Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And there you ago again, trying to fix the problem by not fixing it. "The system in place at the DMV" is already the system that is being found burdensome.
The article states "far more costly than people assume". There is nothing to back this statement up. I can make claims up also and state them as fact. Doesn't mean they are.
So what are you saying, that Mexico is an inferior country?
No. I'm saying that their electoral model is inferior. The article that you provided makes that argument in spades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fat lou
My point is that even a poor country like Mexico expects their citizens to have a photo id card. This country, inexplicably, wants to hold our people to a lower standard. And no, that doesn't make me very proud.
And in return for that expectation, more than a million eligible voters are disenfranchised, while egregous and systemic voter fraud continues to run rampant.
What about that do you find... worthy of emulation? Exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fat lou
And give up on this abortion policy question thing. You wrote something dumb, suck it up and move on.
I know they are public information. That is how I know your account of them is a lie.
I stopped here because you are wrong..
You are either being dishonest on purpose, or just outright ignorant
(Crawford v. Marion County Election Board). In one of two majority opinions Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that Indiana’s law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process…," and “we cannot conclude that the statute imposes excessively burdensome requirements on any class of voters.” In the other majority opinion Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”
The article states "far more costly than people assume". There is nothing to back this statement up. I can make claims up also and state them as fact. Doesn't mean they are.
I did not link to "an article." I linked to a website that contains a comprehensive set of studies, reports and reviews. To get to the backup, you actually have to read them, not just gloss the splash page.
Worse, the very phrase you quote ("far more costly than people assume") is even a hyperlink that would have led you directly to that backup... if only you had the energy to click your mouse.
I have to say, I find it ironic when folks who think it outrageous that anybody should feel it too burdensome to get a Photo ID themselves find it too burdensome to explore a web page.
I did not link to "an article." I linked to a website that contains a comprehensive set of studies, reports and reviews. To get to the backup, you actually have to read them, not just gloss the splash page.
I have to say, I find it ironic when folks who think it outrageous that anybody should feel it too burdensome to get a Photo ID themselves find it too burdensome to explore a web page.
Just sayin'
how does your link hold more relevance then the Supreme Court rulings
You are either being dishonest on purpose, or just outright ignorant
(Crawford v. Marion County Election Board). In one of two majority opinions Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that Indiana’s law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process…," and “we cannot conclude that the statute imposes excessively burdensome requirements on any class of voters.” In the other majority opinion Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”
You prove me correct, yet again.
Where exactly does that say anything about "it's okay if it's free?"
how does your link hold more relevance then the Supreme Court rulings
If you were able to actually follow the arguments posed in this thread, you would not have to ask that question. They are apples and pears.
The link to the Brennan Center establishes that Voter ID laws suppress the vote in a systemic and partisan manner. The Supreme Court decision did not disagree with that.
The link to the Brennan Center also establishes that Voter ID laws do not prevent voter fraud. The Supreme Court decision also did not disagree with that.
In other words... the link supports my arguments, and the Supreme Court Decision does not offer opposition to them.
If you were able to actually follow the arguments posed in this thread, you would not have to ask that question. They are apples and pears.
The link to the Brennan Center establishes that Voter ID laws suppress the vote in a systemic and partisan manner. The Supreme Court decision did not disagree with that..
Please show me this supreme court decision stating this..
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
The link to the Brennan Center also establishes that Voter ID laws do not prevent voter fraud. The Supreme Court decision also did not disagree with that.
And cite the Supreme Court ruling stating this as well
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
In other words... the link supports my arguments, and the Supreme Court Decision does not offer opposition to them.
Apples and pears.
You have no argument other than posting the same non stop link and then arguing that the Supreme Court didnt say it was ok to require ID provided it was free, even though they said the law was constitutional requiring ID provided it was free..
The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free <----- SEE THE WORD FREE
stop trolling
The Indiana ID was already free. That's why the cost of the ID was never argued in front of the court at all (hence how we also know your claim that it was so argued is a lie). And the decision never concluded, asserted or ruled that this was the reason it was okay. That Scalia simply called it what it was in his opinion does not magically make it the reason for that decisision.
My god man. Actually read the thing. Read what is actually there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
