Dem's New Slogan....

[lilpixieofterror]

Freedom of movement? You're claiming this is a constitutional principle that gives people the "right" to book airline travel or drive a car? Really?

And am I supposed to conclude, because you use and ID every day, that everyone therefore has an ID. The fact is, a lot of people do not have IDs. I work with them. So does CP. So do many people. I'm not sure what your observations about your own ID use are supposed to show.

The last statement is bizarre, but I have heard other people from the right say it about Democrats. From my perspective, both parties are making choices that largely benefit their primary donors, who tend to be the more wealthy people.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's never an argument I've ever made, Pix - so I have no answer.

[lilpixieofterror]

And yet they exist...despite your disbelief.

Name a sitting republican that won due to voter ID laws.

[carpedm9587]

Of course not because you never see the implications of your logic.

You are free to attempt to trace them, if you wish. But so far, your statements have little/nothing to do with what I have said.

[Cow Poke]

Cars exist without seat belts, so, oh my Godlessness, we should never have enacted seat belt laws!

Because there are supposedly a few people who don't have IDs, we should not implement voter ID laws - that's as dumb as not implementing seat belt laws because some cars didn't have seat belts.

(I had a 53 Olds when I was younger, and got stopped by the police for not wearing my seat belt - unbeknownst to the cop (and I had already done the research) - cars that were manufactured without seat belts were not subject the seat belt law)

They didn't say "hey, we can't implement a seat belt law until we can be assured that ALL cars have seat belts.

[carpedm9587]

Umm... that we are constitutionally protected from incarceration without due process does not translate to a "right to book an airline ticket." That is an enormous leap that is not justified.

Of course I want to get them IDs. I never said otherwise. And I work within our town to address this exact issue. Did you miss those posts? My argument is: get them the cards, THEN impose the laws.

I guess keeping them dumb and unable to move up is a good way to keep them voting democrat, but can you show a single republican seat that was won due to voter ID laws? Just one?

The first part of your statement is more of the ridiculous right-wing "democrats want to keep people poor" meme, and does not deserve a response. It's as ridiculous as the left-wing "Republicans are racists and xenophobes" meme.

The latter part is is a zero-sum argument. No one can "prove" such a link - there will always be wiggle room. We know Wisconsin saw a 200,000 participation drop that can be attributed to the implementation of the voterID laws in 2016. A significant percentage were Democrats. Trump won the state by 23,000 votes. Would it have gone the other way without the VoterID laws? We have no way of knowing/proving that, but it appears to be a significant probability.

I don't know a single democrat arguing that we should NOT be getting IDs for people, and I know a lot actively working to help people secure cards. The same is true of Republicans. This argument of yours appears to be created out of whole cloth.

[carpedm9587]

It is by no means implied. And of course I want people to move up in society. I've never said otherwise.

[carpedm9587]

Name a sitting republican that won due to voter ID laws.

Previously answered.

[carpedm9587]

Because there are supposedly a few people who don't have IDs, we should not implement voter ID laws - that's as dumb as not implementing seat belt laws because some cars didn't have seat belts.

Umm...no. But you do raise a good point. Seat Belt laws were written (in most states) to grandfather older cars not equipped with them. That would be a simple alternative approach to the VoterID problem. Put the law in place but grandfather people currently on the voter registry rolls. Simply require it for new additions to the rolls.

(I had a 53 Olds when I was younger, and got stopped by the police for not wearing my seat belt - unbeknownst to the cop (and I had already done the research) - cars that were manufactured without seat belts were not subject the seat belt law)

They didn't say "hey, we can't implement a seat belt law until we can be assured that ALL cars have seat belts.

See statement above.

[lilpixieofterror]

Umm... that we are constitutionally protected from incarceration without due process does not translate to a "right to book an airline ticket." That is an enormous leap that is not justified.

Of course I want to get them IDs. I never said otherwise. And I work within our town to address this exact issue. Did you miss those posts? My argument is: get them the cards, THEN impose the laws.

The first part of your statement is more of the ridiculous right-wing "democrats want to keep people poor" meme, and does not deserve a response. It's as ridiculous as the left-wing "Republicans are racists and xenophobes" meme.

Irony at its finest.

The latter part is is a zero-sum argument. No one can "prove" such a link - there will always be wiggle room. We know Wisconsin saw a 200,000 participation drop that can be attributed to the implementation of the voterID laws in 2016. A significant percentage were Democrats. Trump won the state by 23,000 votes. Would it have gone the other way without the VoterID laws? We have no way of knowing/proving that, but it appears to be a significant probability.

And Trump would have still won anyway because he could have lost Florida and still won. Sorry, still no evidence that voter ID law helps Republicans win since winning Wisconsin had zero effect on the outcome.

I don't know a single democrat arguing that we should NOT be getting IDs for people, and I know a lot actively working to help people secure cards. The same is true of Republicans. This argument of yours appears to be created out of whole cloth.

Nah you instead ignore comply by dates and try for a unicorn that will never happen... 100% total compliance. Essentially letting you have your cake and eat it too.

[lilpixieofterror]

Previously answered.

Nope because Wisconsin had zero effect on the election of Donald Trump. 296 vs 306 is still a win. Try harder.

[lilpixieofterror]

Umm...no. But you do raise a good point. Seat Belt laws were written (in most states) to grandfather older cars not equipped with them. That would be a simple alternative approach to the VoterID problem. Put the law in place but grandfather people currently on the voter registry rolls. Simply require it for new additions to the rolls.

You mean like provisional ballets?

[carpedm9587]

Fine - and acknowledged. But the original discussion was about the "right" to buy an airline ticket and fly or drive a car. Where are these guaranteed constitutionally?

Which is pretty much exactly what I said: create the law to be implemented int he future, giving people an adequate window for securing the IDs and the means to do so (if they cannot afford, for example). The window I suggested was 10/1/20.

Irony at its finest.

And Trump would have still won anyway because he could have lost Florida and still won. Sorry, still no evidence that voter ID law helps Republicans win since winning Wisconsin had zero effect on the outcome.

Which is basically what I said. Anything proposed as a possibility cannot be definitively shown. All we can show is the reduction in voter participation.

Nah you instead ignore comply by dates and try for a unicorn that will never happen... 100% total compliance. Essentially letting you have your cake and eat it too.

Since I never advocated for total, 100% compliance, I have no response.

[carpedm9587]

You mean like provisional ballets?

Provisional ballots do not solve the problem for the reasons cited earlier. They permit the voter to vote, but the vote is not counted until the voter is determined to be eligible. That has to be done within a fairly short period of time after the election day.

The idea of grandfathering existing registrants is better.

[Cow Poke]

Provisional ballots do not solve the problem for the reasons cited earlier. They permit the voter to vote, but the vote is not counted until the voter is determined to be eligible. That has to be done within a fairly short period of time after the election day.

When you don't like something, you tend to overcomplicatify it. You don't really know what the rules are for provisional ballots all across the country.