Fascinating Illustration of the Extent of Political Apathy

[Oneuli]

A taxpayer expense?

Yes. TANSTAFL. The IDs won't grow on trees. They'll need to be provided by a new bureaucracy, at taxpayer expense.

There is far more money wasted on this issue if we dont issue IDs

There doesn't need to be. We got along just fine for generations before the Republicans realized they could invent this issue and then use it as a voter suppression strategy.

No clear purpose?

Let me modify that a bit. The purpose of voter ID is very clear: to try to suppress the voting of demographics expected to favor the Democrats. But I meant no clear purpose in the sense of no legitimate purpose. There's every reason to believe that in-person voting fraud is so extremely rare and random that it has no impact on the outcome of elections. So, the question is why we should pretend it's a problem and spend a bunch of money solving it.

Think about everything a person needs an ID for. That by itself is a reason.

Should you have to show ID before mailing an envelop? If the fact that you have to show ID for a lot of things somehow functions as reason enough that you should also have to show ID for doing other things, I suppose the answer would be yes. But I don't recognize that as, by itself, a reason. I would need to see a good justification for making someone show an ID to mail an envelop, or vote, etc.

Making sure that those voting have the right to do so is another reason.

Very nearly everyone who votes has the right to do so. In-person voting fraud is incredibly rare. The only example I can think of from 2016 involved a Trumpster voting twice. There's a lot of stuff I'd rather have my money spent on than trying to eliminate a "problem" that's so rare that it has no practical impact.

If you're worried about election fraud, it would make more sense to focus on absentee voting. Obviously, a person who wants to swing an election isn't going to go precinct-to-precinct voting illegal, by which method he might manage to lodge a dozen votes at best, while taking a risk of being caught at every step. Instead, he'll mail in a stack of absentee ballots, which will allow him to vote hundreds of times, without ever exposing himself to detection. Someone looking to sway an election is vastly more likely to do it that way.

[Getin the ring]

why do insist on trying to make an argument, that debunks itself with the reality that we need an ID for EVERYTHING else we do of any consequence already.

But somehow you don't believe someone should have to prove they are an American citizen to vote in our elections, especially given the fact there is maybe 15 million illegals among us

[Superfreak]

Yes. TANSTAFL. The IDs won't grow on trees. They'll need to be provided by a new bureaucracy, at taxpayer expense.



There doesn't need to be. We got along just fine for generations before the Republicans realized they could invent this issue and then use it as a voter suppression strategy.



Let me modify that a bit. The purpose of voter ID is very clear: to try to suppress the voting of demographics expected to favor the Democrats. But I meant no clear purpose in the sense of no legitimate purpose. There's every reason to believe that in-person voting fraud is so extremely rare and random that it has no impact on the outcome of elections. So, the question is why we should pretend it's a problem and spend a bunch of money solving it.



Should you have to show ID before mailing an envelop? If the fact that you have to show ID for a lot of things somehow functions as reason enough that you should also have to show ID for doing other things, I suppose the answer would be yes. But I don't recognize that as, by itself, a reason. I would need to see a good justification for making someone show an ID to mail an envelop, or vote, etc.



Very nearly everyone who votes has the right to do so. In-person voting fraud is incredibly rare. The only example I can think of from 2016 involved a Trumpster voting twice. There's a lot of stuff I'd rather have my money spent on than trying to eliminate a "problem" that's so rare that it has no practical impact.

If you're worried about election fraud, it would make more sense to focus on absentee voting. Obviously, a person who wants to swing an election isn't going to go precinct-to-precinct voting illegal, by which method he might manage to lodge a dozen votes at best, while taking a risk of being caught at every step. Instead, he'll mail in a stack of absentee ballots, which will allow him to vote hundreds of times, without ever exposing himself to detection. Someone looking to sway an election is vastly more likely to do it that way.

Complete nonsense. The vast majority of people have IDs. Providing those that don't have them, will help them out in other aspects of life as well. Stop falling for the nonsense that it is suppression.

[NiftyNiblick]

I fail to understand the shocking lack of human empathy by anybody not completely obsessed with politics.

It would have been impossible for them to have been raised with any sense of self-accountability at all.

If you don't understand political theory sufficiently enough to have a strong opinion and feel the need to vote,

your parents and teachers alike have failed you badly.

[Oneuli]

Complete nonsense.

What makes you think so?

The vast majority of people have IDs.

Do you imagine that's relevant to anything I wrote?

Stop falling for the nonsense that it is suppression.

Suppression is the whole reason for the movement. There's no reason to think in-person voting fraud has ever swung an election. It's an imaginary problem. The question is why people are so fixated on a phantom problem they've dreamed up. The reason is because it's useful for suppressing legitimate votes, by creating an extra difficulty for voting, which disproportionately hits poor people, young people, minorities, and other groups that tend to vote Republican.

Of course, Republicans would like us to think this is just a coincidence. But the campaign to suppress voter turnout has been too long-standing and widespread for that to be convincing. It's right in line with poll taxes, poll tests, over-scrubbing of registration lists, under-resourcing of inner-city polling stations, resistance against efforts to make registration easier (e.g,. the Motor Voter law), etc.

[Oneuli]

why do insist on trying to make an argument, that debunks itself with the reality that we need an ID for EVERYTHING else we do of any consequence already.

We don't. I go weeks without showing anyone any ID. Don't you?

But somehow you don't believe someone should have to prove they are an American citizen to vote in our elections, especially given the fact there is maybe 15 million illegals among us

Since there's no sign that any significant number of undocumented residents have ever voted, why go through the expense of creating an ID system, knowing full well that it will depress voting numbers for some legitimate voters?

Seriously, what would make a right-winger think any significant number of illegitimate voters would vote? We have enough trouble getting people to vote WITHOUT the risk of being caught, jailed, deported, etc.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jack,

Both Red Team/Blue Team support Corporate America.

Yeah, well, sort of, to an extent. The leadership generally does because they have expensive elections to win. The easiest funding is to take the corporate hand-outs. Those who side one way or the other on issues end up inadvertently also giving more power to the oppressors. The 'representatives' use corporate money to publicize statements of commitment to represent voters; then, if elected, they also become beholden to the powerful. The only way the elected office holder can possibly risk going against what their corporate backers want, would be to have the enthusiastically expressed support of a strong majority of voters. The corporate power is that strong.

You're not voting on any REAL issues of how to divvy up the 'Pie'. You get side issues like LGBT Rights, Immigration, Marijuana, Health Care, etc. Those ARE issues, but it's not the core issue of Economic Inclusion.

True. Since corporations play both parties like fiddles, their political power is near absolute. Their goal is to set it up so that no matter which party wins, they win. Many corporations will actually give to both sides, hedging their bets.

The powerful want the proletariat left and the right fighting against each other so they won't focus their attention on the Class War or the insidious wealth extraction set up by the rich to keep the poor poor, and everybody else down, as they are launched into the wealth stratosphere. To feed their lust for wealth, others must go without. Many Americans have no savings at all, and are one paycheck away from bankruptcy.

What are we doing wrong to have so many people doing so poorly, monetarily? Are they just 'making bad choices?' Or are those choices being placed in front of them by the powerful... No doubt plenty of the poor do make seemingly illogical spending choices with what limited resources they have. But is that all there is to it? I'm not so sure. Why are so many people seemingly making such poor choices? Is that a reflection of our failing education system? If we collectively wanted to make our nation the greatest we could make it, we would naturally try to have the greatest education system possible. Republicans seem to want that only for the richest schools. They tend to slash budgets for poor schools. That's Class Warfare, right there. Keep 'em dumb and the won't over come, eh?

[Jack]

I think you are onto something.

Hello Jack,



Yeah, well, sort of, to an extent. The leadership generally does because they have expensive elections to win. The easiest funding is to take the corporate hand-outs. Those who side one way or the other on issues end up inadvertently also giving more power to the oppressors. The 'representatives' use corporate money to publicize statements of commitment to represent voters; then, if elected, they also become beholden to the powerful. The only way the elected office holder can possibly risk going against what their corporate backers want, would be to have the enthusiastically expressed support of a strong majority of voters. The corporate power is that strong.



True. Since corporations play both parties like fiddles, their political power is near absolute. Their goal is to set it up so that no matter which party wins, they win. Many corporations will actually give to both sides, hedging their bets.

The powerful want the proletariat left and the right fighting against each other so they won't focus their attention on the Class War or the insidious wealth extraction set up by the rich to keep the poor poor, and everybody else down, as they are launched into the wealth stratosphere. To feed their lust for wealth, others must go without. Many Americans have no savings at all, and are one paycheck away from bankruptcy.

What are we doing wrong to have so many people doing so poorly, monetarily? Are they just 'making bad choices?' Or are those choices being placed in front of them by the powerful... No doubt plenty of the poor do make seemingly illogical spending choices with what limited resources they have. But is that all there is to it? I'm not so sure. Why are so many people seemingly making such poor choices? Is that a reflection of our failing education system? If we collectively wanted to make our nation the greatest we could make it, we would naturally try to have the greatest education system possible. Republicans seem to want that only for the richest schools. They tend to slash budgets for poor schools. That's Class Warfare, right there. Keep 'em dumb and the won't over come, eh?