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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need ID to cash a check.
You need ID to buy alcohol.
You need ID to buy tobacco.
You need ID to buy a gun.
You need ID to get into many govt buildings.
You need ID to get onto secure federal property.
You need ID to rent or buy an apartment or home.
You need ID to get on a plane.
You need ID to get a library card.
You need ID to buy a fishing license.
You need ID to open a bank account.
You need ID to receive govt benefits like WIC and EBT.
You need ID to apply for a job.
You need ID to buy or rent a car.
You need ID to go into any school building in the country.
You need ID to get medical treatment.
You need ID to apply to colleges.
You need ID to get into a many bars/clubs.
You need ID to get into many community centers / pools


But voting doesn’t require an ID.




If you oppose a law requiring showing an ID in order to vote, then you are for voter fraud. There is no other plausible reason.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that many people do very few of those things.
I just went to the dentist. They know me by name, sight, and even by my voice. No ID needed. I don’t drink, smoke or own a gun — that cuts your list down considerably. I’ve had one of my bank accounts since I was six, and even then I realized that many people could not afford to have bank accounts.

TLDR: Your lengthy list really doesn’t support your conclusion. If you think it does, you either need to work on your critical thinking skills, or you are for voter disenfranchisement. There is no other plausible reason. See how that works?

When you first went to your dentst, I don't believe that they didn't ask for your address and some form of ID and/or a form completed by you showing your personal information.

- You're an anonymous stranger on the internet who apparently lacks the experience or even the imagination to get that different people in different environments may have different experiences. Okay. So you have limitations.

- You're also changing your bar. The tediously long list of things was about ID -- not about addresses and medical history -- ID. And, let me repeat this for you: No ID needed.

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the thought that poor folks don’t have IDs?

Or only black people somehow can't make it to the DMV, but white people can?

Google a map in the south of the DMV locations and superimpose the map with where the communities are majority AA. You will see the problem.

If you are making a statement that "only the black people somehow can't make it to the DMV" then you have clearly never experienced the problem. Glad you are enjoying your privilege.

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

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

+1
Something something “globalist” something something new world order something something is about how it goes whenever a national ID is brought up.

Anonymous wrote: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

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the thought that poor folks don’t have IDs?

Or only black people somehow can't make it to the DMV, but white people can?

Google a map in the south of the DMV locations and superimpose the map with where the communities are majority AA. You will see the problem.

If you are making a statement that "only the black people somehow can't make it to the DMV" then you have clearly never experienced the problem. Glad you are enjoying your privilege.

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 wrote: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

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need ID to cash a check.
You need ID to buy alcohol.
You need ID to buy tobacco.
You need ID to buy a gun.
You need ID to get into many govt buildings.
You need ID to get onto secure federal property.
You need ID to rent or buy an apartment or home.
You need ID to get on a plane.
You need ID to get a library card.
You need ID to buy a fishing license.
You need ID to open a bank account.
You need ID to receive govt benefits like WIC and EBT.
You need ID to apply for a job.
You need ID to buy or rent a car.
You need ID to go into any school building in the country.
You need ID to get medical treatment.
You need ID to apply to colleges.
You need ID to get into a many bars/clubs.
You need ID to get into many community centers / pools


But voting doesn’t require an ID.




If you oppose a law requiring showing an ID in order to vote, then you are for voter fraud. There is no other plausible reason.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that many people do very few of those things.
I just went to the dentist. They know me by name, sight, and even by my voice. No ID needed. I don’t drink, smoke or own a gun — that cuts your list down considerably. I’ve had one of my bank accounts since I was six, and even then I realized that many people could not afford to have bank accounts.

TLDR: Your lengthy list really doesn’t support your conclusion. If you think it does, you either need to work on your critical thinking skills, or you are for voter disenfranchisement. There is no other plausible reason. See how that works?

When you first went to your dentst, I don't believe that they didn't ask for your address and some form of ID and/or a form completed by you showing your personal information.

- You're an anonymous stranger on the internet who apparently lacks the experience or even the imagination to get that different people in different environments may have different experiences. Okay. So you have limitations.

- You're also changing your bar. The tediously long list of things was about ID -- not about addresses and medical history -- ID. And, let me repeat this for you: No ID needed.

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the thought that poor folks don’t have IDs?

I think the thought is that people shouldn’t be denied their constitutional right if they don’t have an ID.

I’m glad you’re in favor of the right of everyone to buy an AR15 without ID.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did George Washington, Ben Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson show ID to vote in America’s first elections? Anyone?

Thanks.

OMG. We’re truly dealing with idiots.

If it is was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it’s good enough for me. They had identity documents back in those days.

Again, why do I need to show ID to vote? I didn’t need to show ID for years until the mid 2000s. Why did no one show ID in 1800 to 2005?

Sadly, the Founding Fathers limited voting to white, male property owners — what the Republicans seem to be trying to get back to.

Remarks like yours make it clear we are dealing with histrionic liars. And anyone believing you is to be pitied.

What’s the lie? Save your pity for the poorly educated.

Start here if your research skills are lacking.

https://www.carnegie.org/topics/topic-articles/voting-rights/voting-rights-timeline/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhI6blLHR7wIVAbSzCh0CMARqEAAYASAAEgLrJfD_BwE

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every state has a different law about what counts as ID to vote.

And the FACT is that even an state ID (not drivers license) these days is hard to get. Due to COVID waits in my state for an appointment is 4 months. There are no walk in spots.

People who are poor, or elderly, or disabled will struggle mightily to get them even in though they have the RIGHT to vote.

Beyond the appointment you need the fresh paperwork. Elderly people may no longer have access to a birth certificate at all... they may not have been issued one or their courthouse may have burned down. Disabled people who live in group homes or those in nursing homes don't have the transportation to go apply. They may have had valid IDs at one point, but they have expired.

I have friends in Florida who work with a charity that helps people get IDs. They say you won't believe how hard it can be for some people to be able to locate their paperwork.

The GOP is afraid and evil.

Voting is a right. And they want to take it away from the "wrong" people.

The fact is?

All I can say is that you must have a tough life if you think getting a valid ID is "hard."

What kind of adult doesn't have any valid ID in the 21st century?

This has been discussed ad nauseum. If you want to understand, you'll have to first step outside your priviledge bubble and consider that other people's lives look different than yours. People are poor, workultiple casual jobs to make ends meet, live in rural areas or areas with little access to public transportation.

Also, the definition of "valid ID" being used in these laws is so blatantly lopsided it's almost laughable. Student ID, not valid. Gun registration, valid.

And they never buy cigarettes, alcohol, or guns. They never cash checks or drive or rent an apartment, fly on a plane, etc etc.

Having an ID is a requirement in the modern world. If there are people that are really so low functioning that they can't follow through and get one I certainly don't object to people holding their hand through the process but I don't see any reason we can't take minimal prudent steps to secure our elections because there are some people that can't manage their most basic affairs.

We don’t need elections secured. The data shows that we do not need that.

We need the old white men to stand down and let black people vote.

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 wrote:No ID card. If you want to be tracked, go ahead.
Don’t subject me to it. I do not want to end up like in China where my ability to get a job or travel can be “turned off” as way to control me. The ID card will be abused and probably by the same white crew who made illegal to give a voter some water.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elections need to _look_ secure, as well as to actually _be_ secure. Many would feel more comfortable in accepting election outcomes if minimal efforts were made to provide for election security. Requiring identification from voters is one such step that could be taken. It makes sense to me.

It is my understanding that very few people do not have some form of government-issued identification. As noted above, it is virtually necessary for one to exist in modern society. That said, we should provide valid voter identification cards for free to those who do not have some other form of government-issued identification and give those people some time to obtain such identification before it is actually required.

What would be the objection to this?

This last election was secure. The only reason people don't think it was is because they believe Trump and the GOP's lies.

Ask the GA GOP who administered the election, they said it was secure.
Ask the AZ GOP who administered the election, they said it was secure.
Ask the UT GOP who administered the election, they said it was secure.

It was only Trump and his sycophants who said otherwise, and people like you believe them, and the GA GOP ad other state GOPs around the country are using it as cover for massive voter suppression.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no voter fraud problem. The election fraud problem is voter suppression by state and local government officials.

There is no voter suppression problem. That narrative surfaces when a Democrat loses an election he/she was predicted to win.
Blame the damn polls that never get it right. Don't blame suppression.

True or false: the people most impacted by these laws are poor and POC.

No. How would it?

Not everyone has drivers license or a Passport.

Nor do they need either. Anyone can get a basic ID at the DMV. It’s not the arduous task you like to pretend it is.
DP

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.