evil scumbags - now what? We still have to deal with voter ID and what to do about it. What have you got?

In Britain we don't have that, because we don't like the whole idea of 'Your papers, please.' (Which we tend to imagine in a German accent.)

Right, that’s what I’ve said. They (and Chilly) explicitly want to keep minorities from voting. Obv in some fantasyland where white people are disenfranchised by voter ID laws, they’d be against them.

They would, because the only purpose of voter-ID requirements in the US -- and to a lesser extent in Britain, where it's been mooted by Conservatives; it wouldn't mean anything on the Continent, where everyone has to carry ID anyway -- is to suppress the vote among the less well-off.

Pretty much. Try to find an article written pre LBJ about election security and checking IDs. It simply wasn't an issue until voting rights was passed. Whites obviously would follow the rules but if we're letting Negroes register, additional measures need to be put in place. This isn't a republican vs democrat issue as that concept is older than southern whites voting heavily republican.

Please quote a reference where I said that I want to keep minorities from voting.

Oh, and just so everyone knows, Trolly explicitly said he is an actively practicing pedophile, and he thinks it's good for the children.

i dont think anyone here is talking about the architect of the policy, we're talking about reasons to support voter id laws.. although an argument could be made that knowingly making a policy that disproportionately effects people of color WHILE also knowing people of color vote against your desired outcome is still racism. even if your desired outcome is really only winning elections and isn't directly about race.

And then an hour later:

Gosh, whadaya know, washoe figured out that yet again, he waded into another topic he knows little about with his hot take.

What's so ridiculous? That right there. You fired off like a dozen posts about this, then reply to mine doubling down on your stance, and then shortly after you realize that yet again you had no ****ing clue what you were talking about.

The map simply backs up the point I already made. Numerous countries, including several in the "western world", don't do the mandatory government ID thing. Just because it's what you're used to doesn't mean it's the way every country needs to work. I like to think Canada is working just fine without any such requirement.

And with regard to that map, in case you missed this - the gray countries are those with NO federal government-issued ID cards; IE, even further from your ideal of compulsory government-issued ID.

No, some countries in Europe have it, and some do not.

Since you're having such a struggle imagining how any country could possibly want something different than what you're used to, here are some of the arguments against the idea:

https://www.aclu.org/other/5-problems-national-id-cards

https://www.priv.gc.ca/media/1310/su...d_030918_e.pdf

Yeah, I certainly don't dispute where this is all coming from. I was just taking the very generous point of view that if there was a state that wanted tighter voter identification laws for legitimate reasons, they should be making sure everyone has easy access to said ID. But I sort of doubt those states exist.

Chilly obv doesn't want to keep minorities from voting. I know this bc I can read words and keep a coherent narrative in my head.

And "they" only want to keep minorities from voting bc they know that it would hurt their election chances. If minorities voted for them then they would make it easier.

First, you give me a reason you shouldn't be imprisoned for murder. Obviously that you didn't murder anyone isn't a valid reason.

faaawk, if victor says and ED says, then it must be right I guess...
never would have thought thats possible.

Wat. This is a poor attempt given the context. In the present context the more correct example should be, Why arent people being imprisoned for murder when no murders have taken place.


so in your corrected hypothetical. there has been no murder(fraud), thus finding an additional excuse for putting me in prison for murder(voter security/requiring voter id) is hard. other than maybe hypothetically putting me in prison for murder because i may be a person of color, or you "FEEL" like a murder happened even though one objectively did not occur.

Your opinion is that voter ID is not needed to improve election security. No matter what the evidence shows, that is obviously an opinion, not a fact. You can't ask someone to give a reason for something while preempting the answer by saying the most likely reason is invalid (because it doesn't fit with your opinion).

I will ask you to answer this honestly: do you actually think there has NEVER been even a single case of someone fraudulently voting as someone else?

Answer as you like, but IMO an answer of yes here is about as likely to be correct as the statement "no murders have ever taken place".

If even one vote has ever been cast fraudulently, and that might have been prevented by an ID requirement, then voting security is a perfectly valid reason for wanting an ID requirement. It, of course, doesn't prove that such a requirement is necessary, but it shows there is reason to consider such a requirement, and that such an opinion isn't necessarily guided by racism or elitism.

On a side note, I don't actually think there is anything immoral or wrong about being "elitist" with regards to voting rights. I actually think the country would be better off if people were educated in basic civics, and even then only allowed to vote in races and on issues of which they had at least a basic understanding. It would, of course, be an extremely difficult thing to administer and judge, so it's not realistically feasible.

chez i get that YOU are talking about that and that is your point. The issue is you are not talking about it with anyone. I know you think if you just randomly reply to someone else's post with your tangential point then you are talking to them but that is why you almost exclusively get the 'wtf are you talking about' reply posts as you are off on your own tangent making points to yourself.

Well if you and everyone elses point is just that the GOP sucks then yeah okay its tangential to talk about any of it mattering/etc

I dont agree that's the case but even if it was I would continue to try to talk about the politics of it - I know you do sometimes as well. I'm sorry if this is some way annoying the rest of the time.

if you want to say it's valid because there's a single case that's fine for you i guess. there is no meaningful voter fraud. tens of millions of dollars have been spent by republicans to find it and out of literally billions of votes, something like dozens of cases were found. (mostly republicans) it's really really stupid. and based in elitism or racism. and i'm sure you just to happen coincidentally want this to occur with things like voting restrictions and not on things with MUCH bigger impacts like covid restrictions/vaccine requirements, gun control, and climate regulations...

also on your sidenote, the US previously had your idea with literacy tests, and guess what? it was really ****ing racist.


eta- similarly to other ridiculously dumb republican ideas like drug testing for welfare, there are no meaningful violations to bear out a reasoning other than racism.

Literacy tests have nothing to do with my idea. I don't care if a person can read or not, but if someone is just checking a box because someone else told them to, and they don't know anything about who or what they are voting for, then their vote is a net negative for good governance.

Most of what you are "sure" about is also incorrect. I would be happy to see all guns completely banned, and I support stronger environmental regulations. Regarding Covid, I got all my vaccinations and am going for another booster tomorrow. I would be fine with requiring everyone to get any vaccinations, but I don't think things should have been shut down because of Covid. IMO, that was clearly unconstitutional, and I blame the Trump administration for the overreach.

Generally, the net negatives for making tests for votes are a lot bigger than the positives. The potential for abuse is also enormous.

And if someone wants to vote for the Purple Party because they liked that checkbox better than the other checkbox, that's a perfectly legitimate reason for voting. It's not up to others to decide for you what makes a good vote.

I would agree that voting should be done in a manner that ensures the voter is the right person, that the voting itself is done anonymously and that the voting is not done under duress. But it also follows that the procedures that ensure this must never be allowed to benefit one voting bloc over another. If that is allowed, you no longer have democracy.

it was called a "literacy test" but what it actually was a civics test with questions like "how long do state treasurers serve?". they were given all over the south predominantly to african americans and the results were completely arbitrary. people could be rejected for one wrong answer people could be rejected for 6 wrong answers.

as an experiment my constitutional law professor gave one of the tests to us on the first day of class, the average amount incorrect was around 9 out of 50 questions.

I wouldn't support any test that unimportant questions or arbitrary results. Duh.

You can call it "legitimate" if you like, but I certainly can state that would be a vote that is bad for society overall, not good. Feel free to make an argument against my position though,