Red Mosquito

cutuphalfdead wrote:Why enact policy that fixes no problem but means fewer people get to vote?

Gee, I dont' know, maybe to prove to someone claiming voter fraud that there wasn't any?

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Strat wrote:baaaahhh! baaaaahhhh! baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

Just calm down.

exclusive video of strat in his native environment:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Why enact policy that fixes no problem but means fewer people get to vote?

Gee, I dont' know, maybe to prove to someone claiming voter fraud that there wasn't any?

Why is the burden of proof on the negative?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Why enact policy that fixes no problem but means fewer people get to vote?

Gee, I dont' know, maybe to prove to someone claiming voter fraud that there wasn't any?

Why is the burden of proof on the negative?

why not if it works?

Because the entire thing is a ruse. Voter ID laws mean less people who tend to vote Democrat get to vote. And at same time there's no proven problem that it fixes as a trade-off.

Burt's next post:

Strat and company at a recent political rally

You guys. This speech.

"Obamacare is death. That's the one that's death"

He also said it's been a law for 17 years.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Why enact policy that fixes no problem but means fewer people get to vote?

Gee, I dont' know, maybe to prove to someone claiming voter fraud that there wasn't any?

Why is the burden of proof on the negative?

The idea that this would prove an absence of fraud is as funny as the idea that there is widespread, organized fraud based in and planned by scores of US citizens.

You should have a valid photo id (like a passport, driver's license or similar) to vote. You must in this country.

The hoops these guys jump through to convince themselves that voter ID is damaging to democracy defies all reason. No one else on Earth has a problem with ID.

Of course voter fraud happens.

I can't help but think that the events of Game of Thrones could have been avoided entirely by voter ID laws.

BurtReynolds wrote:

bune wrote:99% of the actions you posted require an exchange of funds whereas voting is/should be free.

Since when do you have to show ID to apply for a job? You have to show ID if you GET a job, but that's not the same at all.

Don't know about holding a rally, that seems out of left field.

Blood donations don't require money so that's your 1%.

It's not hard to get ID (regardless of what democrats claim.) Why would you have to show ID to apply for a job? Who gives a shit when you have to have ID if you are hired anyway?

It's utterly insane that the Democrats fight against basic voter ID. Even fucking Canada requires it. CANADA!

The thing is, these laws aren't proposed in order to have voting rules become more uniform with all the things you listed in your facebook gif or to become more uniform with all the countries that have requirements for voting IDs. they're by and large proposed in order to help ensure specific groups of people do NOT vote and give political parties an advantage in upcoming elections.
that's hardly democratic, and no better than gerrymandering.
why does that not enter into your argument?

BurtReynolds wrote:I can't help but think that the events of Game of Thrones could have been avoided entirely by voter ID laws.

We're not going to get anywhere if you keep relitigating the 997th election for Lord Commander; if anything, Mormont would've won by more if he had to campaign at Eastwatch By The Sea. FAKE RAVEN SCROLLS

Simple Torture wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I can't help but think that the events of Game of Thrones could have been avoided entirely by voter ID laws.

We're not going to get anywhere if you keep relitigating the 997th election for Lord Commander; if anything, Mormont would've won by more if he had to campaign at Eastwatch By The Sea. FAKE RAVEN SCROLLS

I should have fucking guessed that that existed.

Simple Torture wrote:I should have fucking guessed that that existed.

4:53 on perfectly captures my experience in this thread.

malice wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

bune wrote:99% of the actions you posted require an exchange of funds whereas voting is/should be free.

Since when do you have to show ID to apply for a job? You have to show ID if you GET a job, but that's not the same at all.

Don't know about holding a rally, that seems out of left field.

Blood donations don't require money so that's your 1%.

It's not hard to get ID (regardless of what democrats claim.) Why would you have to show ID to apply for a job? Who gives a shit when you have to have ID if you are hired anyway?

It's utterly insane that the Democrats fight against basic voter ID. Even fucking Canada requires it. CANADA!

The thing is, these laws aren't proposed in order to have voting rules become more uniform with all the things you listed in your facebook gif or to become more uniform with all the countries that have requirements for voting IDs. they're by and large proposed in order to help ensure specific groups of people do NOT vote and give political parties an advantage in upcoming elections.
that's hardly democratic, and no better than gerrymandering.
why does that not enter into your argument?

- I don't think it's a given that people who are pro-voter ID are trying to keep democrat voters down.
- I don't think there are many people who can't manage to get an ID who are dying to vote, or that they would vote democrat if they did.
- Seems like it would be a lot more sensible to work on getting people IDs than trying to prevent common sense voter ID requirements.

there are much bigger problems. Most of this is partisan politics. It's a ridiculous hill for Democrats to die on, though.

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Why enact policy that fixes no problem but means fewer people get to vote?

Gee, I dont' know, maybe to prove to someone claiming voter fraud that there wasn't any?

I may be reading what you're saying incorrectly, but you're arguing the impetus behind enacting these voter ID laws is to prove that there's not voter fraud happening? That seems pretty much the opposite of what many proponents are arguing.

digster wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Why enact policy that fixes no problem but means fewer people get to vote?

Gee, I dont' know, maybe to prove to someone claiming voter fraud that there wasn't any?

I may be reading what you're saying incorrectly, but you're arguing the impetus behind enacting these voter ID laws is to prove that there's not voter fraud happening? That seems pretty much the opposite of what many proponents are arguing.

it was just a point, not the main one. Seems like a nice bonus if nothing else.