What did Democrats do wrong?

[ahhell]

The central point in this tangent is that you have assumed for no reason that voter ID is a necessity, and you are demanding that I prove to you it is a hardship to the 21 million people for whom it is a hardship. Because it is not hard for you, you cannot understand why it would be hard for people without your level of comfort, money, and time.

This demonstrates why it is difficult for Democrats
to reach those who lack the ability to empathize with anyone less fortunate than they are. When a bad idea such as voter ID gets stuck in a mind, it becomes an assumption that requires no justification. You are arguing for an extra burden that does nothing to solve any problem.

Which includes most democrats.

By the way, your point about employment proves my case. You do not need a photo ID to get a job legally. According to the federal I-9 form, a
Social Security card and a birth certificate are perfectly sufficient. Further, millions of people survive and work every day without ever touching an I-9 form. They work under the table, they sell items online, they do gig work, or they work for family.

Also sufficient to get a photo ID. Column B and Column C.

They have the legal documents to prove who they are, but they do not have the specific, expensive piece of plastic you want to require. If you cannot see how a $30 document and a trip to the DMV is a hurdle for a person in poverty or an elderly citizen without a car, you aren't looking for a convincing argument. You are just using your own ability to afford it as a baseline for everyone else.

If you say so. Still seems like just an inconvenience to most people including poor people and old people. Taking me out of, the majority Democrats, the folks most sympathetic toward your argument aren't buying it. Even if you are absolutely correct and its basically impossible for some folks to get an ID, the anti-voter ID side still haven't convinced a lot of people of that. They don't seem to be looking for better or more convincing arguments; they seem to just be making the same arguments over again.

I personally, don't care that much, I just don't see it as that big a hurdle. So, ID, no ID I don't think it make much of a difference either way. But most people see it as a reasonable precaution and not that big a hurdle. I probably won't get robbed but I still lock my door when I leave the house even though it won't actually stop a determined thief.

 

[dirtywick]

Work Documents: What Do You Need for Employment in the US?

When onboarding a new employee, make sure to have them fill out these important documents.

www.indeed.com

I have on a couple of occasions, gotten the job and said I'll bring it in later then forgotten but you need ID or the documents that are necessary to get ID.

yeah i mean, ids are pretty convenient for a variety of things. that's certainly true. required, not so much.

 

[ahhell]

I see the discussion has moved from "It doesn't happen" to "It happens but it's not a big deal" stage.

That's another common thing the folks on the left get wrong. They'd be much better off starting from, there is some, but the downside of X reaction is worse than the upside. Again, a thing on the right too just different issues and it undercuts the rights credibility too.

 

[wareyin]

Work Documents: What Do You Need for Employment in the US?

When onboarding a new employee, make sure to have them fill out these important documents.

www.indeed.com

I have on a couple of occasions, gotten the job and said I'll bring it in later then forgotten but you need ID or the documents that are necessary to get ID.

Wait, you just said that on a couple of occasions you have gotten the job without the ID, but then said it's necessary? Do you even hear yourself at this point?

 

[Planigale]

Trausti said:
But in Australia (and in the UK), you have to prove you are a citizen to register. In the US, there's just a box to check and no verification. You can register your cat.

No, no no! You just have to trust that every state and district is completely verifying citizenship for every person, tying together their utility bills and school transcripts in order to make sure that they're actually citizens! It's absolutely foolproof in every single region, dontchaknow?

Is it the thought of being able to register to vote as a cat in the US that excites you? I suspect cats are natural Libertarians?

 

[ahhell]

Wait, you just said that on a couple of occasions you have gotten the job without the ID, but then said it's necessary? Do you even hear yourself at this point?

I considered adding "legally" I was working illegally on those occasions.
ETA, at least once, not sure if it was more than once.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's another common thing the folks on the left get wrong. They'd be much better off starting from, there is some, but the downside of X reaction is worse than the upside. Again, a thing on the right too just different issues and it undercuts the rights credibility too.

Agreed. It's a partisan problem, not exclusively a left or right problem.

 

[wareyin]

I considered adding "legally" I was technically working illegally on those occasions.

See, this is where we know you're taking the piss. You yourself have gotten jobs on more than one occasion without the ID you claim is necessary to get a job, but then you claim other people can't or don't get jobs without ID.

 

[ahhell]

See, this is where we know you're taking the piss. You yourself have gotten jobs on more than one occasion without the ID you claim is necessary to get a job, but then you claim other people can't or don't get jobs without ID.

I never said you need an ID to get a Job I said you need an ID or the papers necessary to get an ID. Otherwise you are right it is possible to so with out either, it just illegal.

 

[dirtywick]

Which includes most democrats.

Also sufficient to get a photo ID. Column B and Column C.

If you say so. Still seems like just an inconvenience to most people including poor people and old people. Taking me out of, the majority Democrats, the folks most sympathetic toward your argument aren't buying it. Even if you are absolutely correct and its basically impossible for some folks to get an ID, the anti-voter ID side still haven't convinced a lot of people of that. They don't seem to be looking for better or more convincing arguments; they seem to just be making the same arguments over again.

I personally, don't care that much, I just don't see it as that big a hurdle. So, ID, no ID I don't think it make much of a difference either way. But most people see it as a reasonable precaution and not that big a hurdle. I probably won't get robbed but I still lock my door when I leave the house even though it won't actually stop a determined thief.

it's pretty clear from this thread that there's a lot of common assumptions about voter id that aren't really factual after some examination.

in any case, it's not a big hurdle for most people. it is for some poeple. and it also prevents some of those people from voting who have a legal right to do so to address a problem that, after a very recent an exhaustive effort by the trump campaign, doesn't really exist. it's also fairly likely that it's being exploited to benefit one party over another. once you're aware of that, isn't that important? or is it most people just don't care so ◊◊◊◊ it, it doesn't matter enough for people to simply admit they were initially wrong about the issue?

i guess i don't really understand that part.

 

[Emily's Cat]

At some point I should get used to it, but I just keep being surprised and baffled that some people are so stridently opposed to closing obvious loopholes. It should be common sense, and some of you will argue until you're hoarse against taking even reasonable steps.

Alex: Hey Pat, how you doing? So last night I was walking by our shared north pasture on the road, and I noticed that part of the fence is down. You might want to take care of that before our livestock gets out.

Pat: Geez Alex, don't you realize that if I fix that hole in the fence, the deer won't be able to get into our pasture? What kind of monster are you trying to deny deer access to our field?

Alex: Well, I guess you don't have to care about your livestock, but I don't want my cattle to get loose and lost, so I'll just go ahead and fix it later today.

Pat: No, you can't do that! It's absolutely unacceptable for you to fix the hole in our shared fence that keeps both of our stock in our communal pasture! Don't you realize the problems you're going to cause for the deer?

 

[Emily's Cat]

it's pretty clear from this thread that there's a lot of common assumptions about voter id that aren't really factual after some examination.

in any case, it's not a big hurdle for most people. it is for some poeple. and it also prevents some of those people from voting who have a legal right to do so to address a problem that, after a very recent an exhaustive effort by the trump campaign, doesn't really exist. it's also fairly likely that it's being exploited to benefit one party over another. once you're aware of that, isn't that important? or is it most people just don't care so ◊◊◊◊ it, it doesn't matter enough for people to simply admit they were initially wrong about the issue?

i guess i don't really understand that part.

I wonder how many people will change their tune when that loophole starts to benefit the other party, and to harm yours?

 

[wareyin]

At some point I should get used to it, but I just keep being surprised and baffled that some people are so stridently opposed to closing obvious loopholes. It should be common sense, and some of you will argue until you're hoarse against taking even reasonable steps.

Alex: Hey Pat, how you doing? So last night I was walking by our shared north pasture on the road, and I noticed that part of the fence is down. You might want to take care of that before our livestock gets out.

Pat: Geez Alex, don't you realize that if I fix that hole in the fence, the deer won't be able to get into our pasture? What kind of monster are you trying to deny deer access to our field?

Alex: Well, I guess you don't have to care about your livestock, but I don't want my cattle to get loose and lost, so I'll just go ahead and fix it later today.

Pat: No, you can't do that! It's absolutely unacceptable for you to fix the hole in our shared fence that keeps both of our stock in our communal pasture! Don't you realize the problems you're going to cause for the deer?

Actually, your analogy only works if the fence is actually down. In this case, the pasture is already secure. We have a robust, multiagency backend system that verifies identity and citizenship before a voter is even added to the rolls. Every person who shows up to vote has already been cross-referenced against state and federal databases.

The loophole you are so baffled about is a phantom menace. In person voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent because it is an incredibly high-risk, low-reward crime. You are demanding a second, expensive, and redundant fence because you have been told the first one does not work, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Even after years of Republicans and the Trump administration extensively looking for this specific type of fraud, they found almost nothing. If you think a handful of votes out of millions justifies creating a barrier for 21 million citizens, you are not fixing a fence. You are building a wall around a fundamental right to keep the "wrong" people out.

It is easy to call a hurdle common sense when you are not the one who has to jump over it. For those 21 million Americans, this is not about fixing a fence. It is about adding a toll booth to a public road. You are surprised that people stridently oppose this, but it is because we are protecting a constitutional right from a solution in search of a problem.

If the system already knows who I am when I register, why is the extra piece of plastic necessary? You still have not answered that. You have just shared a story about a fence that is not actually broken.

 

[wareyin]

I wonder how many people will change their tune when that loophole starts to benefit the other party, and to harm yours?

Oh look, here you are essentially admitting to being a Republican who is adamant about implementing a poll tax because you think "your party" is being harmed. Remember when you tried to claim you were an independent voter? Pepperidge farm remembers.

 

[wareyin]

Which includes most democrats.

Also sufficient to get a photo ID. Column B and Column C.

If you say so. Still seems like just an inconvenience to most people including poor people and old people. Taking me out of, the majority Democrats, the folks most sympathetic toward your argument aren't buying it. Even if you are absolutely correct and its basically impossible for some folks to get an ID, the anti-voter ID side still haven't convinced a lot of people of that. They don't seem to be looking for better or more convincing arguments; they seem to just be making the same arguments over again.

I personally, don't care that much, I just don't see it as that big a hurdle. So, ID, no ID I don't think it make much of a difference either way. But most people see it as a reasonable precaution and not that big a hurdle. I probably won't get robbed but I still lock my door when I leave the house even though it won't actually stop a determined thief.

The problem with your door lock analogy is that locking a door is free and takes one second. Getting a state ID is not free, quick, or easy. You have already admitted that you do not think the ID makes a difference either way, yet you are still siding with a policy that adds a redundant hurdle to a right.

If you believe that identity and citizenship should be verified, you should be happy to know that the system already does that at the point of registration using state and federal databases. Since you admit that an ID is not actually going to stop a determined thief, you are essentially arguing for a lock that does not work, costs money, and only keeps the people who lost their keys out of their own house.

It is not a reasonable precaution when the security check has already happened on the backend. It is just a toll on a bridge that used to be free.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh look, here you are essentially admitting to being a Republican who is adamant about implementing a poll tax because you think "your party" is being harmed. Remember when you tried to claim you were an independent voter? Pepperidge farm remembers.

Neither party is my party. I can refer to "your party" in reference to those of you who have an actual party affiliation. Duh.

 

[dirtywick]

not really sure how to react to someone expecting me to pretend along with false assumptions

 

[Helen]

In a democracy, it's generally thought a Good Thing if as many people as possible take part in elections. Voter turnout in the US is fairly low, which makes it seem quite perverse to introduce more hurdles to jump for those who wish to vote. Photo ids are not necessary - many countries with high electoral integrity do not require them - so they seem a highly unnecessary hurdle.

 

[wareyin]

Neither party is my party. I can refer to "your party" in reference to those of you who have an actual party affiliation. Duh.

You specifically framed the "harm" as happening to my party and the "benefit" as going to the other party. A neutral person worried about "common sense" and "loopholes" would be concerned about the integrity of the vote regardless of the outcome. You, however, are explicitly measuring the value of this policy by how it affects the Republican win/loss column.

You are arguing for a partisan solution to a nonexistent problem. Playing word games about your affiliation does not change the fact that you are advocating for a poll tax because you are worried about your party being harmed by a few statistical anomalies.

 

[dirtywick]

like really, let's go through the situation here. the guys that literally attempted election fraud are lying about their opponents committing election fraud and saying they did it by immigrants skirting voter id laws and lost over 60 lawsuits in 9 states trying to prove. it just didn't happen. and when presented that these election fraudsters that really care about election integrity and no other ulterior motive with evidence that doing so would actually disenfranchise a lot of the poorest and most vulnerable voters, the promoters of voter id are saying well i just don't care since it's not that big of a deal.

and yeah, i guess if the republicans start bringing in immigrants to commit election fraud and there's an actual problem i might care more. that's a fair enough point, conceded.