No righties counter with common sense and reason. Lefties pull the Race Card on every argument. Which is just BS.
The argument is that voter ID cards are unnecessary & that Repub efforts to control the fraud you admit isn't a problem are intended to negatively impact voting by minority groups. They're Jim Crow. Reference recent federal court decisions.
That's the real argument. Righties counter that with straw man arguments & coy innocence as pretense.
No righties counter with common sense and reason. Lefties pull the Race Card on every argument. Which is just BS.
You can believe anyone you want. Regardless, everything is Not about race. No matter how many times the card is thrown.
I'll have to go back and find the CA page you linked to but the FAQ page from the California SoS page seems to indicate otherwise:See the response directly above yours by Dr Pizza and others by fskimospy and others for evidence that what I'm saying is true. It's not an "utter load of bullshit", it's exactly what they're saying and the exact policy they want. They have literally constructed a reality where saying people's identity should be verified is a "unicorn patrol" or "debunked with common sense." I've already linked the California webpage that confirms that CA does not validate identity at all. Again, this isn't about disagreeing with a particular method of verifying identity like photo ID vs, non-photo ID (e.g. "strict photo ID" versus "non-strict" that I described in the post you quoted), saying we should not verify identity this is the position of fskimospy and others. This isn't a discussion about how we should validate identity, it's one about whether even doing so is both "waste of time and money" and racist.
automatically registered to vote when I submit the online application?
No. The online voter registration application is another easy avenue for submitting your information but the information you provide in your online application still must be verified by your county elections official. If you have a California driver license or identification card and submit an online voter registration application, the Department of Motor Vehicles is simply sharing a copy of your signature on file so that it can be transferred to your voter registration record. No matter how you turn in your registration application – online or on paper – when it comes to determining a person's eligibility to vote, preventing duplicate registrations, and adding a person to California's official voter rolls, all the same safeguards are in place. Your county elections official will contact you when your voter registration application is approved or when more information is needed to confirm your eligibility.
I'll have to go back and find the CA page you linked to but the FAQ page from the California SoS page seems to indicate otherwise:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/frequently-asked-questions/#voterreg
Looks to me like they verify who you are when you register to vote......
So do you want to explain in more detail how you aren't deluded?
No righties counter with common sense and reason. Lefties pull the Race Card on every argument. Which is just BS.
We have already gone through this. "Verify your identity one time in your entire life" still means that identities are not being checked ever after that. We don't accept that blatant complete lack of security with any other event where ID is required. When buying a gun you verify your identity each time. When buying alcohol, boarding an aircraft, etc etc etc. Again, I'm not a "strict standard" guy and would willingly accept a variety of methods for folks to identify themselves. But it needs to be done each time. There is literally no way someone can be disenfranchised with some of these methods such as swearing an affidavit.
And... divert. The federal judiciary obviously believes that strict voter ID in Texas, Wisconsin & N Carolina is about race, don't they?
If that's true, why should anybody think it's about something else someplace else?
No righties counter with common sense and reason. Lefties pull the Race Card on every argument. Which is just BS.
Everyone in this country deserves a say in their government through the vote. Maybe try to realize that and be a patriot instead of a partisan.
OMG, that was one of the best jokes I've read in years! Tell me another, make it completely absurd and off the wall like this one.No righties counter with common sense and reason.
I never said everyone doesn't get a vote. I believe they should have voter identification requirements in every state. It isn't hard to get a state ID, most people already have an acceptable form of ID already. Those that do not have an ID should be given one free by the state. Simple as pie.
And you saying this "Maybe try to realize that and be a patriot instead of a partisan." is laughable. Maybe you should practice what you preach.
What's the problem you have with the status quo?
How does your solution fix that problem?
How does your solution also address disenfranchisement?
Will your solution cost more than the status quo?
Because as of right now I see your position as the same one the courts found to racially disenfranchise a significant number of voters under the guise of fixing a problem that doesn't exist while costing more tax payer dollars in an effort to elect republicans that can't win without stacking the deck.
Really.
Seems to me you are an idiot.
It is my opinion that everyone that votes should be identified as to who they are and where they are living. Just like flying on a plane or buying adult beverages etc...
It is obvious how that fixes the problem I have with the "status quo".
The only people being disenfranchised are the people that choose to be disenfranchised. Getting a free ID card is not hard under any measure. If you care enough to vote you should care enough to get an ID Card.
Sure it will cost a small amount. Many states already have a State ID you can get for free.
Lots of states agree with me: https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state
- As of August 2016, 31 states enforced voter identification requirements. A total of 16 states required voters to present photo identification, while 15 accepted other forms of identification.
- Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.
- Requirements come in two general forms: strict and non-strict. Under strict requirements, a voter who does not possess the required form of identification may be required to cast a provisional ballot. Under non-strict requirements, a voter who does not have the necessary identification may still vote without casting a provisional ballot.
Every person who votes identifies themselves at the time they vote every time.
Why is the status quo unacceptable to you?
What metrics would you use to decide to anti-fraud measures put in place would be acceptable to you?
So it's as I thought. Your idea is more expensive than the status quo, you can't/won't articulate what the problem is with the status quo, and you're fine disenfranchising current voters because you think they are to lazy to vote and deserve it.
Of course a lot of those who "let" themselves be disenfranchised did so because those "free" IDs require birth certificates with their married names and as poor seniors they no longer have the means or money to travel back to their birth states and spend the time getting the updated birth certificate to get the free ID they've never needed before to vote.
The courts agree with me that strict identification as implemented in several of those states and more every day is illegal.
A "patriot" such as yourself may remember, "no taxation without representation." How do you justify that to yourself?
...More specifically 40% of Trump voters think that ACORN (which hasn't existed in years) will steal the election for Clinton...That shows the long staying power of GOP conspiracy theories..
That's almost like Alan Keyes carpet bagging his way into Illinois to run in the 2004 Senate campaign for the GOP in a house where he didn't live in Chicago.
Almost.
Or almost like Hillary Clinton running for U.S. Senator from New York. Almost.
Or almost like Hillary Clinton running for U.S. Senator from New York. Almost.
At least Clinton had a good reason for not residing in New York until shortly before running for election, unlike Keyes.
You know, not every criticism of someone on your team needs to be spun as 'how much worse' the other person was. Trust me, there's no prize waiting for Hillary as the second best carpetbagger behind Keyes who takes the gold. Just for once why not just acknowledge that she rightfully deserves calling out for being in the situation at all where she can be compared with Keyes whether favorably or not.
If you think I never acknowledge when Clinton does things that are wrong then you aren't paying attention. Sometimes when people don't accept your attempts at false equivalence it's because your attempt was stupid, not because of something about them. I never said Clinton wasn't carpetbagging, I was just calling out your comparison of someone who couldn't have lived in a state for the prior eight years or so because they were the freaking FLOTUS isn't the same as a guy who moved to a state the day before filing because reasons.