My question was in regards to getting IDs not being difficult, so what areas of Texas actually require people to drive 170 miles to get an ID?
Even granting that places like that exist, they would be few and far between and definitely not the norm. So just find a couple of mobile units where people in those areas and can make appointments and get home service.
Originally posted by BackFire
You're creating a distinction without a difference. Appeasing stupid people scared of something that doesn't exist is no better than appealing to them, either way, you are validating people's baseless fear which no good can come from.Yes there have been some protests that turned to riots, but they were not "allowed". The people who engaged in that behavior were arrested and punished.
And besides, do you really think that people who are so distrustful of the government that they would engage in violence as a result of an election outcome they disagree with would suddenly be placated by an ID issued from the very government they don't trust?
Also that was a cute little attempt at a gotcha moment, but nothing I've said is inconsistent. I'd have no problem with a nationwide ID if it could be done in a very cheap and fast way that was equally fair to every citizen. I don't believe that is possible in this climate, so I'm against the idea of a voter ID because I don't believe it is worth the cost and hassle that reality dictates would be required. And obviously I don't agree that any lives will be saved by implementing them. The riots that happen are independent of the rules of our elections, they're the product of a deeply divided population and an ID system won't change that.
And again I don't know why you keep trying to tie it back to the idea of gun control and background checks. This comparison is stupid as it completely ignores the severity of a mass shooting vs someone voting twice. Also it ignores the fact that we have tons of data on one, and pretty much none on the other.
It is better because it's not contributing to the problem because it's taking away from a problem(the problem in question being fear).
First of all, some of them were allowed. When the police stand by and do nothing for an extended period while a riot is going on(which is something that's happened multiple times) it's allowed. Second, even when they weren't "allowed" by the inaction of the cops, they were vindicated by the left at large. The riots were always blamed mostly on Trump rather than those doing the rioting. People on TV were saying that the violence was understandable even if it wasn't excusable because those committing the violence felt oppressed and afraid. And don't forget our previous conversation where you said that anyone who chooses to walk alongside someone who's doing bad things is basically supporting their actions. Most seemed to support of Antifa's "it's ok to punch a Nazi" policy even though it was applied to those who weren't actually Nazis.
Given that the government will be doing the very thing that those people are asking for... yeah I think it'll go along way towards making most of them feel a lot better. Especially if the policy is implemented under a conservative president.
Since it's something that the majority of the right is in favor of, I don't see it being anything that there's really going to be too big of a drain. And if the people feel that are pushed to the point of rioting because they "lost" primarily due to illegal votes, then yeah I see it making a difference in regards to future riots over the matter. I don't think it'll stop EVERYONE, but to the average Joe who genuinely feels/fears that illegal votes turned the tide... yeah it'll make a big difference to him.
I'm not trying to tie it to people voting twice, I'm talking about riots. I don't think illegal voting is anywhere near as big of an issue as many people make it out to be, but I live in a red state and am absolutely worried about the negative impact a violent conservative uproar might end up having upon my family in the long run. I'm actually way more worried about it than I am about there being a successful mass shooting at my kids school. A single person with severe mental/emotional issues is scary, but a large group of people devolving to a full blown mob mentality is absolutely terrifying regardless which side of the aisle they come from.
Originally posted by BackFire
Yes.https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/texas-voter-id-law-discriminate/index.html
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet
Going by that reasoning requiring a background check that includes a photo ID(which I'm assuming they'll want) would in fact be racist...
Originally posted by Silent Master
My question was in regards to getting IDs not being difficult, so what areas of Texas actually require people to drive 170 miles to get an ID?Even granting that places like that exist, they would be few and far between and definitely not the norm. So just find a couple of mobile units where people in those areas and can make appointments and get home service.
Yes, they should do something like the mobile units, that would be a good idea if they actually wanted people in these areas to vote. Problem is they did not do anything about it, they were fine with it as is and threw up a stink when they were not allowed to. So you have to ask yourself, why did they not do something like that?
Originally posted by darthgoober
It is better because it's not contributing to the problem because it's taking away from a problem(the problem in question being fear).First of all, some of them were allowed. When the police stand by and do nothing for an extended period while a riot is going on(which is something that's happened multiple times) it's allowed. Second, even when they weren't "allowed" by the inaction of the cops, they were vindicated by the left at large. The riots were always blamed mostly on Trump rather than those doing the rioting. People on TV were saying that the violence was understandable even if it wasn't excusable because those committing the violence felt oppressed and afraid. And don't forget our previous conversation where you said that anyone who chooses to walk alongside someone who's doing bad things is basically supporting their actions. Most seemed to support of Antifa's "it's ok to punch a Nazi" policy even though it was applied to those who weren't actually Nazis.
Given that the government will be doing the very thing that those people are asking for... yeah I think it'll go along way towards making most of them feel a lot better. Especially if the policy is implemented under a conservative president.
Since it's something that the majority of the right is in favor of, I don't see it being anything that there's really going to be too big of a drain. And if the people feel that are pushed to the point of rioting because they "lost" primarily due to illegal votes, then yeah I see it making a difference in regards to future riots over the matter. I don't think it'll stop EVERYONE, but to the average Joe who genuinely feels/fears that illegal votes turned the tide... yeah it'll make a big difference to him.
I'm not trying to tie it to people voting twice, I'm talking about riots. I don't think illegal voting is anywhere near as big of an issue as many people make it out to be, but I live in a red state and am absolutely worried about the negative impact a violent conservative uproar might end up having upon my family in the long run. I'm actually way more worried about it than I am about there being a successful mass shooting at my kids school. A single person with severe mental/emotional issues is scary, but a large group of people devolving to a full blown mob mentality is absolutely terrifying regardless which side of the aisle they come from.
I disagree with your entire premise that voter ID will stop any potential riots. And I also don't believe that there will really be any large scale riots. I think that whenever a left wing person wins the presidency again, you will essentially see a mirror of what happened with Trump - some protests, a few of which may become violent, but they will be squashed and the people engaging in the violence will be arrested.
And they weren't allowed, a few may have happened, but they weren't allowed, and as far as I know, no one died in the protests that erupted into riots. In fact the only major injuries I recall came about riots that occurred not because of Trump, but because of various speakers at college campuses.
These people may be temporarily satisfied with voter ID, but that satisfaction will cease to exist when a left wing candidate wins the presidency (I'm using this as a recurring example since it seems like that is what you are considered about). Once that happens they will no longer care about the voter ID law that is in place. That will not act as a shield for these people's anger. They will still be angry and just as likely to riot as a result of someone they don't like winning.
I think the problem with your reasoning is that you are acting like the people who might riot over a democrat winning are rational. They aren't. They won't act rationally, if they are going to riot over a democrat winning without voter ID, then they will riot over a democrat winning if there is voter ID. They're just using that as an excuse to pretend they have a reasonable concern.
Something else I forgot to mention, while I was looking up the examples to show voter ID being unfair to various groups, I found that there was a supreme court case some years back that basically would make it impossible for a nationwide voter ID law to be enforced. Essentially, the decision said that the states' laws would supersede any national law. So even if a nationwide voter ID law was put in place, the states could simply ignore that and utilize their own rules.
Also the fact is that something like 33 states already have voter ID laws on the books. More have them than not.
No, the Texas cased arbitrarily disqualified certain ID's, that's one of the problems. There's also the problem of cost.
Here are a few things that could be done to make me in fine with a voter ID system.
1) Needs to be completely free. Not a single dollar needs to be required because then you are forcing people to pay for their right to vote, which I think is unacceptable.
2) Needs to be convenient for everyone as equally as possible. The mobile units idea that SM mentioned would be good.
3) All people need to be forced to utilize them equally, in that ACLU link I mentioned there was another segment that mentioned that in states that require voter ID, minorities are usually asked to produce them more often than white voters. This is unacceptable, if you have a voter ID law in place, every single person needs to show it before voting.
4) Almost any kind of valid government ID card should count. No arbitrarily disallowing certain ID's that black people might actually have.
Do these and I'd not have much of a problem with the law.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Same reason the Democrats haven't done it.
Difference is the democrats haven't put in place the voter ID laws that would require mobile units to be used in order to function fairly. Republicans have and were just fine with rural and poor people not being able to get to where they needed to go to get their ID's.
Originally posted by BackFire
I disagree with your entire premise that voter ID will stop any potential riots. And I also don't believe that there will really be any large scale riots. I think that whenever a left wing person wins the presidency again, you will essentially see a mirror of what happened with Trump - some protests, a few of which may become violent, but they will be squashed and the people engaging in the violence will be arrested.And they weren't allowed, a few may have happened, but they weren't allowed, and as far as I know, no one died in the protests that erupted into riots. In fact the only major injuries I recall came about riots that occurred not because of Trump, but because of various speakers at college campuses.
These people may be temporarily satisfied with voter ID, but that satisfaction will cease to exist when a left wing candidate wins the presidency (I'm using this as a recurring example since it seems like that is what you are considered about). Once that happens they will no longer care about the voter ID law that is in place. That will not act as a shield for these people's anger. They will still be angry and just as likely to riot as a result of someone they don't like winning.
I think the problem with your reasoning is that you are acting like the people who might riot over a democrat winning are rational. They aren't. They won't act rationally, if they are going to riot over a democrat winning without voter ID, then they will riot over a democrat winning if there is voter ID. They're just using that as an excuse to pretend they have a reasonable concern.
Something else I forgot to mention, while I was looking up the examples to show voter ID being unfair to various groups, I found that there was a supreme court case some years back that basically would make it impossible for a nationwide voter ID law to be enforced. Essentially, the decision said that the states' laws would supersede any national law. So even if a nationwide voter ID law was put in place, the states could simply ignore that and utilize their own rules.
Also the fact is that something like 33 states already have voter ID laws on the books. More have them than not.
No, the Texas cased arbitrarily disqualified certain ID's, that's one of the problems. There's also the problem of cost.
Here are a few things that could be done to make me in fine with a voter ID system.
1) Needs to be completely free. Not a single dollar needs to be required because then you are forcing people to pay for their right to vote, which I think is unacceptable.
2) Needs to be convenient for everyone as equally as possible. The mobile units idea that SM mentioned would be good.
3) All people need to be forced to utilize them equally, in that ACLU link I mentioned there was another segment that mentioned that in states that require voter ID, minorities are usually asked to produce them more often than white voters. This is unacceptable, if you have a voter ID law in place, every single person needs to show it before voting.
4) Almost any kind of valid government ID card should count. No arbitrarily disallowing certain ID's that black people might actually have.
Do these and I'd not have much of a problem with the law.
I never meant to suggest that it would stop ANY potential riot, just that it will help the problem. Suggesting that it would be 100% effective would be as ridiculous as the notion that background checks will be 100% effective in preventing mass shootings. And things like this don't mirror each other, the other side always escalates. Conservatives were super critical of Clinton, liberals were even more critical of Bush, then conservatives went a little nutty over Obama right from the get go, now people have gone a lot nutty over Trump at the get go... the next switch over will most likely be worse unless drastic steps are taken to nip it in the bud. We know this because there was already talk of conservatives going super nutty if Hilary had won.
Again, if the cops stood by and did nothing while the riots went on, they were allowed. And a riot is a riot, there's no need to try to isolate what an actual riot is about because every riot has the potential to be as bad or worse than any other riot. By the same token, a mass shooting that ends with zero casualties but a decent number of injuries should be taken just as seriously as one that includes casualties. If that ever happens and someone says something to the effect of "Don't freak out it's not like anyone actually died" then that person would be a serious dick. One riot or mass shooting may not be "as bad" as another, but that doesn't actually make it "better".
Not if they're approaching it with more faith in the system. That's why helping to appease their fears is actually a good thing. They'll still have sour grapes due to losing, but that doesn't mean they'll still go out and try to burn down part of the town.
I think that the problem with your reasoning is assuming that people will be equally upset regardless of the circumstance. As if someone who'd otherwise simply be upset is unable to be pushed to rioting. Not everyone is simply looking for an excuse to riot, there are riots over specific things that people feel are serious injustices. The Rodney King riots wouldn't have happened if it had turned out the cops were somewhat justified in their actions. There may have still been people who got upset because he got beat down even if he'd repeatedly attacked the cops, but I doubt random people would have been killed by rioters over it.
Honestly that doesn't surprise me, our judicial branch is as prone to making stupid decisions as the either of the other branches of government. Looks like it is something that has to be handled at the state level... pity since it's clearly something that should be handled at the national level.
And would you consider those easily obtainable forms of ID to be enough identification in regards to obtaining a firearm? Not that they should be enough on their own to acquire a firearm, just enough to prove that you are who you say you are when they're running a background check on you.
Originally posted by BackFire
I'd have no problem with a nationwide ID if it could be done in a very cheap and fast way that was equally fair to every citizen.
There is such a way: it is called automatic voter registration and mail-in voting. That would eliminate the need for voter ID altogether. It would also save the government money and increase voter participation. Strangely, voter ID proponents are against it. It is almost like—as in their own words—it is about voter suppression. Weird.
There is such a way: it is called automatic voter registration and mail-in voting. That would eliminate the need for voter ID altogether. It would also save the government money and increase voter participation. Strangely, voter ID proponents are against it. It is almost like—as in their own words—it is about voter suppression. Weird.
Are you really that voter retarded, after all the posts of your huge IQ and Dick.
We are giving away the right to vote to people that can get a drivers license.
And shit now we see there wasn't just 1 armed person who was outside and didn't go in. WTF is going on?
Officers were ‘stunned and upset’ at what they saw Broward deputies do at Florida shooting
"Outrage ensued when it was reported Thursday that one armed school resource officer allowed Nikolas Cruz to continue his massacre, but it turns out he wasn’t the only one – there were three other officers who responded but didn’t enter the school."