The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...
-
More than 100 companies sign letter opposing U.S. state voting restrictions
https://reut.rs/3aa0HSr
-
-
The word "democracy" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Nor should it. Our country is a republic and should not be governed by some kind of woke mob democracy.
-
Go fly on a Delta jet without ID. Or open a bank account. Or any number of mundane, never-give-it-a-second-thought, everyday activities. But people want you to vote without one.
-
I find it simply amazing that many in the Dem party, along with several large companies in the American Corporatsphere think blacks and other minorities in Georgia are too damn stupid to obtain a driver's license or a picture ID from the DMV.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
-
@jolly said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
-
The word "democracy" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Nor should it. Our country is a republic and should not be governed by some kind of woke mob democracy.
-
Go fly on a Delta jet without ID. Or open a bank account. Or any number of mundane, never-give-it-a-second-thought, everyday activities. But people want you to vote without one.
-
I find it simply amazing that many in the Dem party, along with several large companies in the American Corporatsphere think blacks and other minorities in Georgia are too damn stupid to obtain a driver's license or a picture ID from the DMV.
-
Neither does the word "identification" (nor the term "identification document" nor the acronym "ID") appear in the U.S. Constitution. Yet you want to make it a requirement to exercise a right explicitly protected by the Constitution?
-
Non sequitur. What does flying in a commercial airline or opening a bank account have to do with voting?
-
Silly straw man. Just because people have the ability to do X does not mean you get to make doing X a requirement for people to exercise their Constitutional rights. Take, for example, "voting literacy test" -- just because people can pass such literacy tests does not mean you get to make it a requirement to vote.
-
-
I'm sympathetic to the marginalized people having access to vote - but getting IDs to people who are marginalized doesn't seem like an inherently discriminatory thing.
Also - don't you need an ID to get welfare benefits or other forms of social assistance?
As a Canadian where you need identification to vote - I'm sympathetic to requiring IDs.
-
@axtremus said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
@jolly said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
-
The word "democracy" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Nor should it. Our country is a republic and should not be governed by some kind of woke mob democracy.
-
Go fly on a Delta jet without ID. Or open a bank account. Or any number of mundane, never-give-it-a-second-thought, everyday activities. But people want you to vote without one.
-
I find it simply amazing that many in the Dem party, along with several large companies in the American Corporatsphere think blacks and other minorities in Georgia are too damn stupid to obtain a driver's license or a picture ID from the DMV.
-
Neither does the word "identification" (nor the term "identification document" nor the acronym "ID") appear in the U.S. Constitution. Yet you want to make it a requirement to exercise a right explicitly protected by the Constitution?
-
Non sequitur. What does flying in a commercial airline or opening a bank account have to do with voting?
-
Silly straw man. Just because people have the ability to do X does not mean you get to make doing X a requirement for people to exercise their Constitutional rights. Take, for example, "voting literacy test" -- just because people can pass such literacy tests does not mean you get to make it a requirement to vote.
I'm genuinely curious - I haven't looked into the argument for why ID's shouldn't be required.
What's the benefit of not requiring an ID. And maybe we let people vote without an ID, but give them a conditional vote and they have to apply for an ID at the same time. (If it turns out they're not who they are, their vote doesn't get counted)
Would there be a problem with that?
-
-
-
@xenon Absent other factors, on principle I support requiring every citizen to have a government issued ID and that said ID be required to vote.
The problem with @Jolly and the Republicans/"Conservatives"'s idea of voter ID requirement is that ultimately they seek to use voter ID to disenfranchise certain populations that they know generally favor the Democrats/non-"Conservatives" that happen to also be less likely to have government issued IDs.
For all the "voter ID" proposal that the Republicans/"Conservatives" put up, I have never seen a corresponding proposal to also help every one who is eligible for ID to actually get an ID.
There is even a subset of them who would go up in arms if you expand the requirements to show government IDs for more things people do, they will think of it as some sort of government "big brother" plot to number and label every citizen.
Send up a proposal that (1) has a plan, with proper funding, to help every one who is eligible to get a government issued ID to actually get a government issued ID, and (2) make the "voter ID" a requirement that will come into effect only after some very high percentage of voting-age citizens actually acquired such IDs (say, 97% or higher, I am open to negotiating this threshold) ... and I will be onboard to support such proposals.
-
@axtremus said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
@xenon Absent other factors, on principle I support requiring every citizen to have a government issued ID and that said ID be required to vote.
The problem with @Jolly and the Republicans/"Conservatives"'s idea of voter ID requirement is that ultimately they seek to use voter ID to disenfranchise certain populations that they know generally favor the Democrats/non-"Conservatives" that happen to also be less likely to have government issued IDs.
For all the "voter ID" proposal that the Republicans/"Conservatives" put up, I have never seen a corresponding proposal to also help every one who is eligible for ID to actually get an ID.
There is even a subset of them who would go up in arms if you expand the requirements to show government IDs for more things people do, they will think of it as some sort of government "big brother" plot to number and label every citizen.
Send up a proposal that (1) has a plan, with proper funding, to help every one who is eligible to get a government issued ID to actually get a government issued ID, and (2) make the "voter ID" a requirement that will come into effect only after some very high percentage of voting-age citizens actually acquired such IDs (say, 97% or higher, I am open to negotiating this threshold) ... and I will be onboard to support such proposals.
Drink deeply from the Democrat fountain...
-
@axtremus said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
Absent other factors, on principle I support requiring every citizen to have a government issued ID and that said ID be required to vote.
The problem with @Jolly and the Republicans/"Conservatives"'s idea of voter ID requirement is that ultimately they seek to use voter ID to disenfranchise certain populations that they know generally favor the Democrats/non-"Conservatives" that happen to also be less likely to have government issued IDs.
So, you're for voter ID, unless you're not.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@george-k said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
@axtremus said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
Absent other factors, on principle I support requiring every citizen to have a government issued ID and that said ID be required to vote.
The problem with @Jolly and the Republicans/"Conservatives"'s idea of voter ID requirement is that ultimately they seek to use voter ID to disenfranchise certain populations that they know generally favor the Democrats/non-"Conservatives" that happen to also be less likely to have government issued IDs.
So, you're for voter ID, unless you're not.
Can you get a cellphone without ID? I’m trying to figure out who doesn’t have one. Let’s leave burner phones out of the equation we know why people get them.
-
@george-k said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
So, you're for voter ID, unless you're not.
I am for fair access to voting.
It’s a very reasonable position to take. It’s like saying I am for safe and effective vaccines. For or example: just because I say I want a new vaccine to go through trials and be shown to meet certain safety and efficacy standards, you should not hold it against me and quip about me being “for vaccination, unless I’m not.”
-
@axtremus said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
@george-k said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
So, you're for voter ID, unless you're not.
I am for fair access to voting.
It’s a very reasonable position to take. It’s like saying I am for safe and effective vaccines. For or example: just because I say I want a new vaccine to go through trials and be shown to meet certain safety and efficacy standards, you should not hold it against me and quip about me being “for vaccination, unless I’m not.”
No, you're for fraud, plain and simple.
This is not rocket surgery.
-
@axtremus said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
I am for fair access to voting.
And so am I.
"Fairness" in my opinion means allowing only qualified people to vote. Allowing unqualified people to vote is not "fair," is it?
Asking for proof of qualification to vote is not unreasonable, is it?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@george-k said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
@axtremus said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
Asking for proof of qualification to vote is not unreasonable, is it?
Not if you administer the process in a manner that disqualify a large number of those who actually qualify to vote.
As I wrote a few posts back, come up with a plan to help all who actually qualify get what they need to show that they qualify, then, only after we get to a point where almost every one who qualifies has everything needed to demonstrate such qualifications, that the requirement for such demonstrations be made a requirement to cast a vote.
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
