War Room Lounge V20: Halloween Awareness: Dispatches Blast Yo Ass from a Pumpkin Patch

[Quipling]

I just find it shocking that something so easily solved (getting an ID) is considered a huge obstacle or that requiring one is demanding.

One thing to keep in mind is that people often have some kind of ID. But voter ID laws can operate by changing the type of ID accepted. So now you have a bunch of people who previously had the right kind of ID to vote but are no longer able to do so. So they need to get a new one. It's not that hard to imagine how different kinds of IDs are distributed among different populations: people who live in cities are more likely to vote Dem and less likely to have driver's licenses.

But voter ID laws sometimes come with provisions that make it harder to get that ID in time. One of the better known examples involved closing most of the DMVs in certain counties in the months leading up to an election.

So you suddenly have a situation where you need a driver's license to vote, which shouldn't be hard to get - except the nearest three DMVs just closed. And good luck getting to the ones outside the city if you don't drive. It's not an insurmountable barrier, but lots of little ones like that seem to have a measurable effect on voting.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Bingo! Somehow it's ok to demand it before that right can be exercised. Never heard any gun-grabbers acknowledging that it disproportionately affects minorities. Guess they don't really care about minorities and they just want the votes for their party.

Okay so if you're against it for guns are you also against it for voting then?

Btw minorities tend to support gun control at higher rights but not voter ID laws so its a false equivalency.

 

[Islam Imamate]

One thing to keep in mind is that people often have some kind of ID. But voter ID laws can operate by changing the type of ID accepted. So now you have a bunch of people who previously had the right kind of ID to vote but are no longer able to do so. So they need to get a new one. It's not that hard to imagine how different kinds of IDs are distributed among different populations: people who live in cities are more likely to vote Dem and less likely to have driver's licenses.

But voter ID laws sometimes come with provisions that make it harder to get that ID in time. One of the better known examples involved closing most of the DMVs in certain counties in the months leading up to an election.

So you suddenly have a situation where you need a driver's license to vote, which shouldn't be hard to get - except the nearest DMV just closed. It's not an insurmountable barrier, but lots of little ones like that seem to have a measurable effect on voting.

In one case they used the excuse that most polling locations in majority black districts weren't well suited enough for disabled voters so the solution was to, you guessed it, shut them down.

There's also the timing of these laws which tend to come suspiciously close to an election which gives the voters less time to become aware and adjust accordingly.

The reality is that the ostensible reason for these voter suppression tactics seem to be enough; GOP voters either don't care enough to see through the facade or do and still don't care because it works in their favor.

 

[Sketch]

*are

That was an easy one too, surprised he messed that up.

 

[HomerThompson]

That was an easy one too, surprised he messed that up.

I should have corrected...

*objections

too.

 

[Limbo Pete]

In one case they used the excuse that most polling locations in majority black districts weren't well suited enough for disabled voters so the solution was to, you guessed it, shut them down.

There's also the timing of these laws which tend to come suspiciously close to an election which gives the voters less time to become aware and adjust accordingly.

The reality is that the ostensible reason for these voter suppression tactics seem to be enough; GOP voters either don't care enough to see through the facade or do and still don't care because it works in their favor.

Yessir
The reality is that our country has a long, dark history of voter suppression, and the people supporting such things almost always fall on the reactionary side of the political spectrum. The idea of America as a place of equality before the law and liberty for all is directly contrasted by a constant struggle to disenfranchise minorities.

 

[Sketch]

I should have corrected...

*objections

too.

Heh, cut the kid some slack. That's why you're president, you know when to loosen the stranglehold.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Okay so if you're against it for guns are you also against it for voting then?

Btw minorities tend to support gun control at higher rights but not voter ID laws so its a false equivalency.

Where did I say I was against it for guns? I'm just highlighting the hypocrisy/insincerity of holding those two viewpoints.

No clue what you're talking about.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Where did I say I was against it for guns? I'm just highlighting the hypocrisy/insincerity of holding those two viewpoints.

So you think it should apply to both gun ownership and voting?

No clue what you're talking about.

You're trying to turn the argument of disproportionate effect on minorities against the Dems when it comes to gun control measures but minorities tend to support gun control. That's not the same with the voter laws.

 

[Higus]

They should do that too then. It doesn't change my stance that objection to voter ID laws is absurd. Why do you have such a problem with it?

In a vacuum, I wouldn't have much objection to the ID laws other than it was a minor inconvenience to solve a problem which arguably doesn't even exist. The truth is that Voter ID laws are a single tactic as part of a larger agenda to suppress and disenfranchise voters, insidiously designed to be plausibly deniable by politicians and their apologists. Civil engagement is essential to democracy, and the thought of a major political party actively trying to suppress their constituents is incredibly offensive to me.
Wanting to protect elections from fraud is admirable, but the GOP is cynically using the layman's sense of propriety to have well meaning people defend them as they undermine democracy.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I just need you all to know that when I accidentally spell Khabib as KHabib the spell check recommends it be corrected to "Wahhabi".

Therefore Khabib confirmed as a Wahhabi agent.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So you think it should apply to both gun ownership and voting?

You're trying to turn the argument of disproportionate effect on minorities against the Dems when it comes to gun control measures but minorities tend to support gun control. That's not the same with the voter laws.

I'm for consistency.

The view of the majority of minorities is irrelevant to my point. Unless you're trying to illuminate the source of the hypocrisy?

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm for consistency.

Sounds nice but I really don't see why we should treat gun ownership and voting as the same. I believe felons should have the right to vote after being released but not be allowed to own a gun for obvious reasons. They can actually hurt people with a gun but not with a vote, they're fundamentally different.

To be clear I don't really support gun control for the most part, I just think its its own issue and that treating it different;y from voting can make perfect sense

The view of the majority of minorities is irrelevant to my point. Unless you're trying to illuminate the source of the hypocrisy?

Its not irrelevant at all. If the same population that would be disproportionately affected disproportionately supports the law you can hardly put it in the same category as a law that disproportionately affects the same population that is disproportionately against it.

 

[Tekk]

But voter ID laws can operate by changing the type of ID accepted.

This is precisely what's going on in North Dakota. Heitkamp is a dem senator who won by less than 3000 votes due to overwhelming support from native Americans. Native Americans have IDs issued to them that use a post office box as their address. The state passed a law that says an ID with a street address is required to vote. The Supreme Court ruled in favor for the state of North Dakota. More than 50,000 voters, mostly Democrat are now ineligible to vote. Does this seem like anything other than vote suppression?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sounds nice but I really don't see why we should treat gun ownership and voting as the same. I believe felons should have the right to vote after being released but not be allowed to own a gun for obvious reasons. They can actually hurt people with a gun but not with a vote, they're fundamentally different.

To be clear I don't really support gun control for the most part, I just think its its own issue and that treating it different;y from voting can make perfect sense

Its not irrelevant at all. If the same population that would be disproportionately affected disproportionately supports the law you can hardly put it in the same category as a law that disproportionately affects the same population that is disproportionately against it.

Who said "treat them the same"? I was talking about specific reasoning being overemphasized in one case and ignored altogether in the other. Voting isn't any more of a right than gun ownership so if an ID is an objectionable barrier to voting then it's hypocritical to say it's not an objectionable barrier to exercising one's right to self-defense. Protecting oneself is easily as important as voting.

I don't know what "same category" means. About all I take from this is you don't mind seeing people getting screwed out of their rights provided the majority doesn't raise a stink. It's pretty simple. Either minorities are relatively incapable of acquiring the proper ID or they're not. If they are then this fact should carry as much weight in one context as it does in the other. Fundamental civil liberties are fundamental.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Interesting exchange between @Fawlty and @Ruprecht. I think what drives a lot of theists is fear of death, and I say this as a Christian myself. I'm a Christian universalist (that is, I believe everyone will eventually go to heaven). I'm a member of a universalist community. Pascal's wager doesn't carry weight among members, because none of them believe in eternal torment. Yet a lot of them make the same kinds of arguments against evolution and an old universe you'd hear from a fire and brimstone preacher. Something similar to Pascal's wager is going on: By believing you have a lot to gain (no more fear of death) but nothing to lose. The question that gets overlooked entirely is if living forever would be a good thing. The Makropulos Case is pretty damn compelling that it wouldn't. IMO the most effective way to break people's faith would not be empirical demonstrations that disprove a highly literal reading of scripture, but by showing that immortality would be unbearably tedious.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Who said "treat them the same"? I was talking about specific reasoning being overemphasized in one case and ignored altogether in the other. Voting isn't any more of a right than gun ownership so if an ID is an objectionable barrier to voting then it's hypocritical to say it's not an objectionable barrier to exercising one's right to self-defense. Protecting oneself is easily as important as voting.

Its not necessarily hypocritical because we're talking about different rights with different consequences in society. No one needs an ID to exercise their free speech rights or rights to due process because there's no need for that. Do you think its hypocritical then to not require IDs to exercise those rights but require them for voting?

I don't know what "same category" means. About all I take from this is you don't mind seeing people getting screwed out of their rights provided the majority doesn't raise a stink. It's pretty simple. Either minorities are relatively incapable of acquiring the proper ID or they're not. If they are then this fact should carry as much weight in one context as it does in the other. Fundamental civil liberties are fundamental.

As I said the population that you're claiming gets disproportionately affected is the one that supports the law in the first place. In the case of the voting laws that's not the case, not sure how you can't see the difference after its been explained to you multiple times already.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Andy Capp]

People who drive less or live in certain areas where it's onerous.

Or how about you are barely scraping by and can't pay the fee.

 

[Limbo Pete]

This is precisely what's going on in North Dakota. Heitkamp is a dem senator who won by less than 3000 votes due to overwhelming support from native Americans. Native Americans have IDs issued to them that use a post office box as their address. The state passed a law that says an ID with a street address is required to vote. The Supreme Court ruled in favor for the state of North Dakota. More than 50,000 voters, mostly Democrat are now ineligible to vote. Does this seem like anything other than vote suppression?

It's absolutely disgusting

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

...not sure how you can't see the difference after its been explained to you multiple times already.

I acknowledged the difference and touched on its insignificance in this particular context. Since you've stooped to being insulting I'll bow out here. Have a good one.