Meade said, "Apparently stupid people are all democrats to judge by who makes the fuss about them being disenfranchised." Yet he did not say all democrats are stupid.
Just so.
BTW, if anyone doubts that there are stupid Democrats, (of course no regular participant on this board could possibly doubt that, since we have a shining exemplar who posts here regularly...of course I won't name any names...) I have three words for you:
Last edited by Lord Jim on Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TPFKA@W wrote:Passport to go to Mexico and Canada?
You need the passport to get back, not to get in (at least if you're going by land or sea). And that's only recent. I've been to both Mexico and Canada (and Jamaica and I think Bermuda) without a passport; my only ID was a paper driver license that didn't have a photo, and I don't even recall anyone even asking to see that.
TPFKA@W wrote:Passport to go to Mexico and Canada?
You need the passport to get back, not to get in (at least if you're going by land or sea). And that's only recent. I've been to both Mexico and Canada (and Jamaica and I think Bermuda) without a passport; my only ID was a paper driver license that didn't have a photo, and I don't even recall anyone even asking to see that.
You would indeed need it to get back which has nothing to do with tomatoes.
It does not change the fact that my right to vote should be protected by asking others to prove who they are at the polls.
Now I must go start the yard work, adios amigos and amigas!
MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Most whining about voter ID is because there is a fear that really marginal people (who all vote democrat) might not be able to figure out how to vote... present company excepted. Apparently stupid people are all democrats to judge by who makes the fuss about them being disenfranchised.
I would direct your attention to the 23% of Republicans supporting Donald Trump.
Oh, I assume that the 23% are not stupid but evil ignorant swine - who are perfectly capable of showing an ID so they can vote. Now they should be deprived but.... we're discussing people who are too far gone to prove who they are - and so they lose their votes - and if they were all republicans no one here would give a toss. The feeling seems to be that only democrat voters are too disabled to have an ID. That's why the fuss
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
The feeling seems to be that only democrat voters are too disabled to have an ID. That's why the fuss
For some perhaps, but I stand with Sue on voting being a fundamental right, indeed, the right that underlies our entire system of government. There are plenty of stupid/disabled/etc. people on both sides of the aisle, and I would be standing up just as much against these laws if it were racist gun rights advocates who align themselves with the tea party deprived of voting as anyone else. Our system only works when people can vote.
Reasonable restrictions can be placed on the process, but absent a compelling interest our laws should be designed top encourage everyone who can to vote, not to make it too "hard" for some so they choose not to vote.
Reasonable restrictions can be placed on the process, but absent a compelling interest our laws should be designed top encourage everyone who can to vote, not to make it too "hard" for some so they choose not to vote.
And I say, ad infinitum, that asking to produce ID is not an unreasonable restriction.
So give people a Voter ID card when they go and register. They produce whatever docs they need in oorder to register and forever after they have the ID.
As for those already registered, for the next few election cycles, have voter id people at the polls who can issue the id. Inform all (via a bunch of psa's) that they will be at the polls and to bring the docs and everyone gets re-registered and gets the id. Tehy can vote in those cycles without the id but after the signup period (3 years/voting cycles?) they have to show the id.
It's like I have found, people always find money for beer and cigarettes, an ID ought to be a piece of cake. Receiving a voter ID at the time of registration is a great idea.
Easy oldr? I would guess so, depending on what documentation is needed. But it's going to take time and cost a lot. is it worth the money and bother given that we don't even know what the extent of voter fraud, if any, is? I would think we have a lot more pressing things to spend our money on right now than chasing a possible problem.
How much would it cost? A DMV type camera at each poling place. Better yet, a computer set up to do it. $500 for the computer (even that is an overestimate) and the election personal are there anyway. Here in NY we just "upgraded" from the lever machine to the "color the dots" type of ballets with a bunch of computers. What was that cost?
And bring the docs. If you forget the first time you have two more times to get it right.
Whether or not it has been a problem in the past I don't know. I have not seen any in depth study.
I look at my voting history/signature and the original signature looks nothing like the one I have now. Even from year to year.
The octagenarians keeping the books never compares them.
I would think getting it right for each and every "one person, one vote" would be paramount regardless of proven fraud or no fraud.
How do all other countries manage it? Why can the US not?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
National ID, suggested by Meade, is not only incompatible with American notions of freedom but ...
And as I said, the "American notions of freedom" argument is not at all valid if gun-toters use it - suddenly it is set aside because (of course) the Constitution needs to be changed so that it does conflict with American notions of freedom. Oh. or freedom to actually practice religion - that one has to be set aside to comport with "American notions of favorite perversions". But that's off the topic, naturally.
Or unnaturally.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Meade--[quote]or freedom to actually practice religion - that one has to be set aside to comport with "American notions of favorite perversions"/quote]
Feel free to raise it in another thread if you want to discuss it. No need to derail this one.
Gob--other countries do a lot of things which are accepted by their people that those in the US would not want, and vice versa. We have different views on some issues, but no big surprise there.
