Arpaio

[phonehome]

M/P

Yes I do happen to have one but that is way beside the point.

If it were not for the fact that I am a military retiree I would not have that one, the other is a D/L but if i lived in any number of "big cities" I could get along just fine without one of those, maybe all my life.

For other than driving which as I say if I lived in NYC ATL MIA MSP or Chicago I could get along just fine without I have not used a photo ID for anything for years.

Before you ask at my PCM I use my "tricare card" and it is NOT a photo ID. Normally at the dentist they do not even ask to see my Delta dental card. just ask "if my insurance has changed"

My bills are all on either "auto pay" or I pay them online, no ID required.

My "pay" is all D/D and I have atm cards for cash plus I can get additional cash when I pay for a purchase with my Discover card, no need to show an ID and no in over 20 years of paying in person with a C/C purchased of thousands of dollars sometimes i have NEVER been asked to show any form of ID photo or otherwise, government issued or otherwise

The bottom line is most if not all of the laundry list of things that people such as yourself rattle off and "you can't do without a "government issued photo ID" I either do and do on a regular basis or do not do at all.

I buy the occasional 5th of Bacardi, or Smirnoff or Jim Beam and I have not been "carded" in well over 20 years. I do not smoke but i have bought a pack or two for a GF again without showing any type of ID. We already covered "cashing a check" Getting on a plane, you say, well first that is NOT a constitutional right in the first place and even if it was I have only flown on a commercial airliner once since 9/11, mainly because of all the extra TSA induced hassle and also there is no place I really want to go.

So this idea people like you keep trotting out there that it is just impossible to "live in the US" without one of theses select few "voter ID" ID's is just wrong.

Where I work we do not have "company ID's" many companies do and they typically have photos and even bar codes for access controls but once you get one that is it, that is all you need/use. they may get replaced periodically but that is a simple matter of turning in your old one and as we know those "company ID's" even if they have your name and a recognizable photo (just like a military ID has) is NOT accepted for voting.

 

[Max_Polo]

M/P

Yes I do happen to have one but that is way beside the point.

If it were not for the fact that I am a military retiree I would not have that one, the other is a D/L but if i lived in any number of "big cities" I could get along just fine without one of those, maybe all my life.

For other than driving which as I say if I lived in NYC ATL MIA MSP or Chicago I could get along just fine without I have not used a photo ID for anything for years.

Before you ask at my PCM I use my "tricare card" and it is NOT a photo ID. Normally at the dentist they do not even ask to see my Delta dental card. just ask "if my insurance has changed"

My bills are all on either "auto pay" or I pay them online, no ID required.

My "pay" is all D/D and I have atm cards for cash plus I can get additional cash when I pay for a purchase with my Discover card, no need to show an ID and no in over 20 years of paying in person with a C/C purchased of thousands of dollars sometimes i have NEVER been asked to show any form of ID photo or otherwise, government issued or otherwise

The bottom line is most if not all of the laundry list of things that people such as yourself rattle off and "you can't do without a "government issued photo ID" I either do and do on a regular basis or do not do at all.

I buy the occasional 5th of Bacardi, or Smirnoff or Jim Beam and I have not been "carded" in well over 20 years. I do not smoke but i have bought a pack or two for a GF again without showing any type of ID. We already covered "cashing a check" Getting on a plane, you say, well first that is NOT a constitutional right in the first place and even if it was I have only flown on a commercial airliner once since 9/11, mainly because of all the extra TSA induced hassle and also there is no place I really want to go.

So this idea people like you keep trotting out there that it is just impossible to "live in the US" without one of theses select few "voter ID" ID's is just wrong.

Where I work we do not have "company ID's" many companies do and they typically have photos and even bar codes for access controls but once you get one that is it, that is all you need/use. they may get replaced periodically but that is a simple matter of turning in your old one and as we know those "company ID's" even if they have your name and a recognizable photo (just like a military ID has) is NOT accepted for voting.

Again, I understand this logic. Much more reasonable than the "you're just a black man hater" crowd. I'll ponder and reply later - or tomorrow.

 

[keenobserver]

There are holes, but it seems that a lot of effort would be required to exploit one. So if we (like Mexico and almost all other democracies) require identification of voters, is that a problem?

The ways it can be a problem are already documented. My feeling remains unchanged - voter ID laws are a solution that is near non existent and the risk of disenfranchisement, to me, is too great to implement. I am more concerned with the security of votes cast, not the ID of the people casting them. From what you have posted, we disagree.

 

[phonehome]

M/P

It is not just simply requiring an ID that is as far as i am concerned what the problem is.

It is more how the list of acceptable ID's is so tailored with to again quote the court in the NC case 'with surgical precison" about which ID's all with photos all issued by some government enity are accepted and which ones are NOT.

It is about pols picking their voters

You know GD well if those R's in Austin thought those college students at UT were going to vote R over D by any kind of margin 60/40 or better they would accepted UT college ID's in a heartbeat and if the thought the holders of a CWP were going to vote D over R by an equal or greater margin they would NEVER have included those as acceptable ID's of "voter ID"

And besides my number one question for people who insist that this a such a solution "haven't you ever heard of a fake ID" ? If all "those people" are as hell bent on voting as you say they are wouldn't they just go out and get a fake ID so they could ?

 

[Max_Polo]

College Student ID's are excluded in most voter ID laws. Even with a photo. True. When I got my social security number I was 14 and I walked in and filled out papers, showed my birth certificate and they processed it. 35 years later when I needed a replacement I walked in and filled out a form and they mailed it to me. Showed no ID, was not asked. My bank only asks for ID if I am cashing a check, never depositing or using ATM. My homeland security drivers license was issued based on my old one which I needed no ID for. There are a lot of holes in the ID process everywhere,

Seems like a lot of work to do just to vote twice. This is not the circumstance about which reasonable people fret.

OTOH, in this scenario, you are not eligible to accept new employment, travel by air, etc.

Does that really make any sense?

 

[b.c.]

Snowflake.

I should have heeded the advice of George Bernard Shaw.

Sad.

 

[Max_Polo]

Well, at least y'all have an imaginary boogeyman to hate on.

Pathetic.

 

[Max_Polo]

No, I've got my midwestern upper-middle-class life, my wife and 2.5 children. Have family, neighbors, church, and God.

You...you've got...

Pathetic.

 

[deleted15807]

The ways it can be a problem are already documented. My feeling remains unchanged - voter ID laws are a solution that is near non existent and the risk of disenfranchisement, to me, is too great to implement. I am more concerned with the security of votes cast, not the ID of the people casting them. From what you have posted, we disagree.

Problem: too many democrat voters. Solution: voter ID laws.

The next step is simply to reverse engineer a reason. The courts are smart enough to figure it out. Not so much the Republican base. Then again why would they mind undermining democracy and American "values"? This is just a bump in the road. If we don't mind being lead by a pussy grabber with early-onset dementia we certainly don't mind denying a few libtards a vote.

It's no secret only Republicans are pushing for these laws. Further it's no secret they've only been able to do it since the bought and paid for Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act which prohibited all the voter suppression schemes Republicans are coming up with. The second they were freed from it they had a whole laundry list of laws in the chute.

 

[b.c.]

No, I've got my midwestern upper-middle-class life, my wife and 2.5 children. Have family, neighbors, church, and God.

You...you've got...

Pathetic.

QUITE telling that you'd ASSume I haven't the same.

Well, at least y'all have an imaginary boogeyman to hate on.

Pathetic.

"Y'ALL???" LOL.

See what you guys get for trying to 'splain to him?

 

[Max_Polo]

Problem: too many democrat voters. Solution: voter ID laws.

The next step is simply to reverse engineer a reason. The courts are smart enough to figure it out. Not so much the Republican base. Then again why would they mind undermining democracy and American "values"? This is just a bump in the road. If we don't mind being lead by a pussy grabber and early-onset dementia we certainly don't mind denying a few libtards from voting.

It's no secret only Republicans are pushing for these laws. Further it's no secret they've only been able to do it since the bought and paid for Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights act which prohibited all the voter suppression schemes Republicans are coming up with.

Pathetic.

 

[keenobserver]

Seems like a lot of work to do just to vote twice. This is not the circumstance about which reasonable people fret.

OTOH, in this scenario, you are not eligible to accept new employment, travel by air, etc.

Does that really make any sense?

There is a lot that does not make sense these days, knowing for sure who a person is does not tell you if he is a terrorist right now - just who he is. I did have to have a license to get may last job 25 years ago because I was required to drive vehicle. They also fingerprinted me - which as fine and gave me random drug tests. I had no problem with that given the nature of the job.

The people who getting an ID is a serious problem have already found their job - if they have one and probably don't need to fly.

Again, a lot does not make sense these days but we meander on.

 

[braalian]

I will admit that I can't imagine not having a photo ID and somehow still being able to function in life.

But the fact remains that about 25% of eligible black voters do not have one, as opposed to 8% of eligible white voters. The motivation behind these laws is *clearly* to suppress minority voting.

I will support photo ID voting laws if there were simultaneous laws that would compel state governments to immediately and free-of-charge supply all adult residents with photo ID cards. But I won't hold my breath. If the motives behind these laws were truly innocent, why not ensure photo ID was available to all voters *before* pushing the laws through?

 

[braalian]

There are holes, but it seems that a lot of effort would be required to exploit one. So if we (like Mexico and almost all other democracies) require identification of voters, is that a problem?

Faulty comparison.

Most other democracies provide photo ID to all citizens when they reach adulthood. Having a government provided photo ID is universal and compulsory.

We do not have a similar system of national ID. Drivers licenses don't even come close to being a national ID system, and obtaining a (non drivers license) State photo ID can be a sisyphean, expensive ordeal. If we were to adopt a similar system of national identification, all these voter ID debates would be moot.

And, yet, I don't see many proponents of laws mandating photo ID for voting supporting the idea of a national ID card plan. I wonder why...... Could it be that their motives have absolutely nothing to do with ensuring everyone gets a chance to vote?

 

[BULLDOG00]

But the fact remains that about 25% of eligible black voters do not have one, as opposed to 8% of eligible white voters.

Source?

 

[Max_Polo]

I will admit that I can't imagine not having a photo ID and somehow still being able to function in life.

On that point, we clearly agree.

But the fact remains that about 25% of eligible black voters do not have one, as opposed to 8% of eligible white voters. The motivation behind these laws is *clearly* to suppress minority voting.

I don't believe these numbers. As for motivation, that's been discussed and I've agreed that there is good evidence that altering voter eligibility is the reason for some people to support voter ID laws, but that certainly and absolutely is not true for all of those of us who do.

If the motives behind these laws were truly innocent, why not ensure photo ID was available to all voters *before* pushing the laws through?

Photo identification is available to all eligible voters. And I'd wager that the overwhelming majority actually have them because of all of the usual and routine activities that require them.

I will support photo ID voting laws if there were simultaneous laws that would compel state governments to immediately and free-of-charge supply all adult residents with photo ID cards.

And on this we agree as well. Maybe the solution is to require everyone to obtain a passport card or similar national identification and provide that without charge. Privacy nuts would be leaping off tall buildings I suppose.

 

[Max_Polo]

QUITE telling that you'd ASSume I haven't the same.

I made no such assumption, was replying to your silliness with some of my own. It was obviously not serious ("2.5 children").

Get off your soap box long enough to think before you insult other people and they will be more willing to listen to you.

 

[braalian]

Source?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-voter-id-law-would-exclude-up-to-700000-young-minorities/

Any casual Internet search of news and academic research will clearly back the well known fact that minorities are far less likely than whites to have drivers licenses or passports.

Of course, that's the "liberal lamestream media", so I don't know what the point of citing sources is. You get your news from conservative bloggers, I'm sure.

 

[Max_Polo]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-voter-id-law-would-exclude-up-to-700000-young-minorities/

Any casual Internet search of news and academic research will clearly back the well known fact that minorities are far less likely than whites to have drivers licenses or passports.

Of course, that's the "liberal lamestream media", so I don't know what the point of citing sources is. You get your news from conservative bloggers, I'm sure.

Those results were predicted rates of turn-out. And they make some pretty wild assumptions. I've not heard from anyone who actually does not have a photo identification despite specific queries in this thread.

Using calculations based on turnout figures for the past two presidential elections, researchers at the University of Chicago and Washington University in St. Louis concluded that overall turnout this year by young people of color ages 18-29 could fall by somewhere between 538,000 to 696,000 in states with photo ID laws.

"Our estimates are conservative. We are looking at demobilization from 9 to 25 percent," said Cathy Cohen, a University of Chicago expert on young and minority voters, who worked on the study with Jon Rogowski of Washington University. "If young people really have valid IDs at a rate of only 25 or even 50 percent, the number of young people of color disenfranchised will be even greater than what we estimate."​

 

[braalian]

Of course, I don't know the exact percentages of who has photo IDs and who does not.

As I said, I can't imagine not having one. But then, I am a white man with a middle class background in a mid sized midwestern city. Were I a black man with an impoverished background in an inner city setting, not having a photo ID might not seem so odd.

If you use public transport for everything, and you could never afford a car anyway, going through life without a drivers license might be the norm. And jumping through hoops and paying money to get a state ID for the sole purpose of voting isn't very practical.

In any event, if you're going to mandate photo ID in order to exercise your right to vote, then you better have some sort of system of national ID in place.

And.... yet.... none of the states pushing for these laws are offering any sort of plan to ensure ID is provided for all of its citizens. Countries that mandate photo ID for voting are also countries that provide free and compulsory photo ID for all citizens when they reach adulthood. You can't really have one without the other.

This is just like the Charlottesville thread where you pretended you didn't understand the difference between a monument to Thomas Jefferson and a monument to Robert E Lee. You deliberately act like you're stupid.