You cannot legally function as an adult in the US without some form of identification. I have never met someone that doesn’t have a government ID. It’s almost impossible to be a legal citizen and not have.
Yet, it isn’t required to vote in national elections.
Someone needs to explain to me why that is acceptable.
It's required where I vote. I'm not saying your're wrong, but would like to hear from some people that didn't require some kind of ID to vote.
You cannot legally function as an adult in the US without some form of identification. I have never met someone that doesn’t have a government ID. It’s almost impossible to be a legal citizen and not have.
Yet, it isn’t required to vote in national elections.
Someone needs to explain to me why that is acceptable.
It's required where I vote. I'm not saying your're wrong, but would like to hear from some people that didn't require some kind of ID to vote.
You cannot legally function as an adult in the US without some form of identification. I have never met someone that doesn’t have a government ID. It’s almost impossible to be a legal citizen and not have.
Yet, it isn’t required to vote in national elections.
Someone needs to explain to me why that is acceptable.
It's required where I vote. I'm not saying your're wrong, but would like to hear from some people that didn't require some kind of ID to vote.
Apparently the best argument FOR voter ID is that most people can get ID pretty easily.
And that prevents the commission of a felony that no one ever commits anyway.
Strong work, ladies!
This is patently dishonest.
The argument for government ID is to restore the public’s faith in our electoral process.
The argument against it is......what, exactly?
We are nearly 4 pages in and you have offered fuck all as a response.
I think most people acknowledge that having a valid ID to vote is a common sense requirement on the face of it.
The argument you're looking for that's against it is that it's a solution in search of a problem. The argument continues that there is no material threat of voter fraud given the inherent obstacles to orchestrating it at a meaningful level. So in practice a lot of people who are otherwise eligible voters but live in states/regions that have poor access to obtaining valid IDs (unreasonable distances to DOL offices in some counties, lack of transportation for low income prospective voters, lack of available free time to make the journey, minimal open hours of DOL offices, etc) end up not getting the IDs. All of this ultimately creates a disincentive for voting that disproportionately impacts lower income folks. Philosophically, these people believe that encouraging more people voting is something that strengthens a democracy.
There are plenty of other considerations that round out the argument, such as some states' very arbitrary enforcement of what constitutes "valid ID" for voting purposes, but that's the jist of it. If you don't believe any of the above assumptions, especially around voter fraud not being a material risk, then you probably won't find this argument very persuasive. Unsurprisingly, about 95% of the Tug is going to be in that camp.
Apparently the best argument FOR voter ID is that most people can get ID pretty easily.
And that prevents the commission of a felony that no one ever commits anyway.
Strong work, ladies!
This is patently dishonest.
The argument for government ID is to restore the public’s faith in our electoral process.
The argument against it is......what, exactly?
We are nearly 4 pages in and you have offered fuck all as a response.
I think most people acknowledge that having a valid ID to vote is a common sense requirement on the face of it.
The argument you're looking for that's against it is that it's a solution in search of a problem. The argument continues that there is no material threat of voter fraud given the inherent obstacles to orchestrating it at a meaningful level. So in practice a lot of people who are otherwise eligible voters but live in states/regions that have poor access to obtaining valid IDs (unreasonable distances to DOL offices in some counties, lack of transportation for low income prospective voters, lack of available free time to make the journey, minimal open hours of DOL offices, etc) end up not getting the IDs. All of this ultimately creates a disincentive for voting that disproportionately impacts lower income folks. Philosophically, these people believe that encouraging more people voting is something that strengthens a democracy.
There are plenty of other considerations that round out the argument, such as some states' very arbitrary enforcement of what constitutes "valid ID" for voting purposes, but that's the jist of it. If you don't believe any of the above assumptions, especially around voter fraud not being a material risk, then you probably won't find this argument very persuasive. Unsurprisingly, about 95% of the Tug is going to be in that camp.
How about ID to fly? Just another solution in search of a problem?
Apparently the best argument FOR voter ID is that most people can get ID pretty easily.
And that prevents the commission of a felony that no one ever commits anyway.
Strong work, ladies!
This is patently dishonest.
The argument for government ID is to restore the public’s faith in our electoral process.
The argument against it is......what, exactly?
We are nearly 4 pages in and you have offered fuck all as a response.
I think most people acknowledge that having a valid ID to vote is a common sense requirement on the face of it.
The argument you're looking for that's against it is that it's a solution in search of a problem. The argument continues that there is no material threat of voter fraud given the inherent obstacles to orchestrating it at a meaningful level. So in practice a lot of people who are otherwise eligible voters but live in states/regions that have poor access to obtaining valid IDs (unreasonable distances to DOL offices in some counties, lack of transportation for low income prospective voters, lack of available free time to make the journey, minimal open hours of DOL offices, etc) end up not getting the IDs. All of this ultimately creates a disincentive for voting that disproportionately impacts lower income folks. Philosophically, these people believe that encouraging more people voting is something that strengthens a democracy.
There are plenty of other considerations that round out the argument, such as some states' very arbitrary enforcement of what constitutes "valid ID" for voting purposes, but that's the jist of it. If you don't believe any of the above assumptions, especially around voter fraud not being a material risk, then you probably won't find this argument very persuasive. Unsurprisingly, about 95% of the Tug is going to be in that camp.
How about ID to fly? Just another solution in search of a problem?
So "Whatabout flying?!" instead of engaging with the post.
You cannot legally function as an adult in the US without some form of identification. I have never met someone that doesn’t have a government ID. It’s almost impossible to be a legal citizen and not have.
Yet, it isn’t required to vote in national elections.
Someone needs to explain to me why that is acceptable.
It's required where I vote. I'm not saying your're wrong, but would like to hear from some people that didn't require some kind of ID to vote.
Me.
So you walked into vote and said I'm dumbass and no issues?
You cannot legally function as an adult in the US without some form of identification. I have never met someone that doesn’t have a government ID. It’s almost impossible to be a legal citizen and not have.
Yet, it isn’t required to vote in national elections.
Someone needs to explain to me why that is acceptable.
It's required where I vote. I'm not saying your're wrong, but would like to hear from some people that didn't require some kind of ID to vote.
Me.
So you walked into vote and said I'm dumbass and no issues?
Nope. Just mailed in my ballot and didn't vote for any dumbasses like you did. You suck at this.
Apparently the best argument FOR voter ID is that most people can get ID pretty easily.
And that prevents the commission of a felony that no one ever commits anyway.
Strong work, ladies!
This is patently dishonest.
The argument for government ID is to restore the public’s faith in our electoral process.
The argument against it is......what, exactly?
We are nearly 4 pages in and you have offered fuck all as a response.
What other conspiracy theories should we cater to ‘cuz the nuts need to have their “faith” restored?
How about a Mueller investigation of fake collusion?
Not enough evidence to prove criminality beyond a reasonable doubt is the new “exoneration”.
Not having enough evidence to charge someone or to even make a case is the new "guilty" when you prosecute them in the press. Remember now, this Kunt holds himself out to be a HUGE defender of our norms and traditions. No need to make your case in a court of law, just prosecute them in the press.
Comments
The argument you're looking for that's against it is that it's a solution in search of a problem. The argument continues that there is no material threat of voter fraud given the inherent obstacles to orchestrating it at a meaningful level. So in practice a lot of people who are otherwise eligible voters but live in states/regions that have poor access to obtaining valid IDs (unreasonable distances to DOL offices in some counties, lack of transportation for low income prospective voters, lack of available free time to make the journey, minimal open hours of DOL offices, etc) end up not getting the IDs. All of this ultimately creates a disincentive for voting that disproportionately impacts lower income folks. Philosophically, these people believe that encouraging more people voting is something that strengthens a democracy.
There are plenty of other considerations that round out the argument, such as some states' very arbitrary enforcement of what constitutes "valid ID" for voting purposes, but that's the jist of it. If you don't believe any of the above assumptions, especially around voter fraud not being a material risk, then you probably won't find this argument very persuasive. Unsurprisingly, about 95% of the Tug is going to be in that camp.
Fucktard7
None. Not one.
Congrats, H. You're as honest as Ferdinand Marcos.
Try reading for comprehension sometime, TurdBrain.