GOP’s hideous strategy to survive as the “white party”

[dohdough]

I guess they are "living off the grid."

Waiving the fee doesn't solve anything, because opponents find another excuse. The most popular is that people don't have the time (work too many hours, can't leave their families, etc.) or the means (transportation) to visit an agency to get the ID issued. Oddly enough, I guess they do find the time to vote, though. If we found a way to deliver them to everyone's doorsteps, they would still cook up an excuse as to why voters shouldn't need an ID.

Lemme know when those offices don't have limited hours and don't disproportionately affect black and Latino communities.

I don't know what kind of podunk town you live in where you have to drive to your voting booth, but in cities, there are polling stations within 10 minutes walk of eachother...and even then, there are volunteers shuttling those that can't make it on their own throughout the entire day. Unless you're telling me that DMV's are more plentiful than polling stations of course...in which case, you'd be a total loon.

All this is irrelevant anyways because in-person voting fraud is statistically insignificant. I mean shit, you can't even get someone elected to the school board with it. It's almost as if you and your ilk think that anyone can just show up to vote and not have their voter registration checked. It's ing ridiculous.

Oh and before anyone chimes in about how "dohdough hates whitey" or "what about rural areas," there should be systems in place to help them too, but honestly, I can't be assed to offer up solutions when dumb cons can't even get basic concepts of scale right.

 

[perdition(troy]

can't believe dohdough hates whitey and doesn't care about rural areas.  and podunks.  he hates them.  ugh.

 

[UncleBob]

Lemme know when those offices don't have limited hours and don't disproportionately affect black and Latino communities.

I wonder if DD would support a bill that no longer requires employers to fill out I-9 tax documents on their employees. Since these documents require employees to show photo ID, this requirement would also "disproportionately affect black and Latino communities."

 

[bigdaddybruce44]

dohdough hates white people and only cares about dazzling urbanites.

Anyway, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how people function in society without an ID...

 

[Rasen]

dohdough hates white people and only cares about dazzling urbanites.

Anyway, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how people function in society without an ID...

I suppose it comes down to how often do you actually have to show an ID. I don't think I've had to show an ID since I was last called for jury duty 2 years ago.

What are the activities that require showing an ID? Creating a bank account? Driving a car? So if you don't have those, you don't need an ID.

And I know you can deposit checks so long as you know the account number and if necessary endorse the check, so...not much need there either.

 

[bigdaddybruce44]

Well, as UncleBob mentioned, you do need one to fill out an I-9. So, in order to get (and, in some cases, even apply) for just about any job, you need ID. I would think that right there would be all of the reasons one would need, but yes, as you pointed out, opening a bank account and driving a car are two others. Purchasing things like tobacco, alcohol, guns, and cell phone contracts also require ID, though with tobacco and alcohol, that is not always the case.

On a related note, a bank account is another thing that every responsible adult should have.

 

[Rasen]

Well, as UncleBob mentioned, you do need one to fill out an I-9. So, in order to get (and, in some cases, even apply) for just about any job, you need ID. I would think that right there would be all of the reasons one would need, but yes, as you pointed out, opening a bank account and driving a car are two others. Purchasing things like tobacco, alcohol, guns, and cell phone contracts also require ID, though with tobacco and alcohol, that is not always the case.

On a related note, a bank account is another thing that every responsible adult should have.

In this wonderful age of the internet, I haven't had to fill out an I-9 when applying....ever, I think. And while I probably filled out an I-9 form before to work, I don't recall having to whip out my ID.

Regarding tobacco, alcohol, and guns, those aren't necessary for functioning in society. And just a guess, but one of those semi-disposable phones you can pick up from Safeway or CVS, that don't have a contract, I don't think they require ID either. (If so, please correct me.)

Finally, while every responsible adult should have a bank account, the average household and credit card debt in the US tells me a lot of adults aren't that responsible. Also, a family probably only needs one bank account. Not every member needs to get it, just one. So only one ID needed per family. Or if you're living paycheck to paycheck, a bank account is almost useless. (And what are the demographics of people who live from paycheck to paycheck?)

None of this is being said to advocate a stance, except that I think that a photo ID plays a much smaller role to functioning in society than you think.

 

[bigdaddybruce44]

My apologies. Poor choice of words earlier. I did not mean to suggest that you ever fill out the I-9 before taking a job offer. I meant that some jobs ask to see ID during the interview process. An I-9 should not be filled out prior to the acceptance of a job offer. But once you start a job, you NEED to show the employer proof of identity and employment authorization. Surprised that you filled out an I-9 and was not asked for ID. Technically, the employer could be fined, though, I have no clue how tightly that is monitored. All I know is that every job I've ever had required ID to accept (either my license and social security card or just my passport).

As far as prepaid phones go, I know that in the past they did not require any form of ID to purchase, but I also remember many lawmakers wanting to change that, due to their usage in illegal activities, especially terrorism. I honestly do not have the answer to that.

 

[UncleBob]

But once you start a job, you NEED to show the employer proof of identity and employment authorization.

This. Virtually every employer in the US is required to verify proper ID when completing your I-9 (this is a form your employer fills out, not you) in order to employ you. This is a Federal requirement. It's like a tax for getting taxed (if you believe having a photo ID is a tax, that is).

Or if you're living paycheck to paycheck, a bank account is almost useless. (And what are the demographics of people who live from paycheck to paycheck?)

How does one get a paycheck (or any kind of check) cashed without Photo ID? Are there reputable places that will cash checks without requiring a photo ID? The only exception that I can think of is if you're depositing it into your bank account - which, of course, requires photo ID to set up.

 

[Rasen]

My apologies. Poor choice of words earlier. I did not mean to suggest that you ever fill out the I-9 before taking a job offer. I meant that some jobs ask to see ID during the interview process. An I-9 should not be filled out prior to the acceptance of a job offer. But once you start a job, you NEED to show the employer proof of identity and employment authorization. Surprised that you filled out an I-9 and was not asked for ID. Technically, the employer could be fined, though, I have no clue how tightly that is monitored. All I know is that every job I've ever had required ID to accept (either my license and social security card or just my passport).

As far as prepaid phones go, I know that in the past they did not require any form of ID to purchase, but I also remember many lawmakers wanting to change that, due to their usage in illegal activities, especially terrorism. I honestly do not have the answer to that.

To bring it back to the topic though, would a social security card be a valid form of ID for the voting restrictions that were being attempted to put into place? Unless they've radically changed the format since I received mine, it's a cheap piece of paper with no photo or security measures to prevent forgery.

How does one get a paycheck (or any kind of check) cashed without Photo ID? Are there reputable places that will cash checks without requiring a photo ID? The only exception that I can think of is if you're depositing it into your bank account - which, of course, requires photo ID to set up.

Which is why I mentioned the possibility that not everyone in a family needs to have a bank account, just one. Assuming a particularly responsible family, everyone else can just endorse a check to the account holder and problem solved.

 

[UncleBob]

Which is why I mentioned the possibility that not everyone in a family needs to have a bank account, just one. Assuming a particularly responsible family, everyone else can just endorse a check to the account holder and problem solved.

I'm left wondering - how many families have a singular bank account in a singular name that is used to cash multiple checks? I can't imagine there's too many situations where the account is only in the husband's name and the wife isn't allowed access to the account (or the other way around)...

 

[UncleBob]

Also of note, in most (all?) states, you're required to present Photo ID in order to get legally married.

If requiring photo ID is a form of discrimination and everyone here is for marriage equality (we are, aren't we?), then why is there no outcry about this discriminatory law?

 

[RedvsBlue]

All this talk about the i9 and no one bothered to read the actual form to figure out which forms of identification are actually valid?

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-9.pdf

Any combination of 2 including birth certificate, social security card, or voter registration card can be presented. All of those documents are provided to citizens free of charge.

 

[Rasen]

I'm left wondering - how many families have a singular bank account in a singular name that is used to cash multiple checks? I can't imagine there's too many situations where the account is only in the husband's name and the wife isn't allowed access to the account (or the other way around)...

I don't claim to know any of the statistics, I'm merely saying that not having a voting ID does not prevent you from having access to a bank account, or depositing checks.

For instance, say the account is only in the husband's name, or father's. If this is a family that trusts each other, everyone else has access so long as he lets them use a debit card, or atm card (if he tell them the PIN).

Or, if everyone deposits to his bank account, and he uses the money to pay credit card bills.

Also of note, in most (all?) states, you're required to present Photo ID in order to get legally married.

If requiring photo ID is a form of discrimination and everyone here is for marriage equality (we are, aren't we?), then why is there no outcry about this discriminatory law?

Because marriage is an unrelated issue to participating in a democracy (and thus electing politicians who affect your life)?

Also, because I imagine the restrictions on marriage have been in place for a long time, so people accept them as a fact of life. To draw a more accurate analogy, you might start to see more outcry if NEW legislation were proposed dictating that people provide proof of religion, sexual orientation, or financial stability.

Whereas the new voting legislation only appears:

1. to affect certain demographics disproportionately,

2. to be proposed by people who generally do poorly in those demographics,

3. to address a problem (in-person voting fraud) that statistically is non-existant.

4. to be supported by people who don't care about legislating fraud/crime in other areas which occur much more frequently.

 

[bigdaddybruce44]

To bring it back to the topic though, would a social security card be a valid form of ID for the voting restrictions that were being attempted to put into place? Unless they've radically changed the format since I received mine, it's a cheap piece of paper with no photo or security measures to prevent forgery.

No, a social security card, in its current state, would not be adequate for voter identification. The only thing that a social security card is good for establishing is that the person named on the card is authorized to work in the United States, which is why you need another form of ID when you accept a job, so that it can be established that you are the person named on the SSC. Bill Clinton had made the suggestion that social security cards become picture IDs, but of course, the same issues still pop up.

 

[UncleBob]

Wait on that...

 

[Spokker]

I wouldn't be surprised if the requirement that you be a U.S. citizen to vote is rescinded within 30 years time. There are so many people living here that do not get a say in laws that affect them. They can contribute to the economy but they get no say in how their tax dollars are spent.

As it stands now, all you have to do to register in my state is declare, under penalty of perjury, that you are a citizen. They do have requirements where you are required to provide proof of residence in the county. I wonder if they are going to do away with that when it's declared too hard to bring in a utility bill to the polling place.

Most people like the idea of identification. They are paranoid that people are not who they say they are. In the realm of credit cards, even though the merchant agreement expressly forbids requiring a customer show ID to use their credit card, they ask anyway and customers love it. Nobody cares about the rules. They just impose their idea of common sense in everyday life even though it does dick to prevent credit card fraud and the credit card company absorbs the liability for unauthorized purchases anyway.

So it would seem to me that if people want people to show ID for something as important as a plasma TV purchase, most people would support showing ID to vote even though it doesn't do dick.

All this talk about the i9 and no one bothered to read the actual form to figure out which forms of identification are actually valid?

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-9.pdf

Any combination of 2 including birth certificate, social security card, or voter registration card can be presented. All of those documents are provided to citizens free of charge.

I had to pay to get a copy of my birth certificate to get a job when I was 18. I don't remember what it was over ten years ago but it's $28 now. My Registrar of Voters also charges a small fee ($1.50) for a certified copy of your voter registration. Only the SSN is free.

 

[Rasen]

I wouldn't be surprised if the requirement that you be a U.S. citizen to vote is rescinded within 30 years time. There are so many people living here that do not get a say in laws that affect them. They can contribute to the economy but they get no say in how their tax dollars are spent.

As it stands now, all you have to do to register in my state is declare, under penalty of perjury, that you are a citizen. They do have requirements where you are required to provide proof of residence in the county. I wonder if they are going to do away with that when it's declared too hard to bring in a utility bill to the polling place.

Most people like the idea of identification. They are paranoid that people are not who they say they are. In the realm of credit cards, even though the merchant agreement expressly forbids requiring a customer show ID to use their credit card, they ask anyway and customers love it. Nobody cares about the rules. They just impose their idea of common sense in everyday life even though it does dick to prevent credit card fraud and the credit card company absorbs the liability for unauthorized purchases anyway.

So it would seem to me that if people want people to show ID for something as important as a plasma TV purchase, most people would support showing ID to vote even though it doesn't do dick.

I had to pay to get a copy of my birth certificate to get a job when I was 18. I don't remember what it was over ten years ago but it's $28 now. My Registrar of Voters also charges a small fee ($1.50) for a certified copy of your voter registration. Only the SSN is free.

Showing ID for credit card purchases varies, I think. Very rarely have I been asked to present an ID when making a purchase (MAYBE when making a large purchase), certainly never online, and if the purchase is small enough, I don't even have to sign a receipt.

 

[RedvsBlue]

I had to pay to get a copy of my birth certificate to get a job when I was 18. I don't remember what it was over ten years ago but it's $28 now. My Registrar of Voters also charges a small fee ($1.50) for a certified copy of your voter registration. Only the SSN is free.

A copy of the birth certificate costs money sure, but the original doesn't. Secondly, the i9 says nothing about a certified copy of voter registration. All they need is the voter card, the one they send you in the mail pretty much every year.

 

[UncleBob]

Any combination of 2 including birth certificate, social security card, or voter registration card can be presented. All of those documents are provided to citizens free of charge.

This is incorrect.

First, your "any combination of the two" with the examples you provided would not be proper identification for your employer to properly fill out the I9.

To fill out the I9, the employer needs an ID from either Column A or an ID from both Column B and Column C. The first two examples you gave were both from Column B, so that combination would be invalid. Reading is FUNdamental.

As per the types of ID required...

The IDs in Column A and Column B are, mostly, Photo IDs (with a few exceptions - most of which apply for individuals under the age of 18 - which wouldn't apply to voters).

With the specific examples you provided - let's talk about the Social Security Card. Has anyone here ever tried to get a new or replacement Social Security card?

https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/1944/How-do-I-replace-my-Social-Security-card
First, if you're over the age of 12 and you're getting a card for the first time, you have to apply in person. In my case, my closest Social Security Card Center is roughly 45 minutes away. My closest DMV is about a block away.

Now, if you're getting a replacement card, you can fill out a form and mail it in. What's required as part of this form?

As proof of your identity, you must provide a:
●U.S. driver's license; or
●U.S. State-issued non-driver identity card; or
●U.S. passport

There are other caveats to that, but it require that you provide proof that you cannot obtain one of these items within ten work days *and* the acceptance of each of those items is subject to the whims of whatever desk jockey is approving or denying your paperwork. Since it's hard to provide proof that you can't get a state-issued ID card in ten business days, I can't imagine there's many that go this route (and are approved).

Not to mention... who still has their original birth certificate? Do all these old folks who can't get to the DMV still have their birth certificate from 70-80 years ago? *and* getting copy of your birth certificate? I can't speak for every state, but in the grand ol' state of Illinois, it *requires*, once again...

http://www.idph.state.il.us/vitalrecords/Pages/vgipi.htm

A valid government issued photo identification (ID) includes a driver’s license, a state issued photo ID or a passport.

I'm still not really seeing how requiring all these forms of ID to get a job is any less discriminatory than having to flash a Photo ID to vote.

How about a compromise - Voter ID laws pulled in line with the I9 requirements. In order to vote, you have to present an item from Column A or an item from both Column B and C.

For instance, say the account is only in the husband's name, or father's. If this is a family that trusts each other, everyone else has access so long as he lets them use a debit card, or atm card (if he tell them the PIN).

I'm not saying it's impossible - just that it seems like, in the grand scheme of things, it'd be a very minor group of people who fall in that category. As for the children in your example, those under 18 probably aren't going to be voting. Granted, some folks might let their adult children use their bank account...

Also, because I imagine the restrictions on marriage have been in place for a long time, so people accept them as a fact of life.

If this were the case, then wouldn't folks just accept the "fact" that marriage is between a man and a woman (No, I don't believe that)? That restriction has been in place, in most parts of the US, for far longer than ID requirements.

We should not and do not accept that because it's flat out discrimination. A good majority (in most states, at least) has banded together and said "NO!" to this kind of a law because it leaves folks unable to get married to the individual they love.

*IF* requiring an ID to vote is discrimination, then requiring an ID to get married should be considered the same - but until I brought it up just now, I've *never* heard a single person complain about that...

 

[UncleBob]

Oh, and the whole "having to go to the SSA office" part...

Lemme know when those offices don't have limited hours and don't disproportionately affect black and Latino communities.

Office hours for my local DMV:

Daily Hours:
Tuesday 8:00am -5:30pm
Wednesday 8:00am -5:00pm
Thursday 8:00am -5:00pm
Friday 8:00am -5:00pm
Saturday 7:30am -12:00pm

40 hours, five days, one weekend day, open as late as 5:30PM

Office hours for my "local" SSA office:

MON: 09:00 AM - 03:00 PM; TUES: 09:00 AM - 03:00 PM; WED: 09:00 AM - 12:00 PM; THUR: 09:00 AM - 03:00 PM; FRI: 09:00 AM - 03:00 PM; SAT & SUN: CLOSED

27 hours, five days, no weekends, nothing after 3 PM.

Let me know when our Social Security offices don't have limited hours. I can't say for sure that these offices also disproportionally affect any particular group, but if my example is any indication...

 

[Rasen]

If this were the case, then wouldn't folks just accept the "fact" that marriage is between a man and a woman (No, I don't believe that)? That restriction has been in place, in most parts of the US, for far longer than ID requirements.

We should not and do not accept that because it's flat out discrimination. A good majority (in most states, at least) has banded together and said "NO!" to this kind of a law because it leaves folks unable to get married to the individual they love.

*IF* requiring an ID to vote is discrimination, then requiring an ID to get married should be considered the same - but until I brought it up just now, I've *never* heard a single person complain about that...

I see what you're saying, and I see where I was unclear. But to reiterate, it may have been discriminatory, but it wasn't new. When I said it was a fact of life, I wasn't trying to say that people should accept it, just that there won't be a sense of surprise/outrage. Thus the lack of outcry that you observed. Even now, people are working to make marriage more inclusive, but there isn't the sense of "someone is trying to impose NEW restrictions." (For instance, if there was a movement to limit marriage to a Christian man or woman.)

Also, and this may simply be a case of demographics, people who get married may simply overwhelmingly have ID. After all, the pinnacle of rashly getting married, Las Vegas drive-thru churches, means you've got a car and a license.

 

[Spokker]

People who vote overwhelmingly have ID. I have observed the polls. Many automatically show it, including Latinos and Asians as I observed in a heavily Vietnamese/Latino area. The poll workers tell them to put it away.

Showing ID for credit card purchases varies, I think. Very rarely have I been asked to present an ID when making a purchase (MAYBE when making a large purchase), certainly never online, and if the purchase is small enough, I don't even have to sign a receipt.

It does vary by retailer. Most fast food places will not do it. A lot of big box and small box stores will, though. Gamestop does it every time.

A copy of the birth certificate costs money sure, but the original doesn't. Secondly, the i9 says nothing about a certified copy of voter registration. All they need is the voter card, the one they send you in the mail pretty much every year.

It's something you're not going to really need for the first 16-18 years of your life. It's probably going to get lost and you're going to need a replacement.

 

[UncleBob]

Also, and this may simply be a case of demographics, people who get married may simply overwhelmingly have ID. After all, the pinnacle of rashly getting married, Las Vegas drive-thru churches, means you've got a car and a license.

Back to the original point though - if requiring a Photo ID is discrimination and *any* amount of discrimination is unacceptable, then the idea that people who get married "overwhelmingly have ID" should be unacceptable as well. (Although, logically, one should point out that if most states require an ID to get married, then, yeah, people who get married likely have ID... )

I'm personally of the mindset that requesting a photo ID isn't that big of a deal - the amount of people who have a legitimate reason to not have a photo ID *and* actually care enough to vote has got to be a pretty small number. As we've seen in this thread, there's a multitude of reasons why one should have a Photo ID - in fact, it seems like it would be *more* work to go through life without a photo ID. You never know when you're going to show up for a job and take some nitwit's advice on what you need to show up with for your employer to fill out that I9 only to find out that the nitwit did a poor job of reading the I9 requirements and was wrong - now you're out of a job because the I9 has to be filled out within three days and you can't get to the DMV in time.

*IF* requiring a Photo ID is discriminatory, then all laws that require folks to show a Photo ID should be nullified (including, say, showing an ID to purchase a firearm).

 

[Rasen]

Back to the original point though - if requiring a Photo ID is discrimination and *any* amount of discrimination is unacceptable, then the idea that people who get married "overwhelmingly have ID" should be unacceptable as well. (Although, logically, one should point out that if most states require an ID to get married, then, yeah, people who get married likely have ID... )

*IF* requiring a Photo ID is discriminatory, then all laws that require folks to show a Photo ID should be nullified (including, say, showing an ID to purchase a firearm).

First point, nicely done. I think you know what I was trying to say/wildly speculate though, is that the demographics of people who WANT to get married, stupidly or not, may simply overwhelmingly have IDs. Whether because they drove to Las Vegas, or have reached a financially stable point in their lives (and having a photo ID is necessary for them to enjoy the non-critical facets of life that they couldn't before).

Second, I'm surprised to hear that buying a firearm requires photo ID. The way the NRA goes on, I would have thought by now I could walk into a gunstore with Blockbuster membership card and get myself a piece.

People who vote overwhelmingly have ID. I have observed the polls. Many automatically show it, including Latinos and Asians as I observed in a heavily Vietnamese/Latino area. The poll workers tell them to put it away.

It does vary by retailer. Most fast food places will not do it. A lot of big box and small box stores will, though. Gamestop does it every time.

When evaluating Eric Holder's statement of 8% white citizens had no ID, to 25% of African-Americans, Politifact says regarding US citizens,

African Americans are less likely than whites to hold varied kinds of government-issued IDs, with percentages of blacks without such IDs ranging from nearly 4 percent to more than 26 percent and percentages of whites having such an ID ranging from 1 percent to nearly 14 percent.

I don't know about the places you observed, there are any number of possible explanations, one of which being the dig UncleBob took at my poorly-phrased statement. If people already felt that they were going to get carded (whether they're right or wrong) at the voting station, maybe the only ones who bother to go vote are the ones who already have photo ID.

Of course, the other argument could simply be that the ones who don't have photo ID don't care about voting to begin with. *shrugs*

 

[UncleBob]

Second, I'm surprised to hear that buying a firearm requires photo ID. The way the NRA goes on, I would have thought by now I could walk into a gunstore with Blockbuster membership card and get myself a piece.

NRA? Don't you mean "Democratic Party"? I mean, requiring a Photo ID to purchase firearm unfairly discriminates against minorities, the elderly, students and the poor. Shouldn't they have the same right to purchase a firearm as the privileged white folk?

Oh, and when Blockbuster existed, when I got a card, I had to show photo ID to get it.

When evaluating Eric Holder's statement of 8% white citizens had no ID, to 25% of African-Americans, Politifact says regarding US citizens,

110% completely serious time. In this thread, we've established how important it is to have a government issued photo ID. Even Myke - who is adamantly against voter ID laws - stated that it is not sensible to not have a photo ID. One thing that comes out of these voter ID laws is that access to government issued photo ID is generally widened - like the aforementioned waiving of fees. Instead of fighting voter ID laws, why not work to increase the number of minorities, elderly, students, poor who have (access to) photo IDs? It seems there are *so* many other reasons why one should have a photo ID that it'd make more sense to try and help those who don't have one get one rather than continue to enable them to go without.

 

[egofed]

But fixing an issue doesn't allow it to be used as anti minority propaganda in the future, Bob. How are Democrats supposed to guarantee that they get those votes if they actually fix their problems and provide true opportunity?

Here's a quick question for my liberal buddies, I have been told that I can not expect able bodied people on welfare to get jobs because there are not enough jobs, yet these same liberals are in favor of illegal immigrant amnesty and open borders. How does that effect the job market?

 

[Spokker]

CA's June primary turnout was considered "embarrassingly low," even for a primary. Statewide turnout was at 18%. In Orange County it was 16%. In LA County it was 13%. For a mid-term primary you would expect at least 30% to go out and vote. 

If history is any indication you would expect 50%-60% to go out this November and vote, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's under 50%.

 

[RedvsBlue]

CA's June primary turnout was considered "embarrassingly low," even for a primary. Statewide turnout was at 18%. In Orange County it was 16%. In LA County it was 13%. For a mid-term primary you would expect at least 30% to go out and vote.

If history is any indication you would expect 50%-60% to go out this November and vote, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's under 50%.

We can have discussions all day long about the ID issue but the argument that failing to exercise a right is a waiver of that right is just not something worth discussing.

 

[Rasen]

NRA? Don't you mean "Democratic Party"? I mean, requiring a Photo ID to purchase firearm unfairly discriminates against minorities, the elderly, students and the poor. Shouldn't they have the same right to purchase a firearm as the privileged white folk?

Oh, and when Blockbuster existed, when I got a card, I had to show photo ID to get it.

110% completely serious time. In this thread, we've established how important it is to have a government issued photo ID. Even Myke - who is adamantly against voter ID laws - stated that it is not sensible to not have a photo ID. One thing that comes out of these voter ID laws is that access to government issued photo ID is generally widened - like the aforementioned waiving of fees. Instead of fighting voter ID laws, why not work to increase the number of minorities, elderly, students, poor who have (access to) photo IDs? It seems there are *so* many other reasons why one should have a photo ID that it'd make more sense to try and help those who don't have one get one rather than continue to enable them to go without.

1. I'm not sure if a smiley face means you're joking, but pretty sure Democrats aren't usually fighting for looser restrictions on gun purchases.

2. Or you could use someone else's Blockbuster card.

3. I LIKE my photo ID. It has proven to be very useful and convenient. That being said, for whatever reason, there appears to be a group of people who have found getting one too much trouble or not worth it. I'm not sure what their circumstances are, (possibly they can't take a day off to go to the seventh circle of hell that is the DMV, I dunno) and I don't particularly feel like advocating for one side or the other of this particular thread. My main purpose in this discussion, since someone asked, was to talk about whether or not a citizen can function without a ID in this society. And for the most part, I think the answer is yes, at least in the cities. Of course you give up some things, but how much or how meaningful is another question. (A bank account for someone who lives from paycheck to paycheck, for instance, is something of a joke. And if the bank charges fees, a mean joke.)

 

[GBAstar]

People can find/make time to get benefits they can find/make time to get an ID.

 

[Rasen]

People can find/make time to get benefits they can find/make time to get an ID.

Not necessarily. The ones who get benefits are the ones that are unemployed. And they probably already have an ID, as I would imagine you need that in order to file/claim benefits (but I could be wrong, y'know, having never been on benefits) The ones who may not have time to get an ID might be ones who ARE employed, and thus can't find the time.

Boy that would suck. If people who leech off the system (all one of them, if Fox News is to be believed) have more of a voice in the government than productive members.

 

[UncleBob]

1. I'm not sure if a smiley face means you're joking, but pretty sure Democrats aren't usually fighting for looser restrictions on gun purchases.

It was a winky smiley because Democrats are (generally) the ones pushing the idea that requiring a photo ID is discriminatory. Shouldn't they also be arguing that requiring a photo ID to purchase a firearm discriminates?

2. Or you could use someone else's Blockbuster card.

I wonder if that was against the agreement one would have signed way back then...

The ones who may not have time to get an ID might be ones who ARE employed, and thus can't find the time.

You mean, the ones who most likely already have the Photo ID for their I9 (or had to have a Photo ID to get the various documents needed to not have a Photo ID for their I9...)?

 

[detectiveconan16]

I think Obama's lack of policies are killing off the great magnanimous Caucasians in this country. I'm not an anthropologist so I can't argue.

 

[Rasen]

It was a winky smiley because Democrats are (generally) the ones pushing the idea that requiring a photo ID is discriminatory. Shouldn't they also be arguing that requiring a photo ID to purchase a firearm discriminates?


I wonder if that was against the agreement one would have signed way back then...


You mean, the ones who most likely already have the Photo ID for their I9 (or had to have a Photo ID to get the various documents needed to not have a Photo ID for their I9...)?

2. Probably.

3. While I should have looked at it to double-check, I just can't make myself care that much right now. But didn't the I-9 require two forms of documentation, one from a column A and one from a column B? Column B was mostly non-photo ID, and Column A had a few exceptions, mainly for those who were under 18? In that case, it's simple, someone who's been working the same dead-end job since they were a teenager to make ends meet.

 

[UncleBob]

Column A and B are, with few exceptions, Photo IDs. Column C are (all, I think) non-photo IDs.

For the I9, the employer needs either one Column A or both one Column B and Column C form. (The idea being that Column A documents both prove your identity and your eligibility to work, while Column B only proves your identity and Column C proves your eligibility to work).

 

[Spokker]

We can have discussions all day long about the ID issue but the argument that failing to exercise a right is a waiver of that right is just not something worth discussing.

BS. I said nothing of the sort. I don't care if there's ID or not but it's clear that most people don't care about elections unless the prez-o-dent is being decided. It's delusional to think that is the only office worth going out for.

When mid-terms still attract old white people that everybody is waiting for to die as soon as possible, it might make sense when a party on the brink of ruin might want to attract them. All these stupid debates would be over and this country would be a progressive utopia if younger people and Mexicans actually bothered to vote in anything other than a pres general. This is why there will NEVER be a republican president ever again, but why congress is always in play. And that's where obstruction happens, much to my relief.

 

[RPGNinja]

BS. I said nothing of the sort. I don't care if there's ID or not but it's clear that most people don't care about elections unless the prez-o-dent is being decided. It's delusional to think that is the only office worth going out for.

When mid-terms still attract old white people that everybody is waiting for to die as soon as possible, it might make sense when a party on the brink of ruin might want to attract them. All these stupid debates would be over and this country would be a progressive utopia if younger people and Mexicans actually bothered to vote in anything other than a pres general. This is why there will NEVER be a republican president ever again, but why congress is always in play. And that's where obstruction happens, much to my relief.

Why the hell would I want to live in a progressive Utopia? I don't want my hardwork to pay for someone else's laziness.

 

[Spokker]

If the popular vote decided everything, this country would be far more liberal than it is. The way the nation is even set up makes it not only more conservative than it should be, but it also makes it last longer than it should. The demographic changes will eventually be the tipping point, though.

Without the founders instituting what they did, I think this nation would have broken up already.

 

[RPGNinja]

If the popular vote decided everything, this country would be far more liberal than it is. The way the nation is even set up makes it not only more conservative than it should be, but it also makes it last longer than it should. The demographic changes will eventually be the tipping point, though.

Without the founders instituting what they did, I think this nation would have broken up already.

I will say one thing. Never in the history of any civilization have things gotten more conservative as times goes on. It always gets more liberal.. whether this is on social issues or economic for that matter. Now you might think that is great news for your libs out there until you realize that is literally the reason for many of the declines in those civilizations. Rome is a very extreme example of this.

 

[RedvsBlue]

I will say one thing. Never in the history of any civilization have things gotten more conservative as times goes on. It always gets more liberal.. whether this is on social issues or economic for that matter. Now you might think that is great news for your libs out there until you realize that is literally the reason for many of the declines in those civilizations. Rome is a very extreme example of this.

I've always loved the ol' liberalism killed the Roman Empire and it's gonna happen to us tomorrow. Rush used to really parrot that one, I'm assuming he still does.

 

[RPGNinja]

I've always loved the ol' liberalism killed the Roman Empire and it's gonna happen to us tomorrow. Rush used to really parrot that one, I'm assuming he still does.

But that is just a fact. All societies have gotten more liberal as time went on and eventually it declined and collapsed from within since the country couldn't support all the bloodsuckers.

 

[RedvsBlue]

But that is just a fact. All societies have gotten more liberal as time went on and eventually it declined and collapsed from within since the country couldn't support all the bloodsuckers.

Except it's not a fact, there were both internal and external struggles for them toward the end. The decline and eventual fall of the Roman empire is a highly debated scholarly topic with many different opinions and viewpoints, not just "hur durr, they were liberals".

 

[Spokker]

I've always loved the ol' liberalism killed the Roman Empire and it's gonna happen to us tomorrow. Rush used to really parrot that one, I'm assuming he still does.

He said it was an extreme example anyway and it wasn't exactly what I was talking about anyway.

I meant "broken up," as in we split into two or several different nations. I think it'll happen within the next century.

 

[RedvsBlue]

He said it was an extreme example anyway and it wasn't exactly what I was talking about anyway.

I meant "broken up," as in we split into two or several different nations. I think it'll happen within the next century.

I get that it was being used an extreme example. I disagree, but I at least get it. I was more commenting on that fact that talk radio, Rush in particular if I remember correctly, throw this line out all the time as if it's some cut and dry issue because it's not, at all. The Roman Empire fell for a multitude of reasons and complexities, to just say it was liberalism is very monochromatic.

 

[RPGNinja]

I get that it was being used an extreme example. I disagree, but I at least get it. I was more commenting on that fact that talk radio, Rush in particular if I remember correctly, throw this line out all the time as if it's some cut and dry issue because it's not, at all. The Roman Empire fell for a multitude of reasons and complexities, to just say it was liberalism is very monochromatic.

Whenever you can't defend an argument your go to line like LITERALLY everytime is "Rush Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh".

If that is all you have then you need to come up with some new lines at least if you aren't going to privde anything...

And yes I said it was an extreme example and nobody doubts it fell for a variety of reasons which included invasions and revolt... but from a societal standpoint, the Roman Empire was the most liberal and socialist it had ever been and it couldn't support itself.

And lets look at a more current example... the city of Detroit. Over 50+ years of Liberal and socialist policies have made that area a graveyard. California is already on that path now.. as well as New York they just have such large economies that their deaths will be MUCH slower.

And yes we know about the car industry in Michigan... I am not talking about that in regards to Detroit.. there were other cities in Michigan that depended on the auto industry and they are still standing because they weren't run as recklessly as Detroit.

On the flip side people and businesses (including LOTS of liberals) are moving to Texas because the taxes are much lower and they are very friendly to businesses. That is the REAL reason Texas has a chance of turning blue one day. What a bunch of hypocrites liberals are.

 

[Msut77]

Every one who says crap, like that has basically no idea about late roman history. Ninja probably thinks Diocletian, is a prescription drug.

 

[RedvsBlue]

Whenever you can't defend an argument your go to line like LITERALLY everytime is "Rush Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh".

If that is all you have then you need to come up with some new lines at least if you aren't going to privde anything...

And yes I said it was an extreme example and nobody doubts it fell for a variety of reasons which included invasions and revolt... but from a societal standpoint, the Roman Empire was the most liberal and socialist it had ever been and it couldn't support itself.

And lets look at a more current example... the city of Detroit. Over 50+ years of Liberal and socialist policies have made that area a graveyard. California is already on that path now.. as well as New York they just have such large economies that their deaths will be MUCH slower.

And yes we know about the car industry in Michigan... I am not talking about that in regards to Detroit.. there were other cities in Michigan that depended on the auto industry and they are still standing because they weren't run as recklessly as Detroit.

On the flip side people and businesses (including LOTS of liberals) are moving to Texas because the taxes are much lower and they are very friendly to businesses. That is the REAL reason Texas has a chance of turning blue one day. What a bunch of hypocrites liberals are.

As for Limbaugh, you've got me confused with someone else.

As for Detroit, as has been discussed in threads before it wasn't liberalism that destroyed that town, it was the collapse of the auto industry. It never recovered from that. You claim other cities depended on the auto industry but none as significantly as Detroit.

Where are you pointing at that New York is going to collapse? California's budget problems I can at least see where you're going but New York? You're grasping.

 

[rebelschs]

He said it was an extreme example anyway and it wasn't exactly what I was talking about anyway.

I meant "broken up," as in we split into two or several different nations. I think it'll happen within the next century.

If it wasn't for goddamn Lincoln, we would already be two separate countries. Go to the deep south, in some places the Civil War has not ended, it is merely in an extended cease-fire.

As for Limbaugh, you've got me confused with someone else.

As for Detroit, as has been discussed in threads before it wasn't liberalism that destroyed that town, it was the collapse of the auto industry. It never recovered from that. You claim other cities depended on the auto industry but none as significantly as Detroit.

Where are you pointing at that New York is going to collapse? California's budget problems I can at least see where you're going but New York? You're grasping.

I am going to agree with you. The issue with New York is there are Federal, State, and City taxes. Those taxes do add up to a lot of money. On the other side of the coin, people want to live in New York City. It is also a place that you can do very well for yourself. Many companies have headquarters in NYC, or other offices. It's a world destination, like Tokyo, London, or Paris. I don't believe NYC will go Detroit-style bankrupt. Too many people are willing to pay $1,000 a square foot to live there. The industry and business is much different there than Detroit.

I was in Detroit in 1995 or so, and it was a dump then. I would say it has gotten worse, but it wasn't worth a crap back then either. I can't blame all of their problems on Liberalism, because they have had a lot of people leave. The cost of everything is going up, and less money in the pot. It's simple economics there. Their policies may have added to the problems, but the auto industry started leaving in the 1980's and never looked back. Other places that had part plants or whatever in Michigan, began supplying to Toyota and Honda, as they moved more operations here.

I can't blame Liberal politics for all of Detroit's problems.

 

[RPGNinja]

As for Limbaugh, you've got me confused with someone else.

As for Detroit, as has been discussed in threads before it wasn't liberalism that destroyed that town, it was the collapse of the auto industry. It never recovered from that. You claim other cities depended on the auto industry but none as significantly as Detroit.

Where are you pointing at that New York is going to collapse? California's budget problems I can at least see where you're going but New York? You're grasping.

Not grasping at all.. as a native New Yorker I know all too well they are having problems with their budget and being fiscally responsible. Its the same old liberal story of too many expenses. But like I repeated many times its going to be a slow death because the state is being propped up by big money.

Also I already mentioned the auto industry in my post did you even read it? I clearly stated that you would say that and blame it on that instead of the liberal policies.