Elections California bans voter ID

[spamking]

You're a liar.

And you're an ignorant fool . . . You've chosen to jump in here to pick various comments I've made and try to twist them into supporting something you've made up in your mind.

Here is your quote lmao..



It's very clear that you aren't talking about a specific issue and are talking about rights in general.

You show a quote where I added context to a previous comment to address your response that did in fact call out a specific issue.

Rights are not absolute. Free speech is not absolute. You can't make terroristic threats for example.

Freedom of the press is not absolute. You can't be Alex Jones and spread lies or you will get railroaded in the ass for example.

Felons can't own guns.

Felons can't vote in some states and in others they can.

I never said rights are absolute. I said:

Anything that prevents any of us from fully expressing a right, even if that entails something you might deem as unnecessary to exercise that right is an infringement.

I've been told that certain things aren't infringements, but are more inconveniences . . . yet in this thread, I've read where exercising rights shouldn't be made harder or citizens shouldn't need to jump through more hoops (becoming disenfranchised).

@BFoe whines about me bringing up the 2A, but I do that to show the hypocrisy of a bunch of you guys when it comes to what you support and what you don't.

I'll say it again:

Anything that prevents any of us from fully expressing a right, even if that entails something you might deem as unnecessary to exercise that right is an infringement. This does NOT say rights are absolute.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

And you're an ignorant fool . . . You've chosen to jump in here to pick various comments I've made and try to twist them into supporting something you've made up in your mind.




You show a quote where I added context to a previous comment to address your response that did in fact call out a specific issue.


I never said rights are absolute. I said:

I've been told that certain things aren't infringements, but are more inconveniences . . . yet in this thread, I've read where exercising rights shouldn't be made harder or citizens shouldn't need to jump through more hoops (becoming disenfranchised).

@BFoe whines about me bringing up the 2A, but I do that to show the hypocrisy of a bunch of you guys when it comes to what you support and what you don't.

I'll say it again:

Anything that prevents any of us from fully expressing a right, even if that entails something you might deem as unnecessary to exercise that right is an infringement. This does NOT say rights are absolute.

Lmao. Okay.

 

[Sinister]

It doesn't disenfranchise lawful voters any more than people are disenfranchised from doing anything that requires an ID. An ID is essential to being a contributing member of society. The fact that people have to pretend like we have a large group of disenfranchised voters that wouldn't be able to travel 10 miles or afford $25 is laughable. It's as weak as an argument can get.

It's difficult to find widespread fraud when you can't even verify the vote because there was no ID needed in the first place. If it's not a problem then liberals wouldn't be so worried about it. It may not be a widespread problem but it happens and it's inexcusable that it happens at all. There's a good reason why liberals want our borders open and our elections to not require ID.

Dude ID's as you know them have only been around for a fraction of the time the Country has been established. Society wasnt crumbling before they were invented. You people are obsessed with "show us your papers" ideologies for a reason, and that reason isnt the preservation of society as a whole, its preservation of the established heirarchies you think it hinges on.

Also to give you an idea how flimsy the concept of "societal identification" is, when my Grandmother's Sister died the Social Security Administration killed my Grandmother's Social Security number instead of hers. She found this out by trying to open a new bank account and was told she was deceased. They spent a few years of her trying to establish that she was in fact, not dead, until finally they gave up and she just used her Sister's social security number for the rest of her life. It was easier for them to tie that number to her name than it was for them to un-kill hers.

 

[badascan]

So interested...in having less American citizens being allowed to vote. Clearly actually.

Get help... And stop quoting my posts...

 

[Blayt7hh]

I don’t see why any state or government issued ID shouldn’t work for identifying yourself at the polls

 

[Islam Imamate]

You're a liar.

Here is your quote lmao..



It's very clear that you aren't talking about a specific issue and are talking about rights in general.

Rights are not absolute. Free speech is not absolute. You can't make terroristic threats for example.

Freedom of the press is not absolute. You can't be Alex Jones and spread lies or you will get railroaded in the ass for example.

Felons can't own guns.

Felons can't vote in some states and in others they can.

It all comes down to favoring ingroups and disfavoring outgroups. Gun owners are an ingroup so their rights must be maximized while the voters who are suppressed by voter ID laws(i.e. blacks) are the outgroup so its in fact good to suppress their rights. One some level, unconscious or conscious, that's what it comes down to.

 

[MacGregor]

Black communties are supporting Trump. Illegals are the only 'outgroup'.

 

[Sinister]

It all comes down to favoring ingroups and disfavoring outgroups. Gun owners are an ingroup so their rights must be maximized while the voters who are suppressed by voter ID laws(i.e. blacks) are the outgroup so its in fact good to suppress their rights. One some level, unconscious or conscious, that's what it comes down to.

But remember, if a law doesnt specifically say "black people can't" then you can't call it "racist." That's how it works lol

 

[RoastBeast]

Dude ID's as you know them have only been around for a fraction of the time the Country has been established. Society wasnt crumbling before they were invented. You people are obsessed with "show us your papers" ideologies for a reason, and that reason isnt the preservation of society as a whole, its preservation of the established heirarchies you think it hinges on.

Also to give you an idea how flimsy the concept of "societal identification" is, when my Grandmother's Sister died the Social Security Administration killed my Grandmother's Social Security number instead of hers. She found this out by trying to open a new bank account and was told she was deceased. They spent a few years of her trying to establish that she was in fact, not dead, until finally they gave up and she just used her Sister's social security number for the rest of her life. It was easier for them to tie that number to her name than it was for them to un-kill hers.

Why doesn't that logic apply to anything else that requires an ID? Because you clearly want to benefit from people voting who shouldn't be voting. Otherwise it would be a non issue.

Your second paragraph has nothing to do with election security and everything to do with how screwed up our government agencies are. The same agencies that Democrats want to pour more money into. I talk quite a bit about how inept and wasteful our government agencies are and I don't ever see you agreeing with me there.

 

[BFoe]

It is their purpose, but I fail to see how having an ID is a bad thing. Let the government help people get an one. It will be useful for many things.

I took care of my dad and I had so many problems because he ended up with one valid ID at some point. It was a pain in the neck.

Oh I don’t think having ID is a bad thing by any means. I just don’t think the government is helping much, because I don’t think that these laws are designed to help people get ID. They are written purposely to make it harder for certain demographics to vote, that’s their real purpose.

If every registered voter got a government-issued photo voting ID free of charge, along with the law having a very expansive list of other things a voter could use to prove identity should they lose the free ID, I probably wouldn’t care so much. It’s still an issue for the homeless though. A lot of states will let them use a park, bench, or whatever as their residence, but you can’t mail an ID there. They typically also don’t have a lot of money, may not have photo ID, and aren’t carting around their birth certificate or whatever to get a replacement.

@BFoe whines about me bringing up the 2A, but I do that to show the hypocrisy of a bunch of you guys when it comes to what you support and what you don't.

I'll say it again:

Anything that prevents any of us from fully expressing a right, even if that entails something you might deem as unnecessary to exercise that right is an infringement. This does NOT say rights are absolute.

That’s what you got from our last exchange?
I don’t care if you want to bring up the 2A. I didn’t object to it, I offered rebuttals to your points. What I objected to is you bringing the 2A up, then not liking my rebuttals and saying “can we just move on already” when you’re the one who introduced the topic. It’s like you’re annoyed with me for debating you in a debate you initiated.

But I’ll offer my .02 that I don’t really see a difference between fully expressing a right p, as you put it, and the right being absolute. What do you feel is the difference?

And this isn’t just a 2A thing. Is a cigarette company who is forced to put a warning on their product fully expressing their 1st Amendment right? What about people sued for libel or slander?

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Good because it's unconstitutional.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Don't forget that somehow every major case of people illegally voting in 2020 turned out to be votes for Trump.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Does California make you have an ID to buy a gun?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Why doesn't that logic apply to anything else that requires an ID?

Other things that require ID like driving and purchasing alcohol aren't inalienable rights like voting are.

It is their purpose, but I fail to see how having an ID is a bad thing. Let the government help people get an one. It will be useful for many things.

I took care of my dad and I had so many problems because he ended up with one valid ID at some point. It was a pain in the neck.

My view is if it ain't broke, don't fix it and especially not when the people who want to "fix it" are really just interested in suppressing the vote.

The reality is that US national elections are, if anything, way harder to rig compared to the elections of other democratic countries because organizing elections is a state prerogative and so with each state having its own set of rules its virtually impossible to carry out mass voter fraud across state lines in anyway that would change the outcome of the election.

The idea that we have any significant, widespread voter fraud in this country is a myth. Conceding to this kind dishonesty is not good and shouldn't be done merely out of a misguided sense of fairness to both sides. If compelling evidence of widespread voter fraud due to an exploit in the system arises then things change but until then these initiatives should be viewed with suspicion.

 

[spamking]

What I objected to is you bringing the 2A up, then not liking my rebuttals and saying “can we just move on already” when you’re the one who introduced the topic. It’s like you’re annoyed with me for debating you in a debate you initiated.

This is so cute . . . and how our discussions have always gone. I don't say "can we just move on already" because I don't like your rebuttals, I say move on because we never get anywhere.

I get annoyed on here with people (not just you) who read what I post and then twist it into something it hasn't been meant to say and play dumb while creating a whole new line of debate.

We disagree wholeheartedly on the 2A. It's a complete waste of time for me to bring it up in any future discussion with you. I'll try to not do that any longer. (And I'm sure your first thought to this is "because I've smacked it down".)

 

[BFoe]

This is so cute . . . and how our discussions have always gone. I don't say "can we just move on already" because I don't like your rebuttals, I say move on because we never get anywhere.

I get annoyed on here with people (not just you) who read what I post and then twist it into something it hasn't been meant to say and play dumb while creating a whole new line of debate.

We disagree wholeheartedly on the 2A. It's a complete waste of time for me to bring it up in any future discussion with you. I'll try to not do that any longer. (And I'm sure your first thought to this is "because I've smacked it down".)

Well the smacked it down comment was a little in jest, but mainly came from things I’ve brought up that I felt you ignored—but then you mentioned a long post of mine (a novel, if you will) on this topic that you didn’t see, so that partly explains it.
But any time you want to address my point about 900 examples of colonial texts of “bear arms” meaning what I say it means, and practically 0 examples of it meaning what you think it means, please feel free. It’s an open invitation

Are you willing to answer my other question, though—what do you mean by “fully expressing” a right?

 

[RoastBeast]

Other things that require ID like driving and purchasing alcohol aren't inalienable rights like voting are.

My view is if it ain't broke, don't fix it and especially not when the people who want to "fix it" are really just interested in suppressing the vote.

The reality is that US national elections are, if anything, way harder to rig compared to the elections of other democratic countries because organizing elections is a state prerogative and so with each state having its own set of rules its virtually impossible to carry out mass voter fraud across state lines in anyway that would change the outcome of the election.

The idea that we have any significant, widespread voter fraud in this country is a myth. Conceding to this kind dishonesty is not good and shouldn't be done merely out of a misguided sense of fairness to both sides. If compelling evidence of widespread voter fraud due to an exploit in the system arises then things change but until then these initiatives should be viewed with suspicion.

It's an inalienable right for American citizens to vote but there also needs to be some sort of proof that the person voting is an American citizen.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms but in order to purchase one, we have to provide identification that proves we are an American citizen of adult age to access that right.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It's an inalienable right for American citizens to vote but there also needs to be some sort of proof that the person voting is an American citizen.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms but in order to purchase one, we have to provide identification that proves we are an American citizen of adult age to access that right.

Sure but in order to register to vote you have to provide identification that proves you're eligible to vote.

 

[RoastBeast]

Sure but in order to register to vote you have to provide identification that proves you're eligible to vote.

I've been told this cannot be accomplished by poor people because they cannot afford an ID and get to a DMV to get an ID.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I've been told this cannot be accomplished by poor people because they cannot afford an ID and get to a DMV to get an ID.

I don't think that's the argument. Notice I said at registration and not when casting the ballot. If you're arguing that citizens should have to identify themselves when registering that's not controversial, as far as I know that's the norm across the country. Its requiring the ID every time you vote that some have an issue with and specifically how these laws allow some IDs and not others and often include other measures unrelated to IDs like reducing early voting and Sunday voting and same day registration and out of precinct voting.