The General US Politics Thread

We're talking about this as if their intent was not specifically to disenfranchise the kinds of voters who have student I Ds in lieu of drivers licenses.

One goal of proposing a policy for public debate is to create the opportunity to call out the other sides bullshit.

Gab: Our point is, those I Ds they don't think are valid AREN'T valid.

If you want to change all ID laws to allow library cards, then by all means. But that's not what's on the books, and the people who made those laws aren't going to be open to changes to expand the definition of voter ID. And when anyone tries to change the laws, they bellyache about "voter fraud" and "everyone should have an ID" which is missing the point entirely.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

But as with life, many things that should be, aren't.

I agree everyone should get a free state issued basic id every 5 years. If anything else this can be a safety issue. Make them not just list organ donor or whatever, but in the case of older people also list possible health problems or if they have a VHC or a pacemaker.

Adding benefits like this would help make the case to fund them, but I fear it will take a while before our economy improves enough a politician can nominate this.

But if we frame it as a health issue, then hopefully there won't be so much opposition.

A sarcastic "captain obvious" retort is inappropriate, considering your own positions haven't made it evident that you realize the insurmountably of what we're discussing here.

And I am the one constantly accused of being fatalistic...

Well, what do you suggest Tomu? How would you begin to solve such an insurmountable problem?

Tomu, we realize that's the reasoning behind the drive for it by the right. What were saying is it WOULD make sense to require it if, and only if, it was easy to get a proper ID for yourself. The current movement is kinda Right for the Wrong Reasons.

Hmmm.

I appear to have imagined a post that never actually happened, which completely changes the context of this conversation.

I had THOUGHT it went

"Disenfranchisement! Look at those voter ID laws"

"I don't care who you are, everyone should have an ID"

"But the laws as they are are bad mmkay, and it's not like they're going to be fixed."

"Stop implying I'm an idiot!"

But that first post never occurred, which changes the context for the second post, which then suggests the third post is unwarranted.

So, sorry-my bad.

The law isn't "Everyone should have an ID" it's "ID is required to vote." Everyone having an ID, yet an ID not being required to vote, would be just fine (as evidenced by the fact that in person voter fraud is as limited as it is). So it's not right for the wrong reasons-it's just tangentially connected to something that is right.

edited 20th Apr '14 1:35:22 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Apparently some people are acting like Chelsea Clinton is a hypocrite for being excited for her baby despite being pro-choice. Why do conservatives never seem to understand basic definitions of words?

edit: I'm fine with requiring an ID to vote provided said ID is given to every citizen upon reaching a certain age. If it's required but not something freely given to them then it's just another form of a poll tax.

edited 20th Apr '14 1:38:12 PM by Kostya

You're not listening tomu. We're saying it would only be ok if they were required to have ID, and that the current laws are wrong.

Because many pro-lifers reduce the argument to moral absolutes, and after doing so, imagine that anyone pro-choice has to be both a child-hater, (if a woman) a man-hater, and jumping at the opportunity to crater some fetus-skulls.

YOU'RE not listening. I'm not saying that's not what you're saying; I know your position. I was saying, due to having imagined a post that didn't exist, that the way and position of where your position was stated was irresponsible.

If your response to "voter ID laws are bad" is "I think everyone should have an ID" then whatever your position is, the context of that conversation is "I disagree with you." If you go out of your way to explain, sure-everyone ends up rosy. You don't explicitly say "No, voter ID laws are good" but that is the message that initially gets communicated.

Communication is complex like that; the things that you don't say communicate as much as the things you do say. And my objection wasn't that, at this point, your actual position hasn't been communicated; rather, it was that further elucidation* on one's position that has since been offered was indeed necessary at the time.

: *Somehow I feel that's probably not the right word after all. Oh well.

edited 20th Apr '14 2:32:59 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Which makes no sense because Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, and numerous other powerful women are pro-choice yet still have children. This isn't some big secret. It's blatantly obvious that pro-choice women have children all the same.

Everyone should have an ID. Period. Stop sign. The end.

Everyone in this country should have at least one form of ID with a picture and their basic information.

I could go on for pages of why this is a good idea but I didn't because I thought it was obvious.

You should show ID to vote. You have to show ID for your medical records, your bank accounts, your education forms, to buy certain products or enjoy certain privileges. Your vote should be just as protected.

The state should issue I Ds free of charge if youdo not have some other acceptable form of ID: (passport, college, work badge, military, etc.) If I can use my passport as acceptable ID to get a job, it should be acceptable ID to vote, which at least in Arkansas it is. Again, Arkansas issues free state I Ds but I don't know about other states.

Everyone here knows that certain political powers are trying to keep people from voting, hence why I said if they start issuing and requiring I Ds, they can use the health angle to try and get it passed.

Think about it. Everyone has to have an ID with their basic info and any significant health concerns that can be used incidently as a voter ID on top of just basic body identification is a lot easier to swallow than some sort of citizenship test or whatever. It solves other problems while cutting off the chance to exclude people from voting.

Tomu, I didn't feel the need to spell all this out because I thought it was apparent. But if I am not being clear then just ask me to reword myself. Everyone knows you're talking about me. Might as well quote block what was confusing or just ask me directly.

this.

I'm just wondering — do certain States require a Photo ID to buy alcohol or knives, as a way of proving your age?

edited 20th Apr '14 2:51:22 PM by Greenmantle

Most do. If not all.

Yes and depending on the state depends if certain I Ds are okay.

For me, I can use my driver's license to buy a weapon along with passing the federal and state background checks should it be a gun. I cannot use my passport.

My state only allows either an Arkansas Driver's license or an Arkansas State ID to buy guns. The only exception is at certain gun shows and then you not only are ran through Arkansas and federal databases, you are run through your home state as well.

It's quite okay to speak in shoulds, that just does little to help the context of the debate on existing voter ID laws, where stats have shown widespread disenfranchisement. Yes, in an ideal world everyone would have photo ID, and in the ideal near future we'll all have RFID chips in us for universal short-range broadcasting of our identities. In the present however, people don't have that. And when they don't, they lose their right to vote. And That's Terrible.

Let's just call it a misunderstanding and leave it at that.

At least in PA, you don't need to show ID to buy alcohol unless the store employee wants to check your age.

In GA, you have to "look 27" to avoid being carded for buying cigarettes.

If we only talked about what was, then this thread and every other one like it would then into a simple bitchfest.

Hence why I tried to offer a solution condusive to what I felt the norm should be.

Lets let it go, people. Actually, you dont have to have photo ID to validate the election, in my district they keep a list of all registered voters, and when you vote they check you off. Any amount of voter fraud would be immediately obvious.

That's what happens in the UK — registration is performed by sending a form for each household to fill in. You're legally supposed to fill it in^note  Especially as the Electoral Roll is used for Credit-checking purposes, but not everyone does^note  Which means they can't vote.