Give Me Your Best Argument Against Voter ID

thechatch said:

DoogieMcDoogerson said:

Circa 2013: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id

There is no good argument, FYI.

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.

HustlinOwl said:

thechatch said:

DoogieMcDoogerson said:

Circa 2013: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id

There is no good argument, FYI.

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 mean all those who tacitly endorse cheating?

thechatch said:

HHusky said:

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.

WestlinnDuck said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

thechatch said:

HHusky said:

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.

HHusky said:

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!

Why make people show ID when they enter a Federal building Dazzler? There no evidence that it prevents any crime so why do it?

WestlinnDuck said:

HustlinOwl said:

thechatch said:

DoogieMcDoogerson said:

Circa 2013: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id

There is no good argument, FYI.

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?

HHusky said:

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!

H stands here before us and declares that all U.S. elections are air-tight with no instances of fraud anywhere.

None. Not one.

Congrats, H. You're as honest as Ferdinand Marcos.

HHusky said:

TurdBomber said:

HHusky said:

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!

H stands here before us and declares that all U.S. elections are air-tight with no instances of fraud anywhere.

What a fucking retard. Seriously, you're giving Sled and DJ a run for their money.

Try reading for comprehension sometime, TurdBrain.

Try answering a fucking question for once in your pathetic life Dazzler. Or you could just continue to fluff Flea.

thechatch said:

Steaming toward page 5 and HH still has nothing to offer. What a useless fucking hack you are.

Madam, voter impersonation isn't happening. Your refusal to engage with that basic truth is telling.

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

thechatch said:

HHusky said:

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.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer071417.php3

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

thechatch said:

HHusky said:

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.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer071417.php3

Shocking, the Kunt dodges the question. Of course Krauthammer wrote that column well before we knew about the abuses of the FISA court and prosecutorial misconduct of the Mueller team but Dazzler keeps fucking his chicken.

GreenRiverGatorz said:

thechatch said:

HHusky said:

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.

Repeatedly Disproven Myth.

But an Article of Faith among the Left.

HHusky said:

thechatch said:

Steaming toward page 5 and HH still has nothing to offer. What a useless fucking hack you are.

Madam, voter impersonation isn't happening. Your refusal to engage with that basic truth is telling.

And what leads you to that conclusion, Dazzler?

You know jack shit about systems and controls and human behavior. If proper controls aren't in place, this is standard criminal/embezzlement drive a truck through and steal the gold shit. Responsible people lock down ANY identifiable potential for wrong doing. I've personally uncovered 5 people who subsequently went to prison for circumventing controls. And you don't think the most powerful office in the world wouldn't be subject to people trying to grab it? You're a fucking idiot beyond compare. Level 8 fucktard.

You just let your employees have access to cash drawer or let them do all accounting functions in your pretend practice? NO - because that would be fucking stupid to give them the opportunity when combined with the temptation to take your money.

Or maybe you are such a fucktard that you 'trust' your bookkeeper completely. She is ripping you off blind if so.

Fuck.

PurpleThrobber said:

HHusky said:

thechatch said:

Steaming toward page 5 and HH still has nothing to offer. What a useless fucking hack you are.

Madam, voter impersonation isn't happening. Your refusal to engage with that basic truth is telling.

And what leads you to that conclusion, Dazzler?

You know jack shit about systems and controls and human behavior. If proper controls aren't in place, this is standard criminal/embezzlement drive a truck through and steal the gold shit. Responsible people lock down ANY identifiable potential for wrong doing. I've personally uncovered 5 people who subsequently went to prison for circumventing controls. And you don't think the most powerful office in the world wouldn't be subject to people trying to grab it? You're a fucking idiot beyond compare. Level 8 fucktard.

You just let your employees have access to cash drawer or let them do all accounting functions in your pretend practice? NO - because that would be fucking stupid to give them the opportunity when combined with the temptation to take your money.

Or maybe you are such a fucktard that you 'trust' your bookkeeper completely. She is ripping you off blind if so.

Fuck.

You're accidentally making very good point.

The motive to steal a large amount of money even at the risk of committing a felony is obvious.

The motive to commit a felony in order to add a single vote is absent.