President Biden's first term in office

[Lord Thesaurian]

The Harvard study you linked to earlier? With the following part of the study's abstract absent from your quote?

Good thing I never argued voter ID requirements statistically prevent fraud.

I don't know how one can conclude from raw numbers that the new requirements had no effect since they could not do a check at individual level. However, something tells me you would not use this study to argue for the trivialness of new voter id bills. Yet, whether these bills actually manage to hurt voter turnout doesn't really matter to me. The fact that they're made for that purpose does.

Thanks for confirming your argument is based on speculation backed up by a handful of anecdotes you ascribe to some as yet unproven and unexplained plot. All you’ve got is political talking points that, even if entirely true, mean only that the conspiracy has failed. Voter ID has overwhelming bipartisan support, and opposition to them is based on rhetoric, nothing more.

[PointOfViewGun]

Why do you think black people are too stupid to know how to get free IDs? Honestly curious. The thought never crossed my mind at all. I think black people are just as smart as white people.

That's your projection to create a defensible position for yourself. No one suggested or even implied that that is the case. Hence, why would you take the time to twist what people point? Does your preferred position really have no merit?

Good thing I never argued voter ID requirements statistically prevent fraud.
Thanks for confirming your argument is based on speculation backed up by a handful of anecdotes you ascribe to some as yet unproven and unexplained plot.

Then you probably agree that its a waste of taxpayer money to keep on enacting more of them. However, I'm not sure how you can conclude that second part. You seem to be trying to put a lot of words in my mouth as you have done in the previous page. Not a good path to take if you didn't wanna expose how meritless your position was...

My argument is not really based on speculation backed by a handful of anecdotes. It concerns millions of people in total in USA. I understand why you'd try to downplay that of course.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Then you probably agree that its a waste of taxpayer money to keep on enacting more of them. However, I'm not sure how you can conclude that second part. You seem to be trying to put a lot of words in my mouth as you have done in the previous page. Not a good path to take if you didn't wanna expose how meritless your position was...

My argument is not really based on speculation backed by a handful of anecdotes. It concerns millions of people in total in USA. I understand why you'd try to downplay that of course.

Your argument has nothing to do with people in the USA. If it did, you’d admit the majority of them support voter ID and you were wrong to ever suggest they don’t or that you have any good reason to oppose them. You can come up with as much cope as you want about how many people don’t have photo ID. People have the right not to vote if they don’t want, and not having an ID isn’t a protected class. Given voter ID laws haven’t negatively impacted turnout, you have no evidence voter ID laws prevent people from voting in any way that is a violation of civil rights.

[PointOfViewGun]

Your argument has nothing to do with people in the USA. If it did, you’d admit the majority of them support voter ID and you were wrong to ever suggest they don’t or that you have any good reason to oppose them. You can come up with as much cope as you want about how many people don’t have photo ID. People have the right not to vote if they don’t want, and no one has the civil right to an ID. Given voter ID laws haven’t negatively impacted turnout, you have no evidence voter ID laws prevent people from voting in any way that is a violation of civil rights.

Did I ever suggest that majority of people in USA do not support voter ID? Sigh... So many failed assumptions. In a vacuum, everyone would support such an idea. If asked outright with such simplicity few would oppose it. What would they respond if they heard about the underlying factors? Things start to change then. You can ignore the reality all you want. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them disappear. If voting is a civil right, then anything that comes as a requirement to do just that is part of that right. Your own study points at a reason why voter turnout didn't change much and the study is inherently incapable of finding out whether people were actually unable to vote because of new voter id laws. You do not know for a fact such laws didn't have an impact and that still wouldn't really matter. Something doesn't have to have a meaningful effect to be wrong. That's the beauty of it.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Non answer, of course. You wouldn't be butthurt about voter IDs if you didn't think it disenfranchised brown people. Your presumption that it does is racist. Your white saviorism is showing. To be clear, I'm laughing at your piss poor racist argument, not with it

[Lord Thesaurian]

Did I ever suggest that majority of people in USA do not support voter ID? Sigh... So many failed assumptions. In a vacuum, everyone would support such an idea. If asked outright with such simplicity few would oppose it. What would they respond if they heard about the underlying factors? Things start to change then. You can ignore the reality all you want. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them disappear. If voting is a civil right, then anything that comes as a requirement to do just that is part of that right. Your own study points at a reason why voter turnout didn't change much and the study is inherently incapable of finding out whether people were actually unable to vote because of new voter id laws. You do not know for a fact such laws didn't have an impact and that still wouldn't really matter. Something doesn't have to have a meaningful effect to be wrong. That's the beauty of it.

If you admit all this cope has no meaningful effect, why can’t you come up with an argument as to how voter ID laws are a violation of civil rights? You admit you’re opposed to what most people want, and that you have no meaningful reason for doing so. What do you have left?

[PointOfViewGun]

Non answer, of course. You wouldn't be butthurt about voter IDs if you didn't think it disenfranchised brown people. Your presumption that it does is racist. Your white saviorism is showing. To be clear, I'm laughing at your piss poor racist argument, not with it

I'm not surprised it comes off as a non-answer to you since it was a response to your baseless assumption. I guess you'll keep banking on it...

If you admit all this cope has no meaningful effect, why can’t you come up with an argument as to how voter ID laws are a violation of civil rights? You admit you’re opposed to what most people want, and that you have no meaningful reason for doing so. What do you have left?

Sigh... Just because you don't like what people argue and you're unable to address them with an intelligent argument doesn't mean you have a valid position. This kind of argumentation you're employing simply shows how meritless your actual position is. It's already been pointed out why voter id laws are a violation of civil rights as they are admitted by Republicans to be geared for hurting the minority group votes. I explicitly expressed support for what most people want but also pointed out that that support exists in a vacuum for me and most people. We have spent pages now on why potentially these new requirements can hurt people's ability to vote.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Sigh... Just because you don't like what people argue and you're unable to address them with an intelligent argument doesn't mean you have a valid position. This kind of argumentation you're employing simply shows how meritless your actual position is. It's already been pointed out why voter id laws are a violation of civil rights as they are admitted by Republicans to be geared for hurting the minority group votes. I explicitly expressed support for what most people want but also pointed out that that support exists in a vacuum for me and most people. We have spent pages now on why potentially these new requirements can hurt people's ability to vote.

You’ve done nothing of the sort. All you’ve managed to do is get caught spouting nonsense about “potentially” bad things with no effort made to connect them to reality. Given voter ID has been shown to have no negative impact on registration or turnout among any group by race, gender, age, or party affiliation, you have no basis at all for claiming voter ID is racially discriminatory or that there is any substantive reason to oppose what the majority of people want. Furiously projecting the “meritlessness” of your political propaganda means nothing.

[B. W.]

Yeah, you do need a photo ID in Texas for voting... You seem to be deliberately ignoring facts of the matter to create a case for yourself to defend. Many old people simply don't have their birth certificates available. Many that do have don't have the exact same name on them. Sometimes even a maiden surname difference stops them from getting the id they asked for. We're talking about citizens of USA. Just because you had it easy at the DMV doesn't mean its easy for everyone. Then there is the economic cost of getting such an id.

You just demonstrated your complete ignorance of the subject. Once again: I live in Texas. I was born in Texas. I have voted in Texas my entire life. I have never used a photo ID.

The Democrats anguish over voter ID is all about illegals voting. That's what it is ultimately about. All the arguments presented are presumed to be about the current situation in every state. The Dems aren't short sighted when it comes to planning their agenda. Legalize voting without a legal identification and the future will reveal the truth of what it was all about. Of course, by then it will be far too late to do anything about it.

[PointOfViewGun]

You just demonstrated your complete ignorance of the subject. Once again: I live in Texas. I was born in Texas. I have voted in Texas my entire life. I have never used a photo ID.

The Democrats anguish over voter ID is all about illegals voting. That's what it is ultimately about. All the arguments presented are presumed to be about the current situation in every state. The Dems aren't short sighted when it comes to planning their agenda. Legalize voting without a legal identification and the future will reveal the truth of what it was all about. Of course, by then it will be far too late to do anything about it.

What I demonstrated was an ability to check Texas voter id laws:

[B. W.]

What I demonstrated was an ability to check Texas voter id laws:

This is you proving you don't have a clue.

You do not need a photo ID to vote in Texas, but being literate and able to read the law is helpful.

I usually just take my registration card and a utility bill as proof. Neither has a photo on it. Here is the law:

https://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id.html

In fact, Texas voting law is very liberal about identification for the purpose of voting as the law clearly shows.

[PointOfViewGun]

This is you proving you don't have a clue.
You do not need a photo ID to vote in Texas, but being literate and able to read the law is helpful.
I usually just take my registration card and a utility bill as proof. Neither has a photo on it. Here is the law:
https://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id.html
In fact, Texas voting law is very liberal about identification for the purpose of voting as the law clearly shows.

That cop out is right there on the guide I showed you. That has been addressed under Reasonable Impediment Declaration before. It doesn't work for a lot of people. Not illegal, but many people that live on a day to day basis. Some of those are continuously rejected because their names do not match in different documents due to a variety of reasons including typos or change of surname. I am confident you've experienced none of those problems. Many others have. In the end the Texas makes it clear. You do need a photo id. In the case that you don't you're left at the mercy of the election official you're facing.

[Lord Thesaurian]

That cop out is right there on the guide I showed you. That has been addressed under Reasonable Impediment Declaration before. It doesn't work for a lot of people. Not illegal, but many people that live on a day to day basis. Some of those are continuously rejected because their names do not match in different documents due to a variety of reasons including typos or change of surname. I am confident you've experienced none of those problems. Many others have. In the end the Texas makes it clear. You do need a photo id. In the case that you don't you're left at the mercy of the election official you're facing.

Typos and other mistakes doesn’t mean the requirements “don’t work for alot of people.” It means you’re grasping at straws after your argument that voter ID is racist was exposed as baseless propaganda. You’ve retreated from arguing about civil rights and racial discrimination to incoherent cope about potential spelling mistakes and outdated documentation, as if people not having their own documents in order is a reflection on the law. You’re also lying, given that the reasonable impediment form gives specific instructions and lists eligible substitutes for a photo ID. If a person meets the requirements, they check the box, sign and present the document(s). It has nothing to do with “the mercy of election officials.”

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/election...eclaration.pdf

[B. W.]

Typos and other mistakes doesn’t mean the requirements “don’t work for alot of people.” It means you’re grasping at straws after your argument that voter ID is racist was exposed as baseless propaganda. You’ve retreated from arguing about civil rights and racial discrimination to incoherent cope about potential spelling mistakes and outdated documentation, as if people not having their own documents in order is a reflection on the law. You’re also lying, given that the reasonable impediment form gives specific instructions and lists eligible substitutes for a photo ID. If a person meets the requirements, they check the box, sign and present the document(s). It has nothing to do with “the mercy of election officials.”

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/election...eclaration.pdf

Yep. The whole process takes less than a minute.

[Gaidin]

What I demonstrated was an ability to check Texas voter id laws:

You're pushing your luck.

Bet you I can vote with my current utility bill.

(Which...in most states...don't try to have a picture...)

[PointOfViewGun]

Typos and other mistakes doesn’t mean the requirements “don’t work for alot of people.” It means you’re grasping at straws after your argument that voter ID is racist was exposed as baseless propaganda. You’ve retreated from arguing about civil rights and racial discrimination to incoherent cope about potential spelling mistakes and outdated documentation, as if people not having their own documents in order is a reflection on the law. You’re also lying, given that the reasonable impediment form gives specific instructions and lists eligible substitutes for a photo ID. If a person meets the requirements, they check the box, sign and present the document(s). It has nothing to do with “the mercy of election officials.”
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/election...eclaration.pdf

Gainsaying is not an argument. All this have been addressed before. Your own link lists the procedure for the election officials to approve the secondary document provided by the voter. If there is a typo or a difference in name in the document you provide the official is within his or her right to refuse your vote. A black or latino person could easily face that problem. Ignoring or denying what people go through is not an argument.

You're pushing your luck.
Bet you I can vote with my current utility bill.
(Which...in most states...don't try to have a picture...)

You might. Many others would not. I prefer to take into consideration that not everyone lives as comfortably as I am. It's even simpler than that. The utility might be under your name. Does your 80 years old grandma who lives with you have a bill under her name?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Gainsaying is not an argument. All this have been addressed before. Your own link lists the procedure for the election officials to approve the secondary document provided by the voter. If there is a typo or a difference in name in the document you provide the official is within his or her right to refuse your vote. A black or latino person could easily face that problem. Ignoring or denying what people go through is not an argument.

“Gainsaying” involves disputing a point of fact. Facts are absent from the mental gymnastics you’re going through to salvage your argument, only to endure further embarrassment. Anyone of any race could easily have a typo in an official document, and as I said, that has nothing to do with law or civil rights. You know how people can avoid the “potential” problem with this hill you’re dying on? Make sure their own name is spelled correctly on their own documents before they bring them in. Your suggestion that blacks and hispanics are going to have a harder time with that than others is cringe af.

[PointOfViewGun]

“Gainsaying” involves disputing a point of fact. Facts are absent from the mental gymnastics you’re going through to salvage your argument, only to endure further embarrassment. Anyone of any race could easily have a typo in an official document, and as I said, that has nothing to do with law or civil rights. You know how people can avoid the “potential” problem with this hill you’re dying on? Make sure their own name is spelled correctly on their own documents before they bring them in. Your suggestion that blacks and hispanics are going to have a harder time with that than others is cringe af.

You're still gainsaying though as you confuse your opinion as a fact. You're trying to pass your own experience as universal. It's not. If you can't accept that fundamental fact not much I can do. My mistake, however, was to let you boil down voter suppression bills to the id itself when it has many different factors played in it from voting hours to extend of locations. The ironic part is that you're arguing against something that even Republicans admit. Carry on by all means.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You're still gainsaying though as you confuse your opinion as a fact. You're trying to pass your own experience as universal. It's not. If you can't accept that fundamental fact not much I can do. My mistake, however, was to let you boil down voter suppression bills to the id itself when it has many different factors played in it from voting hours to extend of locations. The ironic part is that you're arguing against something that even Republicans admit. Carry on by all means.

Thanks, I will. Please don’t confuse your opinions with the facts I’ve provided. I haven’t based anything on my experience. I have data and I have the law. You have irrelevant cope about spelling mistakes and “the mercy of election officials.” You haven’t given a single example of any Republican backed vote security bill that actively discriminates against racial minorities.

[Heathen Hammer]

My mistake, however, was to let you boil down voter suppression bills to the id itself when it has many different factors played in it from voting hours to extend of locations. The ironic part is that you're arguing against something that even Republicans admit. Carry on by all means.

Changing goal posts again? The way you changed them doesn't even help your own argument lol
In some states there are indeed no laws that regulate employers to provide time off on election day, and those are... states that were deep blue for decades.
Funny how you accidentally revealed that its Democrats who use voter suppression to prevent population in their state from voting, as the less people vote, the less likely they are to flip the state.