stop whining about voter ID requirements
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
One more time - there are people who literally DO NOT HAVE the documents necessary to get an ID. Not only are there people who do not have a copy of their birth certificates, there are people who don’t have one at all - they have NEVER had one. |
Anonymous
+1000 |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
 How ludicrous. I’d be curious to see just how many black people do not have ID. You make it sound like none do, which is incredibly insulting.
|
Anonymous
Start here if your research skills are lacking. https://www.carnegie.org/topics/topic-articles/voting-rights/voting-rights-timeline/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhI6blLHR7wIVAbSzCh0CMARqEAAYASAAEgLrJfD_BwE |
Anonymous
False equivalency. The second amendment explicitly states the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to purchase them. It mentions nothing about the purchasing aspect. (Before you even try to go there: the lack of mention doesn’t mean the government cannot impose restrictions, as there is something called unenumerated powers. In addition, let’s not overlook the “well-regulated” part of the second amendment; and I’m not referring to the often used but weak argument of what “militia” means here, in which the definition is open to interpretation. The definition of “regulated”, however, is not.) Purchasing a gun is a business transaction between the buyer and seller. In the context being discussed here, voting is not a transaction, nor is it between the people and anyone other than the government. It is, quite literally, always a situation that includes both the people and the government in all instances. Meaning, one without the other cannot exist because both rely on each other to exist. Furthermore, by your logic, you’re basically implying that the constitution requires the government to distribute arms to the people. This a gross misunderstanding of not only the constitution itself, but also the very purpose of it. The constitution does not grant rights; the constitution protects rights. This is rarely ever pointed out, though it needs to be. Clarification: voting is considered a natural right. Natural rights are comprised of both civil and political rights. These rights ensure one’s entitlement to participate in the civil and political life of society and the state without discrimination or repression. Specifically, the right to vote falls under the political rights’ category of natural rights. (For transparency’s sake, so is the right of self-defense. However, before you attempt to twist and obliterate it to fit your own agenda, let me remind you that ‘the right of self-defense with a gun’ is not an equivalent statement to ‘the right of self-defense’.) These natural rights are protected under the constitution. Therefore, since voting is a natural right, it’s protected under the constitution. Adding strength to the argument, the Supreme Court has also found that unenumerated rights include the right to vote. Voting-but-only-if-you-can-provide-ID implies not only that voting is not a natural right but also that it’s something granted by the government despite the fact that it’s not. Again, the constitution grants no rights; it protects them. But just to satisfy the ones who love to shift the goalposts all the time with their constant “what-ifs” or the ones always “just asking questions” aka the Tucker Carlson types: even if the purpose of the constitution was to grant rights, a natural right is not one of them because — operating under the premise that ‘grant’ means the people wouldn’t have access to it without it being granted to them — you cannot grant something the people already possess. If something has the ability to be granted, it also has the ability to be taken away. Taking this right away, and yes placing restrictions on it does take it away from certain individuals, implies that it’s something to be granted in the first place. Again, it’s not. Once again, the constitution does not GRANT rights; it PROTECTS them. Repeated, because it needs repeating. I don’t care how many times people need to recite this to themselves to understand it; they need to do it. The lack of basic understanding of this concept at the forefront of the constitution is the single biggest problem when it comes to debates over the constitution. Too many people think the government exists to grant us personhood. This logic implies that we wouldn’t exist without the government and the last I checked, the debate over creationism vs. evolution does not include, let alone mention, government at all. Rights are not granted by the government, and the constitution’s entire purpose is to ensure it stays that way. Most important of all, though, is that if we start interpreting the right to vote as anything other than a natural right — such as, a right granted to us by the government; one that the government can also take away at any point in time for any reason — then technically, our government ceases to exist. Not government in general, our government. The government in this country is chosen by the people. This is not some philosophical dilemma such as is the case of the chicken-and-the-egg. Our government doesn’t exist without the people voting. Since the government’s existence is dependent on the people, the people have to come first, logistically. Further, if the right to vote starts being interpreted as a right that’s granted rather than a natural right, one could possibly argue that our current government has no legal footing to grant anything, because our current system of government was not founded on such a principle, therefore rendering them illegitimate, or rather nonexistent, under the new proviso. Turning our government’s existence into its own chicken-and-the-egg would be a vicious cycle of infinite regress, a catastrophic disaster that would not steer us in the direction of, but rather launch us with full force, onto the path of democratic destruction. So if anarchy is what you desire — anarchy in the sense of lawlessness and complete and total public disorder and not anarchy in the sense of non-hierarchy — then by all means, support the GOP’s indirectly implied narrative that they own you. |
Anonymous
| I am a strong Dem voter but seems kind of crazy to me not to require ID. Maybe if you do not have ID at a minimum you should need to do the finger inking thing 3rd world countries do |
Anonymous
PP here. I didn't post the list, and I haven't changed the bar. The point is that your dentist knows who you are because he has your info. |
Anonymous
If you are a Democrat, call your one first, not "Dem"! And why do we need finger inking? What problem we are trying to solve? We do not have any significant voter fraud problem in USA and we do not need to solve GOP propaganda. In addition, any attempt to provide every American a FREE ID by the government will be first opposed by the same people who want everyone to have an ID. |
Anonymous
So now it's only about the black people living in the South who can't make it to the DMV, but can somehow find a way to make it everywhere else they need to go to. But the poor white people have no problem making it to the DMV? This is almost as ridiculous as the "can't find my birth certificate" excuse. lol |
Anonymous
If you really are a strong Democratic voter, than you already know that there is minimal voter fraud in the US. Even the Republicans who double and triple checked states like Georgia agree on this. So if the current systems are working well, what exactly do you hope to gain by adding onerous requirements? One of the issues here is about the types of ID that are required. I think another issue is the wildly varying requirements from state to state. It’s hard, though, for me to argue for uniformity with people who are trying to disenfranchise me. I’m curious: At least two majority white states do all of their voting by mail. Do you feel that this is problematic in any way? And, no, voters are not scanning copies of their gun licenses to include with their ballots. |
Anonymous
+1 Something something “globalist” something something new world order something something is about how it goes whenever a national ID is brought up. |
Anonymous
What do you mean they can make it to everywhere they need to go? It’s a well known fact that a large percentage of Americans actually DO NOT have access to everything they need, whether it be healthy food, good schools, or high quality hospitals. So no, the least privileged Americans don’t actually get “everywhere they need to go.” |
Anonymous
The original statement was things that you “need an ID” to do. I obviously never said that my dentist does not know who I am. She knows who I am quite well. I simply made one very specific statement: That I did not provide ID “to get (dental) treatment. I’m now at “whatever”. I’d much rather spend my time working for voter rights than exchanging posts with people who don’t know me or my dentist regarding her office procedures with me on my last visit. |
Anonymous
|
Doesn’t the new bill say that the state would provide a voter ID card to those that don’t have photo ID?
And if someone doesn’t have a birth certificate then it seems like they wouldn’t be able to get a bank account either. We should fix those issues, not have insecure elections because of it. |