DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:So much of that is complete hype TC. For example you can already challenge anyone's vote. It doesn't mean they don't vote, it only means someone wants the ID checked because they challenge the voters legitimacy. If the challenge is proven out to be substantiated the vote is removed. No big deal.

yes, it IS a big deal indeed, if you have lived through a history of intimidation by poll watchers, as every middle aged and older black person has in the South. Further, how about the NC laws that are allowing wholesale closure of polling places, and, lookee here!!,. isn't it a coincidence that many of those places are colleges, and especially black college polling stations. What is going on in NC is a disgrace. Luckily, the voting public(including the WHITE populace) has been embarassed and angered to the point where I suspect the effort is going to have serious negative blowback. We shall see, but make no mistake, the intent of many of those laws and the implementation especially have a VERY clear purpose, and target a very well planned audience to make voting more difficult.

The idea that we must let any vote with no proof of them being a registered voter is ridiculous. The claim that there is not enough evidence of past illegal voting is a joke! Only by putting some decent ID requirements in place do have any chance of knowing what is going on!

It's been studied, accurately, ad nauseum. No evidence, in any state, of any significant(read 0.1% of total vote) occurance, ever. Further, as long as you have adequate registration processes, a simple double check of the voter roll at the polling place should suffice.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So much of that is complete hype TC. For example you can already challenge anyone's vote. It doesn't mean they don't vote, it only means someone wants the ID checked because they challenge the voters legitimacy. If the challenge is proven out to be substantiated the vote is removed. No big deal.

yes, it IS a big deal indeed, if you have lived through a history of intimidation by poll watchers, as every middle aged and older black person has in the South. Further, how about the NC laws that are allowing wholesale closure of polling places, and, lookee here!!,. isn't it a coincidence that many of those places are colleges, and especially black college polling stations. What is going on in NC is a disgrace. Luckily, the voting public(including the WHITE populace) has been embarassed and angered to the point where I suspect the effort is going to have serious negative blowback. We shall see, but make no mistake, the intent of many of those laws and the implementation especially have a VERY clear purpose, and target a very well planned audience to make voting more difficult.

The idea that we must let any vote with no proof of them being a registered voter is ridiculous. The claim that there is not enough evidence of past illegal voting is a joke! Only by putting some decent ID requirements in place do have any chance of knowing what is going on!

It's been studied, accurately, ad nauseum. No evidence, in any state, of any significant(read 0.1% of total vote) occurance, ever. Further, as long as you have adequate registration processes, a simple double check of the voter roll at the polling place should suffice.

As I said, if there is no means of accounting for it you wont have much, if any reporting of the offense! Same day registration with no ID.....same day registration and mail in ballots!?! Come on!
Give me the same access to your bank account under those rules. After all, you might have actually written me that check for a million dollars and you're a racist bastard to make it hard on me to cash it.

TC likes to focus on who is protesting it, pointing to their race as if that is proof the minorities are the ones affected by the laws. They all have something else in common though...party affiliation. A minority voter can still vote with the ID process as long as he is a legitimate voter. The democrat party will have a harder time getting extra votes though....so who is it that is really protesting?
Probably the best way to get you liberals to change your tune is for conservatives to start migrating millions of hard core eastern Europeans in here and registering them as republicans and using all the same tactics...
Lol, you'll be singing a different tune then!

Will Robinson wrote:[As I said, if there is no means of accounting for it you wont have much, if any reporting of the offense! Same day registration with no ID.....same day registration and mail in ballots!?! Come on!

mail in ballots, you say? Like, say, absentee ballots? We do that all the time. Who registers without valid ID? No state that I know of.

Give me the same access to your bank account under those rules. After all, you might have actually written me that check for a million dollars and you're a racist bastard to make it hard on me to cash it.

you think this is a valid comparison? Fascinating, as is the use of racism in this context.

TC likes to focus on who is protesting it, pointing to their race (will that race card ever get worn out). They have something else in common though...party.
Probably the best way to get you liberals to change your tune is for conservatives to start migrating millions of hard core eastern Europeans in here and registering them as republicans and using all the same tactics...
Lol, you'll be singing a different tune then!

who's migrating anyone? We're talking BLACK people in the SOUTH. They've been there for years, like centuries. And, they've had every imaginable roadblock to full citizenship thrown at them, up to and including murder. Geez, will you ever wake up to that distinction, because it matters.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:TC likes to focus on who is protesting it, pointing to their race (will that race card ever get worn out). They have something else in common though...party.
Probably the best way to get you liberals to change your tune is for conservatives to start migrating millions of hard core eastern Europeans in here and registering them as republicans and using all the same tactics...
Lol, you'll be singing a different tune then!

who's migrating anyone? We're talking BLACK people in the SOUTH. They've been there for years, like centuries. And, they've had every imaginable roadblock to full citizenship thrown at them, up to and including murder. Geez, will you ever wake up to that distinction, because it matters.

Nice try......fail. I'm not talking about black registered voters who are more than welcome to vote. And will continue to do so with a shiny little drivers license.

22 million Mexicans voting that are projected to be the end of the republicans for the next dozen presidential elections.....migrating votes....harvesting votes from illegal status...
Who do you think you are trying to blow that smoke toward slick? If the repubs launched a campaign to match the mexican vote with conservative european illegals/legals you would see a quick about face in every district held by democrats at risk of the sudden influx of rightwing voters...all of a sudden voter ID would be a democrat issue too!

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:[As I said, if there is no means of accounting for it you wont have much, if any reporting of the offense! Same day registration with no ID.....same day registration and mail in ballots!?! Come on!

mail in ballots, you say? Like, say, absentee ballots? We do that all the time. Who registers without valid ID? No state that I know of.

Give me the same access to your bank account under those rules. After all, you might have actually written me that check for a million dollars and you're a racist bastard to make it hard on me to cash it.

you think this is a valid comparison? Fascinating, as is the use of racism in this context.

You don't like facing your self in the mirror? Obviously TC and the other liberals like you claim it is a racist motivation to have voter ID laws. I'm merly suggesting that if it was your bank account instead of the political oppositions welfare you wouldn't be such a weenie about simple common sense security measures to discourage fraud.
Comparison solid. It is hypothetically comparing your position now with political victory being handed to you by lax ID requirements versus what one might expect it to be when it is your own interest at risk instead of a benefit at the ballot box.

It's a frikken picture ID and time to actually compare names on the roles that are being debated here! You really think that is too much to ask?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:TC you nut. Which kind of "corruption" do you prefer? That which takes place right under your nose, or that which takes place behind your back?

TunnelCat wrote:Nice that we have to have that in this supposedly free country where everyone should have no impediment to voting as often as they can.

Voter fraud is a Republican Boogeyman creation. If it happens, of which there ARE examples, it's not so widespread as to have any influence on the outcomes of elections. So who created this myth? A Republican lawyer, working for Bushie.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... fact_mayer

But voter vigilantes will definitely cause intimidation by challenging a legitimate voter's qualifications. The effect will be that people will get frustrated and fed up and decide it's not worth it to go to the polls. Republicans are trying to win BEFORE they even get people TO the polls. Instead, why don't they get a viable platform that people will get behind and vote for, not abhor because it's too extreme.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... ud-scandal

Will Robinson wrote:That is a totally flawed premise! We never have been a country where everyone is allowed to vote. And if some are not allowed then stopping us from filtering them out is an injustice....

Jeez, you sound like an Ayn Rander who wants to keep that ideal of a Constitutional Republic. Me? Meh. I like being able to vote for who I want and just maybe, changing the status quo in the process.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... _ctrl=1021

I guess if you want to go back to the "original definition" of who could vote, we should give only white male property owners that right. Everyone else can go screw it if we want to abandon that "government by the people" ideal that has crept in over time.

TC, you still haven't answered my question. is the government discriminating against the poor that need welfare by requiring photo ID??

CUDA wrote:TC, you still haven't answered my question. is the government discriminating against the poor that need welfare by requiring photo ID??

I'll answer......it isn't the poor who would be seeking welfare. It's largely rural and elderly urban black people. They have traditionally had difficulty, not with simply having picture ID, but getting the requisite birth certificates, for cultural reasons. The boogaboo about illegal immigrants voting has NEVER been shown to be an issue, and we've had millions of them here for over 30 years now. Interesting, the stuff going on in NC, because it goes WAY beyond sensible ID law. They're shutting down polling places, notably at colleges and in predominantly minority districts. They want the students from Appalachian State(a good sized school, by the way) to go to a polling place several miles off campus, with no transportation and a capacity for 27 cars in the lot........for several THOUSAND eligible voters. It/s clear, the GOP seems to have calculated that the ONLY way they can win an election is by supression of the vote, selective and targetted supression. This WILL come back to roost, so to me it seems a dumb plan, but time will tell.

As if this type of suppression actually has a chance to work…with all of the Democratic organization….

Shame on you if it does.

Spidey wrote:As if this type of suppression actually has a chance to work…with all of the Democratic organization….

Shame on you if it does.

not me, as I don't live in a state with such issues. You do, but probably see nothing wrong with what your state GOP has been trying to foist on the voting public.

CUDA wrote:TC, you still haven't answered my question. is the government discriminating against the poor that need welfare by requiring photo ID??

Not ALL the poor are on welfare as you seem to think is rampant, nor are a lot of the elderly, disabled, homeless and young people out there. There are also those rural people born at home without any birth certificate, who never had a driver's license, never had any government issued photo ID, don't have SS or Medicare and never had any kind of traceable credit interactions, so it's nearly if not impossible to even obtain a photo ID without that little piece of paper. There are an estimated 3.2 million Americans without photo ID. That's a lot of disenfranchised people who used to be able to to vote before Republicans began passing these restrictive voter laws.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217 ... -wont-vote

Spidey wrote:As if this type of suppression actually has a chance to work…with all of the Democratic organization….

Shame on you if it does.

What a tug of war Spidey. Both parties playing a game. Republicans want to keep as many from voting as possible so that they'll win. Democrats want to register as many as possible so that they'll win. How quaint. I'd prefer that everyone had the chance to vote without interference or intimidation from either party. We'll eventually see who wins. The plague is spreading in the Republican's favor however. I'd like to see neither win in this one.

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/e ... ws-roundup

Nice dodge. You STILL didn't answer my question

Slick, even the Dem pundits have acknowledged that immigration reform will ensure they win the White House for a number of cycles if the right to vote is included in the deal. You love to deny the inconvenient truth a lot of the time and this is another one of them.

TC, we have always had rules about who can vote. It is important that Americas representatives aren't put in power by just anyone from anywhere who can make it to a polling place. Right now you are singing your party's song. Who can blame you, you could turn places like Texas and Arizona blue by making it easy for non citizens to vote. But should that be the reason you choose to ignore the laws, to promote the breaking of the law? Because it works out well for you?!?

I bet if the other party were going to win because of it you would be raising hell about it!

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, even the Dem pundits have acknowledged that immigration reform will ensure they win the White House for a number of cycles if the right to vote is included in the deal. You love to deny the inconvenient truth a lot of the time and this is another one of them.

that refers to increased numbers of legal citizens over time(which is already happening to some extent with birthrates among the citizens we have), and in NO WAY refers to fraud.Why do you bother to throw this out, it's merely a smokescreen into the whole debate.

TC, we have always had rules about who can vote. It is important that Americas representatives aren't put in power by just anyone from anywhere who can make it to a polling place. Right now you are singing your party's song. Who can blame you, you could turn places like Texas and Arizona blue by making it easy for non citizens to vote. But should that be the reason you choose to ignore the laws, to promote the breaking of the law? Because it works out well for you?!?

what evidence can you bring to the table that non-citizens have been voting(at least since that was made illegal in the early 20th century)

I bet if the other party were going to win because of it you would be raising hell about it!

I doubt it, because her point is all about making voting access easier for all, with no regard to 'winning'. It seems that the GOP has figured out that a growing number of young, minority and elderly people don't plan on voting for them, ever, and is desperate to do something to offset that trend. And, indeed, desperation is what it reeks of.

CUDA wrote:Nice dodge. You STILL didn't answer my question

Well, if you want to get down to brass tacks, yes. But there are well documented cases of large scale welfare fraud. There's nothing that even comes close in cases of voting fraud. Voting fraud also doesn't have the lure of money to fuel it that welfare fraud does either.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/Pa ... st-Of.aspx

I still disagree with the way that photo ID laws are being put into action all in a rush, like there's no tomorrow, without taking into account all the people who have never had a photo ID in their lives and which having to suddenly obtain one would be a major hardship. As I posted, there are around 3 million people who would lose the ability to cast their vote. I think that stinks. I also think Republicans are doing it for reasons of gamesmanship, not to preserve the integrity of the vote. Their principles for doing it ring hollow. On one hand, they're against a national photo ID, but on the other hand, they're pushing a state photo ID. Government is government, state or federal. Makes no difference.

tunnelcat wrote:.... Government is government, state or federal. Makes no difference.

No, it really isn't in lots of ways.
What my local guys do or don't do is shaped primarily by what local citizens want. At the federal level I'm dictated to by some guy who merely had to win a few high population areas in Florida and Ohio and then mocks us from behind a teleprompter knowing he is untouchable by us...

Oh, but governments are different…

The local governments are supposed to govern the people, state government is supposed to govern the local governments, and the Fed is supposed to govern the state governments….but somewhere along the line everything went stupid.

I agree with tunnelcat in that I see nothing wrong in principle with requiring photo IDs to vote, but the way and timeframe in which Republican-controlled states have tried to implement leaves absolutely no doubt as to their true motives. Trying to pretend there's any "widespread" instances of voter fraud is completely disingenuous.

Top Gun wrote:I agree with tunnelcat in that I see nothing wrong in principle with requiring photo IDs to vote,

Then you don't agree with TC. she says requiring ID to vote is discriminatory.

The time frame is a whole separate issue.

I swore I saw a sentence in one of her posts saying something like that...weird. *blinks* Anyway, if someone can come up with a voter ID law that takes into account the millions of people in this country who don't currently have such an ID, and are unable to easily obtain one (if they can at all), and if said law gives an extended time-frame for deployment while providing for exemptions for the aforementioned people, and if it doesn't exclude whole populations like college students for no logical reason other than partisanship...if it manages all of that, then sure, go for it. But none of these Republican-led proposals come anywhere NEAR that. They're flat-out political gamesmanship, knowingly disenfranchising groups they know will vote against them. And that's just sickening, and should be illegal if it isn't already.

TG, exactly right.

Exactly wrong


Definition of DISENFRANCHISE

: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote.


Requiring ID is not disenfranchisment. It is not depriving ANYONE of their legal rights.
Dont fall into the DNC lie.

And a couple of years (typical election cycle) should be ample time to acquire a photo ID. If you cannot get one in that time frame then seems to me you really don't care about voting

so, if you don't have a birth certificate(for one large-scale example), tough luck, eh, CUDA? Further, I note you and others don't want to touch the matter of moving and reducing polling places, cutting early voting hours and other rules specifically designed to make it DIFFICULT for specifically targetted people to cast their ballots. Howzabout that disenfranchisement?

callmeslick wrote:so, if you don't have a birth certificate(for one large-scale example), tough luck, eh, CUDA? Further, I note you and others don't want to touch the matter of moving and reducing polling places, cutting early voting hours and other rules specifically designed to make it DIFFICULT for specifically targetted people to cast their ballots. Howzabout that disenfranchisement?

show me the law that says those people are no longer permitted to vote.

If I was to say "slick you no longer have a constitutional right to vote" THAT is disenfranchising. That is NOT what is happening. and to accuse the GOP of doing it is not true and you know it.

And Fyi get a birth certificate VERY few people do not have one OR do not have access to one and you know that too.

You can get a photo ID here in PA without a birth certificate, as long as you are over 18 and a resident.

I am also under the impression that the overwhelming number of early voting places are located in Democratic areas, that in itself gives one group more access to voting, and in my opinion should be eliminated.

The Democrats know that these rules have as much chance of changing voting outcomes as what they purport to stop, but what the hell…the drama is good for business.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:so, if you don't have a birth certificate(for one large-scale example), tough luck, eh, CUDA? Further, I note you and others don't want to touch the matter of moving and reducing polling places, cutting early voting hours and other rules specifically designed to make it DIFFICULT for specifically targetted people to cast their ballots. Howzabout that disenfranchisement?

show me the law that says those people are no longer permitted to vote.

I didn't say not permitted, but making it extremely difficult is at the heart of disenfranchisement.

If I was to say "slick you no longer have a constitutional right to vote" THAT is disenfranchising. That is NOT what is happening. and to accuse the GOP of doing it is not true and you know it.

you are using a very narrow and convenient definition. The GOP is clearly trying to surpress voting, and that is obscene.

And Fyi get a birth certificate VERY few people do not have one OR do not have access to one and you know that too.

you do not understand the South. Many children before 1970, especially in more rural areas, were born outside the hospital system(midwives, and family members assisting) and thus never received formal birth certificates. These people have scattered throughout the Eastern half of the nation, they number in the hundreds of thousands, and no they cannot just go and get a birth certificate. Sorry.

Spidey wrote:You can get a photo ID here in PA without a birth certificate, as long as you are over 18 and a resident.

I am also under the impression that the overwhelming number of early voting places are located in Democratic areas, that in itself gives one group more access to voting, and in my opinion should be eliminated.

The Democrats know that these rules have as much chance of changing voting outcomes as what they purport to stop, but what the hell…the drama is good for business.

you are correct, as I understand it, regarding the birth certificates, in PA, but not true in other states(NC for example, at present). As to the early voting, why decrease access then, why not simply expand it, should you find it unevenly applied? More voting is good, less voting is bad. That equation remains, for me at least.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:so, if you don't have a birth certificate(for one large-scale example), tough luck, eh, CUDA? Further, I note you and others don't want to touch the matter of moving and reducing polling places, cutting early voting hours and other rules specifically designed to make it DIFFICULT for specifically targetted people to cast their ballots. Howzabout that disenfranchisement?

show me the law that says those people are no longer permitted to vote.

I didn't say not permitted, but making it extremely difficult is at the heart of disenfranchisement.

making something difficult is not the same as making it illegal. so call it what it is then and stop being disingenuous

If I was to say "slick you no longer have a constitutional right to vote" THAT is disenfranchising. That is NOT what is happening. and to accuse the GOP of doing it is not true and you know it.

you are using a very narrow and convenient definition. The GOP is clearly trying to surpress voting, and that is obscene.

no what is obscene is the lies and distortions being told by the left about this issue. you cannot get any other government service with out a photo ID why the double standard in the Democratic party in allowing that?? are the democrats afraid that if people are required to prove they are who they say they are that they will lose votes and then consequently the power that they have??

And Fyi get a birth certificate VERY few people do not have one OR do not have access to one and you know that too.

you do not understand the South. Many children before 1970, especially in more rural areas, were born outside the hospital system(midwives, and family members assisting) and thus never received formal birth certificates. These people have scattered throughout the Eastern half of the nation, they number in the hundreds of thousands, and no they cannot just go and get a birth certificate. Sorry.

bull★■◆●..
link please showing there are "hundreds of thousands" that do not or cannot get a birth certificate

then you expect me to believe that those "hundreds of thousands of people"

have never driven a car,
have never applied for Government assistance.
have never opened a bank account
have never written a check
have never rented a house
have never purchased a car
have never purchased prescription drugs
have never used a credit card and been asked for ID
visited a baby in the hospital
Cash a check
See an R rated movie (sometimes)
Buy a gun
Test drive a car
Apply for most jobs
Pick up your own kids from your public school
Rent tools from a hardware store
Buy over the counter allergy medicine
Get married
Apply for a passport
See a doctor (in some locations)
Get care for your pet at an animal hospital (in some locations)
Rent a hotel room
Pick up tickets for events at a box office
Close a real estate sale
Identify a loved one’s remains
Sign up for a rewards card at a grocery store
Redeem a lottery ticket
Got on an airplane
Take your children to the pediatrician’s office (in some locations)
Buy a beer at a restaurant
Fill out and submit an I-9 tax form (actually TWO forms of ID required!)
Return merchandise at many retail stores
Get a membership at a gym (many locations)
Rent a videogame with an MA rating
Take professional exams in industries like insurance, accounting, finance, etc.
Pick up items at a store purchased online
Buy spray paint
Get a package from Fedex or UPS
Buy a car
Rent an apartment
Get a fishing or hunting license
Applied for government housing
Play sports in some youth leagues
Compete in American Idol
Apply for Social Security/Medicare
Pay a cable bill
Camp at a state park campground
Get on an Amtrak train

and the list goes ON and ON

so you expect me to believe that all those "hundreds of thousands" have been living under a rock since they were born. and cannot get photo ID to vote. your argument is so thin its almost invisible

CUDA, you should note that I never used the word illegal....I chose 'obscene' for a reason.
Data around birth certificates and other documentation is found here, including the data on the numbers of African Americans with NO ability to ever get a birth certificate:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=671

and yes, there are hundreds of thousands of folks, mainly in the rural south of the US, that cannot do any of those things you mentioned. You need to get out a bit more, methinks.....

SO.

You expect all of us to believe that those people do not have jobs, because they do not have photo ID's to have a background check run.
they have no way to travel to and from work, because they cannot purchase a vehicle because they cannot get it licensed or legally purchase or drive it
they have no money because they do not have a bank account. (unless they store their moonshine profits under their mattress) because they don't have ID to open one
and they are not on Government assistance. because they don't have ID to qualify.

how do those people survive?? How do they eat?? they must all be frontier woodsman living off the land, hunting for their food, living in log cabins

CUDA wrote:SO.

You expect all of us to believe that those people do not have jobs, because they do not have photo ID's to have a background check run.

most of them are older, and their employment both predated such requirement, or was agricultural, where such requirements aren't needed. Next?

they have no way to travel to and from work, because they cannot purchase a vehicle because they cannot get it licensed or legally purchase or drive it

if you wish to come visit me at the Virginia house, I will show you a lot of people with no cars, or at least legally registered vehicles. Once again, most of these people are age 50 and up.

they have no money because they do not have a bank account. (unless they store their moonshine profits under their mattress) because they don't have ID to open one

a massive number of rural Americans exist outside the banking system, as do huge amounts of urban dwellers(something I found out later in life, when I lived in Philly.....they are getting hosed, regularly, by 'check cashing' joints and other businesses).

and they are not on Government assistance. because they don't have ID to qualify.

a LOT of rural, poor people shun Government assistance, and many forms of assistance, such as church based charities and food banks deal with local folks with no such ID requirements.

how do those people survive?? How do they eat?? they must all be frontier woodsman living off the land, hunting for their food, living in log cabins

not really, but they ARE tough as nails, resourceful, and most significant of all, proud to be Americans. We should honor that with extending every consideration to them that we can, not cutting off a fundamental right of citizenship. Oh, and 'how do they eat'? Because most of them work in producing the produce, grains, poultry and seafood that YOU EAT.

by the way, CUDA, I don't know if you meant to be ignorant and dismissive of rural southern Americans(moonshine, log cabin, etc references), but some of these folks, hell, many of them, are part of the reason you EAT, as I noted above, and to dismiss them so casually shows something of your insight, or worse, character. Which is it?

callmeslick wrote:..
a massive number of rural Americans exist outside the banking system, as do huge amounts of urban dwellers(something I found out later in life, when I lived in Philly.....they are getting hosed, regularly, by 'check cashing' joints and other businesses).

they cash checks with no ID?

yes, they do, Will. Care to come up to downtown Philly and see how it is done? Mind you, they get 70 cents on the dollar, but that's how it's done. A little better treatment of folks down in rural VA, but still a premium paid to anyone cashing a check on mere personal knowledge(usually like 10%).

callmeslick wrote:yes, they do, Will. Care to come up to downtown Philly and see how it is done? Mind you, they get 70 cents on the dollar, but that's how it's done. A little better treatment of folks down in rural VA, but still a premium paid to anyone cashing a check on mere personal knowledge(usually like 10%).

So should banks be required to stop demanding ID since that, in and of itself, is a tactic to deprive minorities of access?

banks are private businesses, and as such can determine their own processes. It IS starting to dawn on me that a few of you either have no awareness or, or appreciation for, how poor Americans live their lives. Nor, do you seem to give a crap. Will, down where you live, I could no doubt find you DOZENS of places that are, daily, cashing checks without ID, accepting prescriptions without ID, folks driving without ID, on and on. It might serve some of you to get out and serve the poor in your local communities. It might open some eyes. And, no, I don't mean writing a check, I mean WORKING in a food bank, a shelter, a jobs program or outreach to migrant labor. Give it a shot and get back to me with this snarky BS about your fellow citizens.


Also, I note no one wishes to explain how making it difficult for college students to vote serves the nation. Likewise with restricting voting hours and early voting days.

callmeslick wrote:banks are private businesses, and as such can determine their own processes. It IS starting to dawn on me that a few of you either have no awareness or, or appreciation for, how poor Americans live their lives. Nor, do you seem to give a crap. Will, down where you live, I could no doubt find you DOZENS of places that are, daily, cashing checks without ID, accepting prescriptions without ID, folks driving without ID, on and on. It might serve some of you to get out and serve the poor in your local communities. It might open some eyes. And, no, I don't mean writing a check, I mean WORKING in a food bank, a shelter, a jobs program or outreach to migrant labor. Give it a shot and get back to me with this snarky BS about your fellow citizens.


Also, I note no one wishes to explain how making it difficult for college students to vote serves the nation. Likewise with restricting voting hours and early voting days.

All your outrage and deflection aside....

Private businesses are not immune to regulation to correct the kind of racial offenses you claim an ID requirement handicaps minorities with!
So please explain why you would allow a bank to use the same tactic.
Your excuse about private business sounds remarkably like the kind of excuse evil conservatives use to justify their allegedly racist position.

well, if someone wishes to address the banking regs, that's fine with me, too, frankly. Still, you're dancing around reality and seemingly uncaring about how your fellow citizens live their lives, on the edge. Also, you keep dodging the student voting issue.

callmeslick wrote:well, if someone wishes to address the banking regs, that's fine with me, too, frankly. Still, you're dancing around reality and seemingly uncaring about how your fellow citizens live their lives, on the edge. Also, you keep dodging the student voting issue.

So you think it is wise to demand banks stop requiring ID for cashing checks, opening accounts, etc.

And I'm not dodging anything, I'm trying to pin down your position on ID requirements=denying minorities access.

I'll read the student stuff and offer an opinion soon. I was under the impression that students of voting age can get a proper ID quite easily....real and fake....so I hadn't considered them falling under the umbrella of the claim that they were being denied equal access, or access in general. But I will read what has been offered on that and strike down on whoever I think is wrong with great veangeance and furious anger!

But first tell me about banks discriminating against minorities by requiring ID for transactions.

callmeslick wrote:well, if someone wishes to address the banking regs, that's fine with me, too, frankly. Still, you're dancing around reality and seemingly uncaring about how your fellow citizens live their lives, on the edge. Also, you keep dodging the student voting issue.

THATS PURE bull★■◆●. you seem to keep saying that being able to vote is a life or death matter. the government requires ID just to get food stamps and other welfare benefits. so where is your moral outrage over that. so to dismiss them so casually shows something of your insight, or worse, character. Which is it?

your Moral compass reminds me of the one that Captain Jack used in Pirates of the Caribbean. it only point to what you desire most, not to the truth