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.
@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.
-
@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.
@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?
-
-
@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?
-
-
Is there info somewhere that compares all state voting laws and comes up with an index? I am so confused where Georgia stands from a non partisan analysis.
-
@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.
-
@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...
-
@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 ...:
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.
-
@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.
@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.
-
@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.
@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.”
-
@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.
-
@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 ...:
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?
-
@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?
@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.
-
@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.
@axtremus you're amazing.
By your standard, anyone, citizen or not, can walk up and request a ballot.
And you have no problem with that..
Amazing, just amazing.
"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.
-
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.
@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.
Indeed better to be governed by a more traditional, better dressed and patriotic mob.
-
-
@axtremus you're amazing.
By your standard, anyone, citizen or not, can walk up and request a ballot.
And you have no problem with that..
Amazing, just amazing.
@george-k said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
@axtremus you're amazing.
By your standard, anyone, citizen or not, can walk up and request a ballot.
And you have no problem with that..
Amazing, just amazing.
In the USA, there was no law that require "voter ID" at the polls before 1950. How amazing was that? Even today, 16 states still has no law that require "voter ID" at the polls. Yet no one has been able to show that there is any widespread issue. There is no justification to impose new requirements with the potential to administratively prevent large number of qualified voters from voting when there is no widespread issue to solve.
Just so we don't get completely sidetracked by "voter ID" discussion, note that the "strongly worded" letter shown in the opening post is not narrowly focused on "voter ID," but more generally opposes legislations that (in the signatories' views) would "restrict or prevent an eligible voter from an equal and fair opportunity to cast a ballot.'
-
@george-k said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
@axtremus you're amazing.
By your standard, anyone, citizen or not, can walk up and request a ballot.
And you have no problem with that..
Amazing, just amazing.
In the USA, there was no law that require "voter ID" at the polls before 1950. How amazing was that? Even today, 16 states still has no law that require "voter ID" at the polls. Yet no one has been able to show that there is any widespread issue. There is no justification to impose new requirements with the potential to administratively prevent large number of qualified voters from voting when there is no widespread issue to solve.
Just so we don't get completely sidetracked by "voter ID" discussion, note that the "strongly worded" letter shown in the opening post is not narrowly focused on "voter ID," but more generally opposes legislations that (in the signatories' views) would "restrict or prevent an eligible voter from an equal and fair opportunity to cast a ballot.'
@axtremus said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
In the USA, there was no law that require "voter ID" at the polls before 1950.
Irrelevant to my point. By your argument, anyone can walk up to a polling place and vote.
Right?
What safeguards do you propose?
Oh, never mind....
None.
-
@axtremus said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
In the USA, there was no law that require "voter ID" at the polls before 1950.
Irrelevant to my point. By your argument, anyone can walk up to a polling place and vote.
Right?
What safeguards do you propose?
Oh, never mind....
None.
@george-k said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
@axtremus said in The Strongly Worded Letter that followed ...:
In the USA, there was no law that require "voter ID" at the polls before 1950.
Irrelevant to my point. By your argument, anyone can walk up to a polling place and vote.
Right?
What safeguards do you propose?
Oh, never mind....
None.
Ideally, I want national ID for every resident (not just citizen; the ID itself can indicate citizenship or other non-citizen status), and make that the basis for identify verification for all manners of official businesses, including voting.
Until we get to a point where every one has ID, I am content to keep going with the status quo. Until some one shows me what widespread problem there is with the current system, then I am open to considering solutions that might address said problem. As long as we stay in a situation where many people still do not have IDs and there is no widespread problem to specifically address, I see no reason to make any widespread changes.
