Cuomo admits he's lost total control of NYC

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-09-2020, 12:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's almost as if bad faith arguments are a regular part of the discourse in this forum.

They are indeed.  My absolute preference is that they were called out regardless of who makes them.  I am not accusing you of this but you know exactly what I mean.

[*bfine32*]

(09-09-2020, 12:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Or simply voting isn't anything like banking or any other commercial example because one is a right and the other a service provided by a business.


Trying to enter the mire of dishonest defenses of voter suppression will only detract from that fundamental truth. 

Of course most know that all rights have limits. It's where those limits lie that is the subject of debate. 

Try to argue that point and it will get dismissed as "dishonest". 

[Belsnickel]

(09-09-2020, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They are indeed.  My absolute preference is that they were called out regardless of who makes them.  I am not accusing you of this but you know exactly what I mean.

I honestly don't bother with most of them from any of the offenders, or try not to anyway. I just skip past many posts in this forum these days, looking for decent conversations and ignoring much of the trash. Admittedly, it is hard and I do succumb to the frustrations I have when things become so egregious it is difficult for me to ignore it, but it's exhausting.

[BmorePat87]

(09-09-2020, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They are indeed.  My absolute preference is that they were called out regardless of who makes them.  I am not accusing you of this but you know exactly what I mean.

I be sure to call you out 


:andy:

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-09-2020, 12:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I honestly don't bother with most of them from any of the offenders, or try not to anyway. I just skip past many posts in this forum these days, looking for decent conversations and ignoring much of the trash. Admittedly, it is hard and I do succumb to the frustrations I have when things become so egregious it is difficult for me to ignore it, but it's exhausting.

Quite honestly I need to start doing that too.  I used to vent a little frustration here, but I'm really trying to stay in the spirit of the new rules. so that had to go.

(09-09-2020, 12:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I be sure to call you out 


:andy:

Why, I oughta!  

[fredtoast]

(09-09-2020, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So as I said: America has laws in place to suppress minorities from cashing checks. 

Link to these laws please.

[fredtoast]

(09-09-2020, 12:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course most know that all rights have limits. It's where those limits lie that is the subject of debate. 

Try to argue that point and it will get dismissed as "dishonest". 

We have had this debate about Voter ID laws many times.  You havee repeatedly been shown the numbers proving they suppress the vote of the poor and minorioties more than anyone else.

You have repeatedly been shown the studies that prove voter ID laws have no real effect on voter fraud.

I have even repeatedly shown you a list of Republicans whpo publically admit that ity is a technique devised to help Republicans win electiosn by supressing the vote of the poor and minorities.

Yet everytime it comes up you start all over with the same claims.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-09-2020, 02:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link to these laws please.

You literally agreed with him on this in an earlier post.  If you need an ID to open an account or cash a check somewhere other than your own bank, as you admitted, then by definition you've already conceded this point.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

I don’t know guys you got 2 to 4 years to get an ID regardless of the cost (I imagine minimal) and travel time. If voting is that important to you just go and get it done. How often do these various forms of ID have to be renewed anyways?

[BmorePat87]

(09-09-2020, 05:23 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I don’t know guys you got 2 to 4 years to get an ID regardless of the cost (I imagine minimal) and travel time. If voting is that important to you just go and get it done. How often do these various forms of ID have to be renewed anyways?

People had 2-4 years to pay their poll taxes too, no big deal.

On a serious note, though, I understand cost is minimal. It is a cost though, but that's why I focused more of my post on the statements made by the bill proponents that focused on their desire to see a partisan effect rather than a reduction of fraud, fraud which occurs at such a minuscule rate. The intent is to prevent Democratic voters from voting. 

[fredtoast]

(09-09-2020, 04:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You literally agreed with him on this in an earlier post.  If you need an ID to open an account or cash a check somewhere other than your own bank, as you admitted, then by definition you've already conceded this point.

Those are not based on any laws that I know of.

[fredtoast]

(09-09-2020, 05:23 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I don’t know guys you got 2 to 4 years to get an ID regardless of the cost (I imagine minimal) and travel time. If voting is that important to you just go and get it done. How often do these various forms of ID have to be renewed anyways?

Doesn't matter if you think it should not suppress the vote.  That fact is that it is a hurdle that does suppress the vote for the poor and minorities (because there are more poor minorities).  And there is no proof that it does anything to suppress voter fraud.

Even if it only effects 1% that can be the difference in the election.  Republicans have publicly admitted that voter ID laws help them win elections.  It is not about fraud because fraud could be committed equally by EITHER party.  In fact the last big major voter fraud scandal was by the Republican in North Carolina.  

So why would Republicans be so concerned about voter fraud when they love to use voter fraud to win elections?  The answer is that they aren't concerned about voter fraud at all.  All they care about is suppressing the vote of the poor and minorities who are more likely to vote for Democrats.

Right now the Republican President is telling his base to commit voter fraud.  So how can the Republicans claim they are worried about voter fraud?

[Von Cichlid]

Nobody is saying that voter ID laws do not help Republicans.

A better question though, is why exactly it does help.

Why is it that somebody who takes the minimal effort required to get out and get an ID is more likely to vote Republican?

[BmorePat87]

(09-09-2020, 08:47 PM)Von Cichlid Wrote: Nobody is saying that voter ID laws do not help Republicans.

A better question though, is why exactly it does help.

Why is it that somebody who takes the minimal effort required to get out and get an ID is more likely to vote Republican?

That's a pretty faulty premise.

In the case of Texas, as I pointed out, they allowed hunting licenses but not student ID's. 

In North Carolina, they didn't allow public assistance ID's or state employee ID's, despite both being issued by the government. These are ID's that are often used as the primary ID's for people without vehicles. A GOP lawmaker argued you couldn't use a federal public assistance ID because it wasn't issued by the state, but the law allowed military ID's...

In Alabama, they temporarily closed DMV's in areas that were predominantly Black

in North Dakota, they stopped allowing PO boxes for voter registration for American Indians who did not have physical street addresses on their reservations.

In general people who live in urban areas are more likely to vote Democratic but more likely to live in poverty. A variety of issues, including working hours, transportation options, and costs then act as barriers. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-09-2020, 06:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Those are not based on any laws that I know of.

[Von Cichlid]

(09-09-2020, 08:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's a pretty faulty premise.

In the case of Texas, as I pointed out, they allowed hunting licenses but not student ID's. 

In North Carolina, they didn't allow public assistance ID's or state employee ID's, despite both being issued by the government. These are ID's that are often used as the primary ID's for people without vehicles. A GOP lawmaker argued you couldn't use a federal public assistance ID because it wasn't issued by the state, but the law allowed military ID's...

In Alabama, they temporarily closed DMV's in areas that were predominantly Black

in North Dakota, they stopped allowing PO boxes for voter registration for American Indians who did not have physical street addresses on their reservations.

In general people who live in urban areas are more likely to vote Democratic but more likely to live in poverty. A variety of issues, including working hours, transportation options, and costs then act as barriers. 

I don't understand what is so faulty about the premise.  If the premise wasn't true, Democrats would not be so dead set against voter ID laws.

The fact of the matter is that it's the law that you have to have an ID on you.  Just like vehicle registration and insurance, it can be a pain in the a$$, but you got to have it.  Not just for voting either.  I don't get why people think it is so unreasonable to have an ID, as it is maybe the least invasive requirement that society obligates you to meet.  

Plus, those barriers you mentioned just don't make a good excuse, IMO.  I have a busy workweek too, but I have an ID.  I even got written up for having an incorrect address one time, but I fixed it.  No big deal.  

The only real barrier you mentioned would be the Alabama scenario, and if that happened it would have been really crappy, but I am naturally going to approach stories like that with considerable skepticism.

The real sad thing is that the right to vote is something that wars were fought over in the past, but now we can't require people to take the trouble to get an ID.   

    

 

[BmorePat87]

(09-09-2020, 09:37 PM)Von Cichlid Wrote: I don't understand what is so faulty about the premise.  If the premise wasn't true, Democrats would not be so dead set against voter ID laws.

The fact of the matter is that it's the law that you have to have an ID on you.  Just like vehicle registration and insurance, it can be a pain in the a$$, but you got to have it.  Not just for voting either.  I don't get why people think it is so unreasonable to have an ID, as it is maybe the least invasive requirement that society obligates you to meet.  

Plus, those barriers you mentioned just don't make a good excuse, IMO.  I have a busy workweek too, but I have an ID.  I even got written up for having an incorrect address one time, but I fixed it.  No big deal.  

The only real barrier you mentioned would be the Alabama scenario, and if that happened it would have been really crappy, but I am naturally going to approach stories like that with considerable skepticism.

The real sad thing is that the right to vote is something that wars were fought over in the past, but now we can't require people to take the trouble to get an ID.   

    

 

The premise is faulty because this isn't a matter of people not taking minimal efforts to obtain IDs. When the law picks and chooses which ID's it finds acceptable based on which demographics tend to have those ID's, it's not a matter of minimal effort, it's a matter of trying to create barriers for those groups. It's outright illegal.

Why is a hunting licenses ok but not a student ID?

Why isn't a state employee ID good enough, especially if the person doesn't drive? Why pay for another state ID?

Why would a Republican say public assistance ID's are not valid because they're from the federal government, not the state, but support military ID's?

Why declare the ID's that American Indians have as no good?

This isn't a matter of not taking the effort to get ID's. 

[BmorePat87]

Then of course there's the reality that fraud occurs in potentially 0.000003125% of ballots but strict voter ID laws have seen a drop in minority votes by 1.5%.


In the same period of time that they found about 27 likely cases of fraud, you would have 3,400,000 less minority votes if those laws were universal.


There's a reason why proponents of the laws don't use data to support it.

[*bfine32*]

(09-09-2020, 06:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Those are not based on any laws that I know of.

Given I should have said policies, but focus on that instead of the point. That encourages earnest discussion. 

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(09-09-2020, 09:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The premise is faulty because this isn't a matter of people not taking minimal efforts to obtain IDs. When the law picks and chooses which ID's it finds acceptable based on which demographics tend to have those ID's, it's not a matter of minimal effort, it's a matter of trying to create barriers for those groups. It's outright illegal.

Why is a hunting licenses ok but not a student ID?

Why isn't a state employee ID good enough, especially if the person doesn't drive? Why pay for another state ID?

Why would a Republican say public assistance ID's are not valid because they're from the federal government, not the state, but support military ID's?

Why declare the ID's that American Indians have as no good?

This isn't a matter of not taking the effort to get ID's. 

Because of foreign exchange students right?