American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

The only reason those IDs are allowed is because the Democrats have made ID laws an issue. If it were not for those efforts more draconian laws would have been enacted, requiring limited forms of ID. Again, no one is against presenting ID to vote, it is the types of IDs that are the issue. All of the ID types you point out require the individual to travel to location (DMV) to have those IDs created. That limits the opportunity of poor people who do not have access to travel, or do not have the ability to take time off from their jobs, to get approved ID.

Your post was unintentionally racist in your depiction of black and Hispanics. Especially the "no birth certificate, werent born in a hospital" comment. According to HHS non-Hispanic whites have more live births outside the hospital than any other demographic, and by a factor of 5-to-1. So tone deaf.

I was pointing out the case of pre-civil rights that blacks did not have access to hospitals and thus did not have birth certificates. Those babies are now in the 60s and 70s and still don't have ID. I don't know of or understand other instances of not having ID. But again, this could be solved at ground level by getting people ID. If a person doesn't have access, someone should go for them. A perfect job for NGOs I think.

If you are using non-hispanic whites as an example then it's not a racial problem then is it? It's just a documentation problem. Don't people have to register a home birth? How does this child then go to school? Does this child just not exist and then at 18 not have documentation to vote?


Again, Democrats are letting politicians make the rules. Solve the ID problem so that GOP politicians have no cards to play.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I was pointing out the case of pre-civil rights that blacks did not have access to hospitals and thus did not have birth certificates. Those babies are now in the 60s and 70s and still don't have ID.

No you weren't. The issue was contemporaneous voter ID, not something that happened in the 1950s. Nice double down though.

I don't know of or understand other instances of not having ID. But again, this could be solved at ground level by getting people ID. If a person doesn't have access, someone should go for them. A perfect job for NGOs I think.

The bolded is obvious. How does an NGO provide access when it is a state agency that is responsible for the issuance of IDs? The same constraints apply to the people who need to get IDs. Having an NGO involved doesn't change the ability for someone to get time off from their jobs to go get an ID.

If you are using non-hispanic whites as an example then it's not a racial problem then is it? It's just a documentation problem. Don't people have to register a home birth? How does this child then go to school? Does this child just not exist and then at 18 not have documentation to vote?

All births require registration, which is why your depiction of blacks was racist. Like blacks are the only people that have babies outside a hospital. That is exactly what I just pointed out. Again, nice double down on the stupid.

Again, Democrats are letting politicians make the rules. Solve the ID problem so that GOP politicians have no cards to play.

Are you really as dense as you're coming across? It's Democrats fault for not getting people IDs that comply with the rules put in place by Republicans, but the Republicans shoulder no responsibility for passing restrictive voting laws that prevent specific demographics from voting. Your solution is to have an agency of some sort get everyone the ID of choice, costing incalculable amounts of time and money, versus passing reasonable voter ID laws, which cost tax payers nothing. You somehow fail to see that this is indeed nothing more than a modern day poll tax to discourage voters of color from exercising their civic right. How is that possible?

[GirlySports]

You are moving the goalposts. I can't argue this. First you say that people can't travel or get to the place to get registered and now you are saying that states don't give out ID to them anyways. Which is it?

And then we were talking about blacks and hispanics originally with AFC Wimbledon in the context of voters laws, and when I answer in that context. now I'm racist because I'm singling them out. Okay. Keep moving the goalposts to fit your narratives.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You are moving the goalposts. I can't argue this. First you say that people can't travel or get to the place to get registered and now you are saying that states don't give out ID to them anyways. Which is it?

What the hell are you talking about??? I've been very consistent in my position. This is a governance issue, nothing more. The Republicans are trying to pass laws that will make it more difficult for certain blocks of people to vote. Laws need to be put in place to make it easier for people to vote, not more difficult, and definitely not more restrictive.

You were the one who suggested that an NGO get involved to get these people IDs. I pointed out that IDs are regulated and issued by the state, and an NGO would not be able to aid in this process, other than offering a ride to and from the location where IDs are issued. I also pointed out that getting an NGO involved does not remove the other barriers people may run into while trying to get an ID card. This is not moving the goalposts, this is providing detail to show how ineffective your proposal is. I'm deconstructing your own logic and trying to show you that proper governance is easier and cheaper than what you suggest. Catch up.

And then we were talking about blacks and hispanics originally with AFC Wimbledon in the context of voters laws, and when I answer in that context. now I'm racist because I'm singling them out. Okay. Keep moving the goalposts to fit your narratives.

I don't see AFC referencing historic voter laws from the past. He was speaking to jonesy in a modern context and responding to jonesy's questions about the ID requirement. This was all in the current context.

You also made an unintentional racist comment by framing blacks and Hispanics in certain ways, ways that could cast them into conditions less than human and beneath those conditions of white people. Change the language a bit and see if it resonates with you.

"I understand why some Chinese and Koreans don't have ID. Papers are missing, no birth certificate, werent born in a hospital etc...

I don't understand why Chinese and Koreans don't have ID. They came later and mostly live in cities"

Now does that maybe resonate a little more with you? Do you now see where that may be construed as being unintentionally racist?

[jayswin]

Wait, are there still people in 2022 that aren't sure if voter suppression laws are actually a thing in the US?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Then that's not racist. I think the Democrats are fighting the wrong fight here. Why fight voting laws? Why don't the Democrats subsidize a program to get people ID? It doesn't even have to be a govt program, rich politicians or celebs could do it, heck Oprah alone could do it. This would be the ultimate ground game. Be GOP a-hole proof.

I understand why some blacks don't have ID. Papers are missing, no birth certificate, werent born in a hospital etc... but these things can be solved by money, couple hundred dollars per person. Democrats should front this.

I don't understand why Latinos don't have ID. They came later and mostly live in cities

Where in the constitution does it say that you require ID to vote? What ID was used in the 1804 Presidential election? This seems like a pretty simple issue for the conservative SCOTUS to deal with, guys like originalist Clarence Thomas would look at the constitution and decide that since it does not say ID then ID would be unconstitutional.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Wait, are there still people in 2022 that aren't sure if voter suppression laws are actually a thing in the US?

I'm not sure the ID thing on its own is suppression or racist. This is the discussion we've been having. But other things I have mentioned such as polling hours or locations are certainly racist and cheating.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Where in the constitution does it say that you require ID to vote? What ID was used in the 1804 Presidential election? This seems like a pretty simple issue for the conservative SCOTUS to deal with, guys like originalist Clarence Thomas would look at the constitution and decide that since it does not say ID then ID would be unconstitutional.

Elections are under state and even county jurisdiction.

ID is unconstitutional, that is an interesting one. These battles have been fought.

https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-...onstitutional/

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You are moving the goalposts. I can't argue this. First you say that people can't travel or get to the place to get registered and now you are saying that states don't give out ID to them anyways. Which is it?

And then we were talking about blacks and hispanics originally with AFC Wimbledon in the context of voters laws, and when I answer in that context. now I'm racist because I'm singling them out. Okay. Keep moving the goalposts to fit your narratives.

If you actually think this is not a voter suppression effort by the GOP, why wouldn't they pay to make sure all the black people have ID? Why did you suggest the Democrats would pay for that?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Elections are under state and even county jurisdiction.

Yes and there is nothing that required ID in 1804. An originalist would view this as a slam dunk, no ID in 1804 means no ID in 2022. What level of jurisdiction makes the decision does not affect the constitutionality of ID. Slam dunk for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas if they maintain their traditional judicial temperament. They should be the most adamant against ID laws, leading the charge at SCOTUS.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Yes and there is nothing that required ID in 1804. An originalist would view this as a slam dunk, no ID in 1804 means no ID in 2022. What level of jurisdiction makes the decision does not affect the constitutionality of ID. Slam dunk for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas if they maintain their traditional judicial temperament. They should be the most adamant against ID laws, leading the charge at SCOTUS.

Interesting. I don't disagree. But i dont think you csn simply take 1804 laws. Are stop signs and vaccine passports and gun laws unconstitutional too?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Interesting. I don't disagree. But i dont think you csn simply take 1804 laws. Are stop signs and vaccine passports and gun laws unconstitutional too?

Well that has always been those justices perspectives on gun laws, so the answer is yes. I am sure they are men of integrity and will rule these racist ID laws as unconstitutional.

[Macman]

Twitter permanently bans Marjorie Taylor Greene for COVID misinformation.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1477677967836950535

https://twitter.com/user/status/1477718158568046595

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Interesting. I don't disagree. But i dont think you csn simply take 1804 laws. Are stop signs and vaccine passports and gun laws unconstitutional too?

People become libertarian quite quickly when it is suits their needs.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Macman

Twitter permanently bans Marjorie Taylor Greene for COVID misinformation.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1477677967836950535

https://twitter.com/user/status/1477718158568046595

Interesting... I didn't know that Dr. Malone was suspended from Twitter... Don't know much about the guy other than hearing he was involved early on in mRNA technology

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Interesting. I don't disagree. But i dont think you csn simply take 1804 laws. Are stop signs and vaccine passports and gun laws unconstitutional too?

Stop Signs: No.

Vaccine Passports: Untested but I can guess how the current SCOTUS would vote.

Gun Laws: Sadly, for the most part, yes.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Interesting... I didn't know that Dr. Malone was suspended from Twitter... Don't know much about the guy other than hearing he was involved early on in mRNA technology

He's a big anti covid vax guy. I also give it a 0.01% chance that you knew he was involved early in mrna papers yet not known he was against the vaccines.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Macman

Twitter permanently bans Marjorie Taylor Greene for COVID misinformation.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1477677967836950535

https://twitter.com/user/status/1477718158568046595

Regarding that second tweet... You need to evaluate your twitter follows.

[Macman]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Regarding that second tweet... You need to evaluate your twitter follows.

I don't actually follow that account, that tweet was in a feed under something that was trending.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

There is no jurisdiction that required drivers license only to eliminate people that can't drive. Driver's license is one of many types of ID accepted. Here is Texas, known to be the most strict. How is this racist or unreasonable?

Now go back and lost the forms of ID that were acceptable in the first version of the law that was passes that was deemed unconstitutional and the various court decisions, appeals, overturning and modification to get a constitutional version of the law.

That nice list of exemptions did not exist.