Cuomo admits he's lost total control of NYC

[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.