gothelder: "Time and time again when the masses feel they have no legal way to express their grievances revolutions happen. When revolutions happen the perceived oppressors are the first to be slaughtered. History has shown this time and time again."


Out of curiosity, what would you say history has shown time and again about the plight of "the masses" after the revolution, vs. before? How did the Soviets make out? How about the Cubans? What about "the masses" in Cambodia? Or perhaps Iran? Come to think of it, would you say history has ever shown a revolution to achieve any of the goals of "the masses" other than the slaughter of the perceived oppressors?

violentsalvation: I have a hard time believing that voter ID laws would actually disenfranchise anyone who would care to take the time to vote. But solving a problem that doesn't really exist is not how I define small government.

I just voted on Tuesday and I had to be registered before hand and at the poll I had to show the registration card or an ID, or a couple utility bills or bank statements, election mail, vehicle registration / insurance, etc that have my name and address.

Let's say you were a homeless person.

You have no registration card, because you have no address to register..
You have no "ID" from anywhere, because you don't belong to anywhere.
You have no utility bills because you have no utilities.
You have no bank statements because you have neither a bank account nor any money to put in one.
You have no "election mail" because there's no where to send it.
You have no vehicle, hence no vehicle registration or insurance.
You have no driver's license (see reason above).
Even the birth certificate you carried around with you has long since been lost to other homeless thieves or destroyed by the elements.

All you know is your name, and the year you were born. Yet you are still a citizen of the united states.

Under your strictures, how do you vote, as you have every right to?

rewind2846: violentsalvation: I have a hard time believing that voter ID laws would actually disenfranchise anyone who would care to take the time to vote. But solving a problem that doesn't really exist is not how I define small government.

I just voted on Tuesday and I had to be registered before hand and at the poll I had to show the registration card or an ID, or a couple utility bills or bank statements, election mail, vehicle registration / insurance, etc that have my name and address.

Let's say you were a homeless person.

You have no registration card, because you have no address to register..
You have no "ID" from anywhere, because you don't belong to anywhere.
You have no utility bills because you have no utilities.
You have no bank statements because you have neither a bank account nor any money to put in one.
You have no "election mail" because there's no where to send it.
You have no vehicle, hence no vehicle registration or insurance.
You have no driver's license (see reason above).
Even the birth certificate you carried around with you has long since been lost to other homeless thieves or destroyed by the elements.

All you know is your name, and the year you were born. Yet you are still a citizen of the united states.

Under your strictures, how do you vote, as you have every right to?

Well theres that, and then theres a few million illegal aliens with made up stories.

Theres a reason why one political party is extremely concerned that the vote of every mental defective, every convicted felon, every resident who pays no taxes be counted; these people are vital constituents of said party who are guaranteed to vote "the right way" in exchange for direct, preferably monetary, considerations.

What needs more attention and consideration is not the homeless guy under the bridge but the droves of middle class who actually pay for our govt behemoth.

It's beyond stupid that anyone should be allowed to vote without official photo ID. Sort of shocking that situation even exists in this day and age.

I'm independent myself, but how lazy and stupid do you have to be to not be ready to vote on election day? It's not a fugging random surprise. If people are that stupid, I don't want them voting anyways. I prefer intelligent and responsible decision-making.

The reason the libs don't want voter IDs is so they can cheat. Period.
Anybody who wants to vote can get help to vote.
You need a valid ID for a LOT of things, getting prescriptions, medical, etc. Old people or "disenfranchised" poor black people don't get prescriptions?
Voter fraud is real. Check this out:
Link

Well, I almost made it all the way through this thread, but I just have to comment on Silly Jesus's idea of requiring an intelligence test to vote.

Everyone (read EVERYONE) should have the right to vote. Period. Even the knuckle dragging retards deserve representation. Representation for all citizens is one of the founding principles of our nation.

Let's say your test idea was put in place, and I fail the test to vote. Am I now exempt from taxes? Wouldn't that go along with the whole "no taxation without representation" concept that led to the birth of the U.S. in the first place?

When you say, "You should prove you're smart enough to vote," you're essentially saying, "prove you deserve to be counted among the elite or GTFO," and no one should have to hear that shiat.

Don't get me wrong. I wish all voters were smarter (even the ones who are already geniuses) but that's not the same thing as trying to deny the vote to fellow citizens because they're not.

/as for voter ID, I'll take the dye.

king of vegas: I hate how all the articles on this always say "Laws to prevent voter fraud" as though this is a lofty goal on the parts of the state legislatures. This is a conservative media bias. Truly it should read, "In a move that Republicans claim to be to stop voter fraud while Democrats claim is to simply disenfranchise underprivileged voters..." That's a fair and balanced way of reporting this issue.

Lamestream conservative media at work on this one.

This is what douchebag Leftists actually believe.

spmkk: gothelder: "Time and time again when the masses feel they have no legal way to express their grievances revolutions happen. When revolutions happen the perceived oppressors are the first to be slaughtered. History has shown this time and time again."


Out of curiosity, what would you say history has shown time and again about the plight of "the masses" after the revolution, vs. before? How did the Soviets make out? How about the Cubans? What about "the masses" in Cambodia? Or perhaps Iran? Come to think of it, would you say history has ever shown a revolution to achieve any of the goals of "the masses" other than the slaughter of the perceived oppressors?

Lets just say there is a lot of satisfaction in revenge. Once that revenge has been exacted things can pretty much go back to the status quo just with slightly different stripes. The important part is the slaughtered oppressors, and how to not be one of them.

Oh and the Soviets after the communists took over could have ended much worse, their latest "revolution" was short on the slaughter, but they seem to be doing okay. I expect the Cubans would be doing much better if the US Gov had not been so honked off at Castro ruining the corporate dominion that gripped Havana until the revolution, had the embargo been not in place their standard of loving would be much higher.

Which Iran revolution? The one caused by the CIA, or the one caused by Khomeni? I am afraid we will be reaping the bad karma from the former by the hand of the inheritors of the latter for a long time to come. Personally I am of the opinion one of the reasons Iran is so disgusted by the US is because it is the same equation, oppressed vs oppressors only on a much larger scale.

Cambodia having to put up with Pol Pot and his regimes homicidal tenancies can be laid right at the feet of the US as fallout of the Vietnam war. Between that and their desire to model themselves after china that spelled bad trouble for everybody who got in his way. At least once he died the country has started to rediscover itself.

As for has a revolution ever achieved its aims? French seem to have gotten it figured out, US has had a good run and India could have been alot worse after they got rid of the British.

GAT_00: foo monkey: GAT_00: foo monkey: GAT_00:
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.

You can't rule out something has happened by saying you haven't observed it. It's possible. It's easy. It can be done without detection.

Yes, it's everywhere and it's totally destroying our system despite all evidence to the contrary. It's like Jesus, but with a ballot.



I love you, but man, you'd make a terrible software engineer.

All right then. Take it like this:

You have a program that's working fine. Someone comes by and tells you that there's a systemic error in it that you can't see and doesn't trip any warnings, but he insists to you it's there and you have to fix it. Also, he can't prove there error is there either.

What are you going to do?

Investigate to see if the use case could occur. Change the system to issue warnings if his use case does occur.

QU!RK1019: Silly Jesus: QU!RK1019: Silly Jesus: QU!RK1019: Silly Jesus: QU!RK1019: Silly Jesus: QU!RK1019: Silly Jesus: QU!RK1019: SillyJesus, I don't want to be insulting, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just trolling here, but this attitude is very very wrong. Instituting any sort of voting qualification is not only ripe for abuse, but is runs morally counter to the tenets of democracy. If you are very concerned about the intelligence of the average voter, the solution is to endorse better education for all Americans, not to restrict the vote from them.

I respectfully disagree. I believe that if you don't have the motivation or wherewithal to have at least the most basic level of understanding about how our country works, then you have no business making decisions that determine it's operation.

If people coming from foreign countries can learn our language and learn about our history and learn what the ability to vote in this great republic really means, then I don't think that is too high a standard for those born here to reach.

Don't get me wrong, i would LOVE to have American voters be amazingly well informed and intelligent. But restricting the vote is not the solution. Education is.

Yes, that would be the ideal solution, but we've been going at it for awhile now and the success rate is abysmal. When is it time to try something new?

When you're talking about undermining everything we've worked so hard for in this country, throwing out all the fights for suffrage over the generations, disenfranchising thousands, potentially millions of American citizens with the birthright of participating in one of the greatest democracies in the history of the planet, then I say NEVER GIVE UP! No, we have not reached the point where the system has failed. No, we have not reached the point of destroying our voting rights. We've only just begun to realize the potential of universal suffrage, and whatever flaws we may be able to find should not be dealt ...

No, please read up thread. SCOTUS, among others, have stated that voting for the president is not a right. This isn't just an opinion of mine.

Mavent: Silly Jesus: Hell, I voted for the guy, I'm not part of some right wing anti-black movement like I'm being portrayed to be.

I think most of us portray you as a troll, not as a right-winger.

That's expected here. It seems that most anyone who disagrees with the Official Fark Stance TM is labeled as a troll, or a noob. You should copypasta my sign up date too if you really want your argument to be strong.

I've had some great civil conversations with quite a few people here. If some wish to stand on the sidelines and not engage in the discussion and scream "troll" and "noob" into the dialogue, then so be it. Conversations with those folks probably wouldn't be too enlightening anyway.

Kittypie070: [tiny angry kitten sneaks sloooooowly up behind SillyJesus with three railroad spikes and a f*ckhuge mallet]

It must suck to be unable to formulate an intelligent response to something. Also, you're pretending that you're a cat. My 2 year old niece does that.

Silly Jesus: It must suck to be unable to formulate an intelligent response to something.

Unintelligent arguments don't require intelligent responses.

Personally I think the kitty is too good for you. Perhaps the itsy-bitsy-spider is more your level?

rewind2846: violentsalvation: I have a hard time believing that voter ID laws would actually disenfranchise anyone who would care to take the time to vote. But solving a problem that doesn't really exist is not how I define small government.

I just voted on Tuesday and I had to be registered before hand and at the poll I had to show the registration card or an ID, or a couple utility bills or bank statements, election mail, vehicle registration / insurance, etc that have my name and address.

Let's say you were a homeless person.

You have no registration card, because you have no address to register..
You have no "ID" from anywhere, because you don't belong to anywhere.
You have no utility bills because you have no utilities.
You have no bank statements because you have neither a bank account nor any money to put in one.
You have no "election mail" because there's no where to send it.
You have no vehicle, hence no vehicle registration or insurance.
You have no driver's license (see reason above).
Even the birth certificate you carried around with you has long since been lost to other homeless thieves or destroyed by the elements.

All you know is your name, and the year you were born. Yet you are still a citizen of the united states.

Under your strictures, how do you vote, as you have every right to?

1. You don't have the inherent right to vote for president.
2. How many homeless people concern themselves with voting? Talk about a straw man.
3. If they are that "out of the loop", how informed of a decision are they going to be able to make?

TsukasaK: Silly Jesus: It must suck to be unable to formulate an intelligent response to something.

Unintelligent arguments don't require intelligent responses.

Personally I think the kitty is too good for you. Perhaps the itsy-bitsy-spider is more your level?

Your opinion means a great deal to me.

geek_mars: Well, I almost made it all the way through this thread, but I just have to comment on Silly Jesus's idea of requiring an intelligence test to vote.

Everyone (read EVERYONE) should have the right to vote. Period. Even the knuckle dragging retards deserve representation. Representation for all citizens is one of the founding principles of our nation.

Let's say your test idea was put in place, and I fail the test to vote. Am I now exempt from taxes? Wouldn't that go along with the whole "no taxation without representation" concept that led to the birth of the U.S. in the first place?

When you say, "You should prove you're smart enough to vote," you're essentially saying, "prove you deserve to be counted among the elite or GTFO," and no one should have to hear that shiat.

Don't get me wrong. I wish all voters were smarter (even the ones who are already geniuses) but that's not the same thing as trying to deny the vote to fellow citizens because they're not.

/as for voter ID, I'll take the dye.

You do know that originally the vote was very restricted, don't you? My idea is closer to the "founding principles" than yours is.

As for the taxes argument, sure, they can stop paying them. They likely are in the 50% that doesn't pay them already anyway, so the impact would be tiny.

Silly Jesus:
I've had some great civil conversations with quite a few people here. If some wish to stand on the sidelines and not engage in the discussion and scream "troll" and "noob" into the dialogue, then so be it. Conversations with those folks probably wouldn't be too enlightening anyway.

to be fair, you are presenting an position that has been discussed time and time again over this country's existence. He've had intelligence tests, they were used to oppress, not to make better laws.

there is a name for someone who does not learn for history -- in today's vernacular the term is "noob".

again: your position is not original; it is not enlightening; it has been employed in various ways throughout our history.

Just type "should we require iq tests to vote" into the googles -- it's not like the question isn't posited each week.

but, i believe your arguments are, at least, honest -- that is at least redeeming to me, but "tired" may be what other's immediately think.

keithgabryelski: Silly Jesus:
I've had some great civil conversations with quite a few people here. If some wish to stand on the sidelines and not engage in the discussion and scream "troll" and "noob" into the dialogue, then so be it. Conversations with those folks probably wouldn't be too enlightening anyway.

to be fair, you are presenting an position that has been discussed time and time again over this country's existence. He've had intelligence tests, they were used to oppress, not to make better laws.

there is a name for someone who does not learn for history -- in today's vernacular the term is "noob".

again: your position is not original; it is not enlightening; it has been employed in various ways throughout our history.

Just type "should we require iq tests to vote" into the googles -- it's not like the question isn't posited each week.

but, i believe your arguments are, at least, honest -- that is at least redeeming to me, but "tired" may be what other's immediately think.

Fair enough.

cptjeff: nvmac: As a true non-partisan, I don't see the giant conspiracy from either side. Having said this, voting and never being asked to show your identification has always seemed odd to me. In my county, you have to sign a book, but my signature from the last election is in the book right next to where I'm supposed to sign, so that would be easy to mimic on the spot.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone else to corrupt my fence-sitting, middle-of-the-road, FARK Independent™ non-committal votes.

That's because you have one. Lots of seniors don't drive, and have no valid government ID. So do lots of poor black people. That ID costs money, something a lot of those demographics don't have much of.

I'm sorry, but it's a problem. These voter ID laws are pretty much explicitly designed to depress turnout among those demographics, which tend to vote democratic.

Show me a proven case of somebody actually committing this sort of voter fraud, and then we can weigh whether or not that's worth disenfranchising millions of voters.

Show me how anybody is disenfranchised by having to to show a photo ID.

How are the poor affected? They need an ID to get social welfare benefits.. Register for school-ID, cash a check,-ID, pick up a prescription-ID, Drive a car -ID, By beer or cigarettes-ID.

The poor/elderly do all these things yet your argument is that they somehow cannot present an ID for voting.

Are you arguing the requirement for an ID when buying a firearm prevents the poor from exercising their constutional right to own a firearm and therefore that requirement should be lifted?

I have no problem with a voter ID requirement. My brother still got a new voter registration card for the guy who used to live at hsi apartment He could easly vote twice without the ID requirement.

Also there were a lot of voter registartion drives going on during the immigration protests in 2006. I am sure more than few illegals, Yes I said illegals not undocumented, were registered.


Registering to vote should not be like registering your kid for free school lunches where virtually no effort is made to verify that your kids are indeed eligible. To be able to voter you should have to be able to prove that you are who yo say you are and are entitled to vote in that state/precinct (Proof of residency) .

hasty ambush: Are you arguing the requirement for an ID when buying a firearm prevents the poor from exercising their constutional right to own a firearm and therefore that requirement should be lifted?

Interesting point.

/seriously

Oddly enough "progressives" have no problem attempting to disenfranchised one group of voters-the military.

In 2000 they deliberately targeted military absentee ballots for disqualification (The Herron Memo)

In 2008 in Virigina and elswhere VA Election Board under Gov. Tim Kaine blocked military votes

"On Friday, U.S. District Judge Richard Williams ruled that Virginia violated the voting rights of service members deployed overseas because state election officials failed to send them absentee ballots for the 2008 presidential election in time for them to be returned by election day."

"The Virginia State Board of Elections, under Chairwoman Jean Cunningham argued that they actually have no legal obligation to send out military absentee ballots in a timely fashion. Jean Cunningham was appointed by VA Governor and Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kaine. "

In 2010 Illinois "forgot" to mail or was late mailing absentee ballots to military personnel. the peopel in charge fo mailing them-Democrats.

But the left confines its outrage to the "voting rights" of convicted felons and illegal immigrants.

rewind2846: violentsalvation: I have a hard time believing that voter ID laws would actually disenfranchise anyone who would care to take the time to vote. But solving a problem that doesn't really exist is not how I define small government.

I just voted on Tuesday and I had to be registered before hand and at the poll I had to show the registration card or an ID, or a couple utility bills or bank statements, election mail, vehicle registration / insurance, etc that have my name and address.

Let's say you were a homeless person.

You have no registration card, because you have no address to register..
You have no "ID" from anywhere, because you don't belong to anywhere.
You have no utility bills because you have no utilities.
You have no bank statements because you have neither a bank account nor any money to put in one.
You have no "election mail" because there's no where to send it.
You have no vehicle, hence no vehicle registration or insurance.
You have no driver's license (see reason above).
Even the birth certificate you carried around with you has long since been lost to other homeless thieves or destroyed by the elements.

All you know is your name, and the year you were born. Yet you are still a citizen of the united states.

Under your strictures, how do you vote, as you have every right to?

There are conditions.. Just like free speech does not mean you get to yell fire in a movie theater . He has a right ot own a gun but he cannot buy one without ID. Proof of residency s not a bad voting requirement. unless your comfortable with the thought of a group bussing in a lot of homeless people from outside your state, town, district, precinct ,etc prior to an election to get more votes in their favor.

We have enough of problem with New Yorkers / Florida snowbirds votng twice.

46,000 registerted to vote in NYC and Florida

LibertyHiller: Tanishh: SpikeStrip: thought voter id's were free. and don't they allow for all sorts of proof of id?

No. I live in PA. We have a new photo ID law coming into play for the general election. As a student going to school in PA who is nonmilitary, the following IDs may be used: PA driver's license, passport, school ID with photo/name/expiration date, or a free PennDOT ID*.

I'm from NJ (~20 min from my school) so first option is out. Fortunately I have a passport, though I didn't until last November for a reason totally unrelated to voting. I go to one of the largest private schools in the nation and our IDs have no expiration date on them at all, so they are currently not valid. And the kicker is that the "free PennDOT photo ID" they offer is only given if you get rid of your out of state driver's license. Yeah, fark no.

I think I see your problem. You're going to school in Pennsylvania but you're holding onto your driver's license from New Jersey. That indicates that you're intending to return to New Jersey after your studies and are not a bona fide resident of Pennsylvania. If you truly wanted to demonstrate that you are a permanent resident of Pennsylvania, you'd turn in your DL from New Jersey and get a Pennsylvania license.

You're on thin ice when you claim to be a Pennsylvania resident for voting purposes, but a New Jersey resident for driving purposes. It generally doesn't work that way.

It doesn't matter if you plan to return home when done with college. You still get to vote.

keithgabryelski: Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: the ability for someone to commit the act as you describe at the scale required to make a difference are just out of the realm of possibility

You really want to assert no election has ever been decided by a few dozen votes?

The level of naivete in that assertion can only come about through willful self-deception.

It's rather disturbing.

People have been trying to come up with evidence that there is voting fraud -- they haven't.

i'm just saying put energy into stuff that matters, or go drink a beer if you can't find anything more important.

If the IRS were unable to examine or verify any of the items on a tax return, and as a result nobody was being prosecuted for tax fraud, would you still claim there was no tax fraud going on?

hasty ambush:

We have enough of problem with New Yorkers / Florida snowbirds votng twice.

46,000 registerted to vote in NYC and Florida

I would rather have a number of people, however small, registered to vote in two places and found than not being allowed to vote at all.

BTW, just because they are registered in two places doesn't mean they vote in two places.
The argument here is about VOTER fraud, not REGISTRATION fraud. If a person is somehow registered in all 50 states but only votes in one, what is the problem?

As has been said in this thread X number of times already, these laws are a tool to disenfranchise and reduce the total number of people who vote, which skews the averages in favor of the republicans. Nothing more than that.

X-boxershorts: You want to know how I know you pulled your entire argument out of your ass?

NJ has the highest goddam car insurance rates in the Nation.

And if he's under a family policy (as in he lives at home in NJ with his parents who have all their own cars under a family policy) it can still be substantially cheaper than having his own individual insurance as a young student living in PA. It also depends on the region, the same driver who lives in one part of NJ may have to pay a lot more if he lived in a different part of NJ. There is no way to say what someone may pay in insurance rates without taking the family policy, individual driving history, demographics and region into account. A very quick google got me within an average of about 250 dollars per year difference and I'll bet I could get it even lower in NJ if I looked.

That being said, it's conjecture which is why I said "Possibly" in my comment. I can't see why else someone wouldn't change their license over to their new legal state of residence unless they are trying to gain an advantage of some sort through some sort of fraud or deception. Especially if they are complaining about not being able to vote because of it. Or are you going to say that car insurance rates and out of state tuition rates are a poll tax too?

Cataholic: keithgabryelski: Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: the ability for someone to commit the act as you describe at the scale required to make a difference are just out of the realm of possibility

You really want to assert no election has ever been decided by a few dozen votes?

The level of naivete in that assertion can only come about through willful self-deception.

It's rather disturbing.

People have been trying to come up with evidence that there is voting fraud -- they haven't.

i'm just saying put energy into stuff that matters, or go drink a beer if you can't find anything more important.

If the IRS were unable to examine or verify any of the items on a tax return, and as a result nobody was being prosecuted for tax fraud, would you still claim there was no tax fraud going on?

we aren't talking about banking transactions here -- which is what you are trying to get at, i believe.

and I also didn't claim there was ANY fraud.

I just claimed there wasn't any fraud that was close to be significant and whatever fraud there is -- is not scalable to make it significant.

there is little similarity in taxes and tax fraud or bank transactions errors.

Radioactive Ass: X-boxershorts: You want to know how I know you pulled your entire argument out of your ass?

NJ has the highest goddam car insurance rates in the Nation.

And if he's under a family policy (as in he lives at home in NJ with his parents who have all their own cars under a family policy) it can still be substantially cheaper than having his own individual insurance as a young student living in PA. It also depends on the region, the same driver who lives in one part of NJ may have to pay a lot more if he lived in a different part of NJ. There is no way to say what someone may pay in insurance rates without taking the family policy, individual driving history, demographics and region into account. A very quick google got me within an average of about 250 dollars per year difference and I'll bet I could get it even lower in NJ if I looked.

That being said, it's conjecture which is why I said "Possibly" in my comment. I can't see why else someone wouldn't change their license over to their new legal state of residence unless they are trying to gain an advantage of some sort through some sort of fraud or deception. Especially if they are complaining about not being able to vote because of it. Or are you going to say that car insurance rates and out of state tuition rates are a poll tax too?

So my parent's were divorced, and since I'm not filing a change of address every freaking week (or 2-3x per week in the summer), there's been "That place I'm legally living" and "That place I'm sleeping tonight".

WIth that said, here's my changes of address:

Through High school: Switch between Mom's and Dad's. Also, Dad moved when I was in 7th(8th?) grade.

Freshman year:
Dorm room for 8 months.
Dad's for 4 months.

Sophmore Year:
Dorm room for 8 months (PS, these are all different dorm rooms)
Mom's for 1 week
Seattle for 3 months
Mom's for 1 week
Dad's for 4 weeks

Junior Year:
Dorm Room for 8 months
Mom's for 1 week (current, so from here on is guesswork)
Boston for 3.5 months.
NYC for 1 week
Mom's for 3 weeks

Senior Year:
Dorm room for 4 months

Now I graduate, and now I move out to whatever part of the country I'll be working in, where I will hopefully have the same address for a year at a time.

See how much of a pain it is to continuously file forms, and see why I try to use my parent's address as a permanent address unless I absolutely have to? Especially since Driver's Licences aren't free. And it's a non-trivial process to register a change of address.

/By the way, applying for a government job is a pain in the ass because you have to find people who knew you at all these places and you're not allowed to use family or duplicates.

Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: I just claimed there wasn't any fraud that was close to be significant...

A belief you hold with absolutely no evidence. Only a desire for it to be true.

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/

Mrbogey: You try and argue that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise minorities but all you do through deliberate naivete is prove how willing you are to encourage illegal voting by simply not understanding the issue.

There is no "try and argue" here.

There is either except the reality that the GOP have tried and succeeded at disenfranchising poor, minority and young voters through caging schemes and voter id laws and misinformation campaigns while making it easier for their base to vote or you continue to be willfully ignorant.

Marking you down as "willfully ignorant" if that's alright with you. You were already grey6ed.

quatchi: There is either decide to exaccept the reality that the GOP have tried and succeeded at disenfranchising poor, minority and young voters for decades through caging schemes and voter id laws and misinformation campaigns all while making it easier for their base to vote or you can decide to continue to be willfully ignorant.

Marking you down as "willfully ignorant" if that's alright with you. You were already grey6ed.

FTFM.

I have no problems with ID required to vote so long as government issued ID are free.