But but but….requiring IDs is racist!

1,485 Views | 25 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by BearForce2
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Someone's dominatrix is either out of town, unavailable due to Covid, or has a new "no Republican clients" policy. So BI will just have to do.
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So much racism!!!
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"But but but….the poor can't afford IDs!!!" -okaydo


Not only racist, but discriminatory against the poor!
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 is literally having a conversation with himself and yet is still able to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Look, I don't agree with him in full since voting rights in a democracy is so fundamentally more important than eating at a restaurant and those who cannot get an ID probably are not eating out with the current level of inflation.

However, why is it so freaking hard to discuss substance? It makes all your dogma look like weaksauce when the only response you have is personal attack.

So, what is the substantive arguments on why requiring IDs is not discriminatory in this situation?

calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OK, I will start.

While it is not difficult to receive an ID, the requirement, looking at absolute data, disproportionately impacts minorities who tend to vote more for Democrats. As such, when you implement a rule that disproportionately impacts minorities on something so fundamental to our society as one citizen, one vote, then you have a narrower tolerance. Imagine the outrage if a requirement to vote was submission of a redacted summary of tax return if you were required to file one. We could make some fake argument (like fake argument about rampant voter fraud) that there should be no representation without taxation. If that were to impact mostly the Republican voters, would people be OK with that?

Now, I think it is inherently stupid to require vaccination proof (especially if two shots are viewed as fully vaccinated) when those with only two are just as likely to spread as unvaccinated. It is all political theater.

Now, if the rationale is that the unvaccinated are draining too much of our resources for their stupidity, I am OK with that. But say that, and say you want to make life as hard as possible so that they will get vaccinated and stop clogging up our hospitals. But this fear tactic of protecting others with vaccine mandate and proof is just stupid.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Now, if the rationale is that the unvaccinated are draining too much of our resources for their stupidity, I am OK with that. But say that, and say you want to make life as hard as possible so that they will get vaccinated and stop clogging up our hospitals. But this fear tactic of protecting others with vaccine mandate and proof is just stupid.

That's exactly what I think. And it's worth noting that by clogging hospitals the unvaccinated ARE putting the rest of us at risk.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

Now, if the rationale is that the unvaccinated are draining too much of our resources for their stupidity, I am OK with that. But say that, and say you want to make life as hard as possible so that they will get vaccinated and stop clogging up our hospitals. But this fear tactic of protecting others with vaccine mandate and proof is just stupid.

That's exactly what I think. And it's worth noting that by clogging hospitals the unvaccinated ARE putting the rest of us at risk.
Absolutely. I would be all for increasing the medical premium of those who are not vaccinated.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Look, I don't agree with him in full since voting rights in a democracy is so fundamentally more important than eating at a restaurant and those who cannot get an ID probably are not eating out with the current level of inflation.

However, why is it so freaking hard to discuss substance? It makes all your dogma look like weaksauce when the only response you have is personal attack.

So, what is the substantive arguments on why requiring IDs is not discriminatory in this situation?




hanky doesn't discuss substance
bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

OK, I will start.

While it is not difficult to receive an ID, the requirement, looking at absolute data, disproportionately impacts minorities who tend to vote more for Democrats. As such, when you implement a rule that disproportionately impacts minorities on something so fundamental to our society as one citizen, one vote, then you have a narrower tolerance. Imagine the outrage if a requirement to vote was submission of a redacted summary of tax return if you were required to file one. We could make some fake argument (like fake argument about rampant voter fraud) that there should be no representation without taxation. If that were to impact mostly the Republican voters, would people be OK with that?

Now, I think it is inherently stupid to require vaccination proof (especially if two shots are viewed as fully vaccinated) when those with only two are just as likely to spread as unvaccinated. It is all political theater.

Now, if the rationale is that the unvaccinated are draining too much of our resources for their stupidity, I am OK with that. But say that, and say you want to make life as hard as possible so that they will get vaccinated and stop clogging up our hospitals. But this fear tactic of protecting others with vaccine mandate and proof is just stupid.
I agree with your last paragraph....at least up to "hospitals".

hanky1 chose the playing field for this discussion=> our Nation's capitol Washington DC.
He and BF2 have presented "facts". You'll have to excuse me if I don't take them at face value...for now.

DC was my hometown for a long time.

It is a special case (and a special city) for a number of reasons.

*The historical voting record is 93-97% Democratic=> whatever you've said about "Democrats" and
"Republicans" comes off as very ill-informed.****

I about lol at the "representation without taxation" line. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
is the standard on DC license plates

****JMO, your comments MAY (I can't say right now) have more than a little validity generally****

If you believe in forever
Then life is just a one-night stand
If there's a rock and roll heaven
Well you know they've got a hell of a band
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearup said:

calbear93 said:

OK, I will start.

While it is not difficult to receive an ID, the requirement, looking at absolute data, disproportionately impacts minorities who tend to vote more for Democrats. As such, when you implement a rule that disproportionately impacts minorities on something so fundamental to our society as one citizen, one vote, then you have a narrower tolerance. Imagine the outrage if a requirement to vote was submission of a redacted summary of tax return if you were required to file one. We could make some fake argument (like fake argument about rampant voter fraud) that there should be no representation without taxation. If that were to impact mostly the Republican voters, would people be OK with that?

Now, I think it is inherently stupid to require vaccination proof (especially if two shots are viewed as fully vaccinated) when those with only two are just as likely to spread as unvaccinated. It is all political theater.

Now, if the rationale is that the unvaccinated are draining too much of our resources for their stupidity, I am OK with that. But say that, and say you want to make life as hard as possible so that they will get vaccinated and stop clogging up our hospitals. But this fear tactic of protecting others with vaccine mandate and proof is just stupid.
I agree with your last paragraph....at least up to "hospitals".

hanky1 chose the playing field for this discussion=> our Nation's capitol Washington DC.
He and BF2 have presented "facts". You'll have to excuse me if I don't take them at face value...for now.

DC was my hometown for a long time.

It is a special case (and a special city) for a number of reasons.

*The historical voting record is 93-97% Democratic=> whatever you've said about "Democrats" and
"Republicans" comes off as very ill-informed.****

I about lol at the "representation without taxation" line. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
is the standard on DC license plates

****JMO, your comments MAY (I can't say right now) have more than a little validity generally****




I think you missed my point. My point was that Republicans would not be happy if there was some requirement to vote that impacted them more - such as having to provide a copy of a summary tax return. If the Democrats came up with some argument that if you cheated on your taxes like Trump did, you should not vote - hence the flip of the commonly understood rebellion against the British and the Boston Tea Party - Republicans who are pushing voter reform based on a fake argument of rampant voter fraud - will certainly find new religion on sanctity of protecting voting rights.
bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

bearup said:

calbear93 said:

OK, I will start.

While it is not difficult to receive an ID, the requirement, looking at absolute data, disproportionately impacts minorities who tend to vote more for Democrats. As such, when you implement a rule that disproportionately impacts minorities on something so fundamental to our society as one citizen, one vote, then you have a narrower tolerance. Imagine the outrage if a requirement to vote was submission of a redacted summary of tax return if you were required to file one. We could make some fake argument (like fake argument about rampant voter fraud) that there should be no representation without taxation. If that were to impact mostly the Republican voters, would people be OK with that?

Now, I think it is inherently stupid to require vaccination proof (especially if two shots are viewed as fully vaccinated) when those with only two are just as likely to spread as unvaccinated. It is all political theater.

Now, if the rationale is that the unvaccinated are draining too much of our resources for their stupidity, I am OK with that. But say that, and say you want to make life as hard as possible so that they will get vaccinated and stop clogging up our hospitals. But this fear tactic of protecting others with vaccine mandate and proof is just stupid.
I agree with your last paragraph....at least up to "hospitals".

hanky1 chose the playing field for this discussion=> our Nation's capitol Washington DC.
He and BF2 have presented "facts". You'll have to excuse me if I don't take them at face value...for now.

DC was my hometown for a long time.

It is a special case (and a special city) for a number of reasons.

*The historical voting record is 93-97% Democratic=> whatever you've said about "Democrats" and
"Republicans" comes off as very ill-informed.****

I about lol at the "representation without taxation" line. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
is the standard on DC license plates

****JMO, your comments MAY (I can't say right now) have more than a little validity generally****




I think you missed my point. My point was that Republicans would not be happy if there was some requirement to vote that impacted them more - such as having to provide a copy of a summary tax return. If the Democrats came up with some argument that if you cheated on your taxes like Trump did, you should not vote - hence the flip of the commonly understood rebellion against the British and the Boston Tea Party - Republicans who are pushing voter reform based on a fake argument of rampant voter fraud - will certainly find new religion on sanctity of protecting voting rights.



Please see **** above
If you believe in forever
Then life is just a one-night stand
If there's a rock and roll heaven
Well you know they've got a hell of a band
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 said:

"But but but….the poor can't afford IDs!!!" -okaydo


Not only racist, but discriminatory against the poor!
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:


When it is used to suppress the vote by people of color.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

hanky1 said:

"But but but….the poor can't afford IDs!!!" -okaydo


Not only racist, but discriminatory against the poor!

Can't see where the Indian government charges anything for a Voter ID. This is the difference.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

BearForce2 said:

hanky1 said:

"But but but….the poor can't afford IDs!!!" -okaydo


Not only racist, but discriminatory against the poor!

Can't see where the Indian government charges anything for a Voter ID. This is the difference.

Indeed. I'm fine with voter ID if you want to make IDs free and easy to get. If not, it becomes another poll tax.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BearNIt said:

BearForce2 said:

hanky1 said:

"But but but….the poor can't afford IDs!!!" -okaydo


Not only racist, but discriminatory against the poor!

Can't see where the Indian government charges anything for a Voter ID. This is the difference.

Indeed. I'm fine with voter ID if you want to make IDs free and easy to get. If not, it becomes another poll tax.

This is the nuance of the issue that eludes binary brain GQP MAGAts.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:



Comparison of the USA to India is bogus on many levels...this being one of them.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearup said:

BearForce2 said:



Comparison of the USA to India is bogus on many levels...this being one of them.
It also ignores all the features of India's politics and government that we would never want to emulate.
bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

bearup said:

BearForce2 said:



Comparison of the USA to India is bogus on many levels...this being one of them.
It also ignores all the features of India's politics and government that we would never want to emulate.
+1000

I go back and forth on the merits of Bollywood......I'm not that thrilled with Hollywood, so.....
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 is at Target right now, watching the reaction of people to the human turd he laid in the middle of the aisle. Oh, it's quite a mess. Footprints and gummed up shopping cart wheels. He's watching this all from a comfortable distance, nibbling on a Twix while partially obscured by the leaves of a fake palm plant that shakes when he giggles.

Target = BI.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.