A few liberal cities are in agreement with you. They've given the vote to illegals in local elections. Yay! Progress. And once again, do any of you actually know someone that would be affected by a voter ID law? There's plenty of people arguing against it, but no one seems to know anyone that would be effected by it.
I would think that a group of people who can afford internet access, and the luxury of free time to be entertained by it, would not necessarily run in the same circles as those impacted by the voter ID laws. though I do know quite a few people who may or may not be in this country legally, including some of whom are in various stages of getting their citizenship, and several whom became full citizens after coming here through other means. As a whole, they’re the most trust-worthy, kind, and hard working group of people you will ever meet. It’s a generalization I feel confident in, and not one I could make about everyone, including those who are here legally.
How exactly do Democrats create laws to stop people voting for Republicans? And tell us which cities in America are letting non-americas vote. We want a list. Because I think that you are either upset because for some reason you insist on believing everything that is said on Fox "news" or you are upset because your identity requires that you always feel like you are under attack.
What does this have to do with showing ID to vote? You know folks here illegally, they're nice people. They're not supposed to be able to vote here.
An outrageous claim: Show me someone who's vote is displaced by asking for an ID. Kindalas: I represent everyone and I'm angry about something I don't really understand, but CNN told me I should be angry, so I'm really, really angry. How about you show me someone who is having their vote suppressed? It should be pretty easy. Or are you just deflecting?
So you did decide to go with deflection. But I'll start with this article from October 20 of 2020 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54240651 If you don't trust the BBC how about this article from August 20th of 2020 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-voter-suppression-us-civil-war-today/story?id=72248473 Or this article from 7 months ago https://www.marketplace.org/2020/09/18/voter-suppression-then-and-now/ And I know that Dixie wasn't allowed to vote in 2016 and he almost wasn't allowed to vote in 2020 and that's voter suppression. Now you give us that list of Cities that allow non-citizens to vote. And tell me what Democrats are doing to stop Republicans from voting. Because the only thing that I can think of is investing in education and an accelerated vaccine rollout to get COVID under control.
So you can't actually provide empiric evidence of someone having their vote suppressed? And this may be deflection, but I'm curious. We've all been on this board for years. We've been through ups and downs, wins and losses, and many of us have become friends despite out differences in political thought. You're Canadian and apparently your only interest is US politics. You don't BS with the rest of us in other threads, you only post in the Covid, political, and serious threads. And when you post in those threads you presume to speak for everyone. I'm kind of curious...is concern over US politics your entire life or do you have other hobbies?
You're still deflecting. What cities allow non-citizens to vote. And to answer your question I only talk about American politics here because you guys don't talk about Canadian politics. Because I have a whole rant about the cluster fuck that is Canadian politics. And I only chat in those threads because that's why I come here to chat. As if I choose to engage in the areas that interest me. You seem to be focusing pretty hard on me speaking for everyone and you're right I do have a habit of focusing on nonsense statements and asking people to clarify and to support what they have said with facts. Especially when I think that adding facts to hyperbolic statements will help the other people here reading these threads. But again you said that there are cities in America that let non-citizens vote. What cities exactly are you talking about?
“Ten municipalities across the country allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections as of March 2020. Nine were located in Maryland. The other was San Francisco, California.” https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States
Leftist always jump on the "illegals arent voting!" mantra as if they arent playing the long game with an imported demographic that votes overwhelmingly for their side. Their immigration policies are pure political power play they wrap in compassion and white guilt. If you really think that actually care outside of the potential votes you are being wilfully ignorant. Guar-an-fucking-tee they voted 70+% in the opposite direction and youd see a boarder wall within a decade. Play for amnesty for the millions already here, slow drip of continual DREAMERS you can amnesty as well, and birthright citizens aging into voting. Also, given 6-10 illegal immigrants end up in the top 20 or so cities, mainly located on the coast, they get to run up apportionment for congressional power. All without a single illegal voting. Notice too the democrats always suggest changing things that give them the edge in power? We have to abolish the senate! With ridiculous lip service to representation and of.fucking.course is deemed racist white supremacy!!!!REEEEEEEE. Same goes with the electoral college. Currently these two institutions dont favor their continued power and aggressive political advancement, Im shocked SHOCKED they want them done away with. They care as much as "equal representation" for large population states as they care about those poor immigrants. Luckily our system isnt set up to be wildly changed in a quick way. Notice theyve gone silent on the whole Senate/electoral college nonsense since it isnt currently affecting their grip on power? Ill tell you, outside of lessening political arguments for personal reasons, the entire critical race theory/1619 project stuff as turned me off anymore from even wanting to engage in debate. When I see a guy jaywalking but the person Im debating sees it as institutional white supremacy and tacitly implies with this, Im a racist for not seeing it the same way, I disengage. Im going to vote who Im going to vote for, talking about it or debating ideas is done. Dont give a shit about balkanization. You vote for your candidates, Ill vote for mine. Have a nice day.
A good way to learn the extent of that would be voter ID. A major election happens every two years? We have a little over a year and a half before the next one? And all they are asking is for people to obtain and present something that an overwhelming majority of citizens wouldn't leave home without? I have ID. One that allows me to drive and prove my identity. One that allows me access to military bases and benefits. One that allows me to travel to other countries. I want to do these things, so I sacrificed, very fucking little time and effort mind you, to get the IDs so that I could. I don't want any citizen's vote not to count. I want a minimal amount of effort from every citizen so that the weight their vote carries, and my vote, the percentage of the vote total that those single votes occupy, isn't diluted by people that shouldn't be voting. That is a truly secure election.
I’ve said this over and over again- for the ID to matter it’s going to need a picture. And plenty of people, that I know, don’t have such an ID. Conservatives think that the concept of privilege is so left wing, but this is exactly what they’re talking about- assuming everyone drives or has a picture ID is the height of privileged narrow mindedness
I never said I assumed everyone did those things. I said I had ID so that I could do those things, because I want to do those things. If having to present an ID stands between a person and their right to vote, and people don't want that to happen, then remove the ID requirements for other rights. Like the 2nd amendment, remove the requirements for a gun purchaser to present an ID to exercise that right. . I think that's a bad idea just like the rest of you, but that's the argument you're hooking your wagon to. For the huge majority of people it is simply an inconvenience to present ID when buying a gun. But I'm sure there are people out there that want to exercise this right but can't, because of ID laws. To quote the ACLU, "it disproportionately affects poor and minority communities".
Good number of people on this board favor mandatory training and ongoing certification and licensing for guns. Yet somehow this doesn’t fall into the same strata for them as this. Putting much more onerous conditions, and cost, than a simple id on people to practice a constitutional right. It would obviously disproportionately affect poor, see minorities, thus following the logic be racist.
There's a big difference between "times I've needed to exercise my 2nd amendment right" in real life, and "times I've needed to vote." Comparing voting to guns is dumb, in other words. As is comparing voting to getting a driver's license, because plenty of people do not or can not drive. This logic extends all the way to "you need a license to cut hair, but not to have a baby." The ID requirement thing is kind of silly, because the blind couple that goes to my mom's church don't even know if they have an ID or not, and it's not like they can read you what it says. This is why the whole "data-driven governance" movement is important: if we're trying to combat voter/election fraud, it's pretty important to start with some information on the scope of the problem that is universally agreed upon (ie, objective fucking reality), otherwise you have lawmakers trying to eradicate fictitious gremlins. You can see the problem with "objective fucking reality" here, can't you? Again, it's shocking that this is a wedge issue: shouldn't making it easier to vote be a universally-agreed upon good thing? I forget where I saw it, but in the last election, "Did Not Vote" as a candidate would have been the winner in some states (and I think would have won overall). I like the idea of election day being a holiday, there being penalties for not voting (albeit mild ones), and we have universal voting rights. I like "opt out, fuck face" rather that "opt in if you can navigate the bureaucracy" because one of those is by default inclusive, and the other is bureaucracy that has never gotten easier/simpler. Every other thing comparing this to (guns, hair cutting, driving) by default needs to be opt-in, because not everyone wants a gun or a driver's license or whatever. The Republicans are a minority party and the Democrats are a majority for now. It's short-sighted as fuck to change the rules of electing officials assuming the GOP won't broaden their appeal (or a whole swath of voters changes their opinion based on a current event) or that some of the groups traditionally voting blue don't flip Conservative for whatever reason. It's like saying the SEC is a defense-only conference: it was true, until it emphatically wasn't (and my how long that took to change), and it would have been fucking stupid to change the rules to benefit one side of that argument or the other.