|
jlf1961 -> RE: Interesting Point (10/21/2014 2:20:19 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
One needs an ID to live. You need one at a bank, you are often asked for one even at a supermarket, you cannot buy various legal drugs at a pharmacy without an ID (such as ADHD medication as well as of course various pain medications that are opiates), you need one to get into bars, etc. And of course if you drive at all, you must carry your ID with you. If you does not drive, states provide IDs for you in any case. They are quite inexpensive. The IDs are not specifically for voting; they are for all of these purposes. I suppose I should include flying, too. The marginal cost of an ID for voting when you already need that ID is 0.
Since anyone can claim to be anyone, there is no burden whatsoever on voter ID. Voting is more important than going to a fucking bar. To assert therefore that voting does not require an ID is ludicrous.
Try to get this through your head.
It isn't the ID but the short list of what ID's are allowed that is the problem. In these states where the GOP is so worried about voter fraud an expired DL is not permitted. Why not? What possible difference could there be between a DL the day before and after it expires? It just adds an expense to poor people.
Answer this question, why cant you cash a check with an expired ID in most states?
And $15 to renew an ID every six years is an unneeded expense? $2.50 a year?
Or, how bout this question, why do you get a fucking driving without a valid license ticket when the damn thing is expired one day?
But hey, this is a burden on the poor....
Oh, and for the record to the person who made the statement about only liberals wanting dead people to vote, there were some interesting republican political bosses in history.
In recent elections, allegations of voter fraud have been found to be pretty much false. Of course, let us not forget Florida in the Bush v Gore crap. How many thousands of ballots were not allowed to be recounted by order of a conservative supreme court? It did however, prove the point that paper ballots were problematic to say the least.
Now, many years ago, in a small city of 110,000 people in Texas, a bunch of liberals got tired of having to drive to a small town in another country, completely surrounded by this city to buy booze, or having to be a member of a private club in order to drink a beer with their steaks.
Now, this city is a bible belt poster city, with a church for about every 200 people, most baptist or southern baptist, but there were enough signatures on the petition to get an election to try and vote the town wet.
The first election, the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of going wet, until a conservative judge ruled in favor of a bunch of ministers than through one precint out, and order another election, which with the excluded precinct, just barely kept the city dry.
By this time, the city had made national news. The networks had people all over the town, and these reporters even got nice video of these same baptist preachers and the Judge frequenting the package store in the little town that consisted of one house, a gas station, a police station/city hall/municipal courthouse office trailer.
Well, the liberals took their case to the Texas supreme court and got the second vote over turned, but instead of reinstating the results of the first election, ordered yet another election... with Texas Rangers escorting the sealed ballot boxes to Austin to be counted.
The third vote again had the city going wet and legalizing the sale of alcohol within city limits.
These same republicans have voted against a water park being built in the city, a six flags theme park being built in the city, the reason, they would bring in riffraff...
They have however, voted in favor of 5 new state prisons in the area, four state run pre release facilities, and a few other state facilities inside and near the city that actually keep recently released drug dealers, violent criminals and other upstanding citizens in the city.
|
|
|
|
