• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photo ID to vote?

Photo ID to vote?


  • Total voters
    92
No one ever asks me for ID when I buy liquor.

They don't even ask for ID when I buy a senior ticket at the theater any more.

Must be carelessness.

You are just an old man! No wonder no one ID's you anymore, lol.
 
:doh

The study is just fine, you mite want to read what I said. :lol:


I did. Evidently you find your unsubstantiated opinion in red font more credible that I do. Sorry!
 
I did. Evidently you find your unsubstantiated opinion in red font more credible that I do. Sorry!

Keep dodging and trying hard to ignore my point, I don't really mind. As I said before the SCOTUS already ruled, it's pretty much over at this point. We can argue till the cows come home and ID's for voting as a trend with the states will continue. Of course I like the fact that if they really are to restrictive, the courts have no problem (as was the case in Missouri I believe) they said no and blocked it as it was a burden and unconstitutional.

So I see it as a win for everyone even if you don't want to consider anything but your own partisan politicking. :cool:
 
The only reason I can imagine anyone adamantly opposing the ID requirement is their desire to allow those who are in the country illegally an opportunity to vote.
 
Since another Presidential election is coming up, how about this topic again?

Should people have to show their photo ID in order to vote in US presidential elections? Why or why not?
Absolutely they should! The push to allow otherwise is one of the most transparent efforts by crooked politicians to "cheat" I've ever seen in my life. IMO only politicians wishing to get illegal votes would oppose the common sense requirement to prove you have the right to vote; one of most important rights and responsibilities. You have to show your ID to do most anything else *important* in this country, the case should be the same regarding voting. I've always been required to show my ID when I vote, no having to do so is a guarantee for voter fraud.
 
The only reason I can imagine anyone adamantly opposing the ID requirement is their desire to allow those who are in the country illegally an opportunity to vote.

On average, less than 17.2 out of 190 million voters..... omg, it will devastate our voting system!!!! Totally worth disenfranchising 5 million eligible voters. :roll:
 
On average, less than 17.2 out of 190 million voters..... omg, it will devastate our voting system!!!! Totally worth disenfranchising 5 million eligible voters. :roll:
Whether it will "devastate" the system or just screw it a little so some politicians can get votes from "voters" that are not legal is not really the issue. A little fraud never hurt anyone. Right? Wrong. You present a poor and unpersuasive argument for allowing those without a state required ID to vote in our country.
 
Last edited:
On average, less than 17.2 out of 190 million voters..... omg, it will devastate our voting system!!!! Totally worth disenfranchising 5 million eligible voters. :roll:
If reasonable requirements equals disenfranchising then perhaps we should be happy they are not voting.
 
If reasonable requirements equals disenfranchising then perhaps we should be happy they are not voting.

Why would any American be happy that large numbers of their fellow citizens are disenfranchised from voting?
 
Why would any American be happy that large numbers of their fellow citizens are disenfranchised from voting?
They are not being disenfranchised. You are lying. If they are unwilling to meet reasonable requirements to prove they are eligible to vote then they should not vote.
 
They are not being disenfranchised. You are lying. If they are unwilling to meet reasonable requirements to prove they are eligible to vote then they should not vote.

I am using YOUR own language

If reasonable requirements equals disenfranchising then perhaps we should be happy they are not voting.

So why are you happy about this?
 
Why would any American be happy that large numbers of their fellow citizens are disenfranchised from voting?
Why would any American be happy that large numbers of ineligible non citizens are allowed to vote when they have no right to do so?

Also, please share how requiring voters to show ID, proving they are whom they say they are and have the right to vote, disfranchises "voters". Ahead of time you can label me as quite happy that those being "disenfranchised" are those who have no right to be participating in the voting process in the first place. Requiring an ID from a citizen to vote only disenfranchises non citizens from voting, a necessary and long overdue part of election reform. Since the various ID requirements across the states enjoy bi partisan support, trying to pin this on one party of the other would be foolish.

While I have not seen your so called argument for the so called "disenfranchised" I think you had better get used to the idea that this kind of reform is coming down the turnpike. The "disenfranchised" argument does not on the surface hold much value or common sense. I suspect beneath the surface it has does not hold much more value. Or common sense outside of a debate forum.
 
Last edited:
Whether it will "devastate" the system or just screw it a little so some politicians can get votes from "voters" that are not legal is not really the issue. A little fraud never hurt anyone. Right? Wrong. You present a poor and unpersuasive argument for allowing those without a state required ID to vote in our country.

Tell me what other criminal fraud we do as good of job preventing as we currently do with voter fraud?
 
Why would any American be happy that large numbers of their fellow citizens are disenfranchised from voting?

To limit people that would not vote for conservatives. It could hardly be more clear. Just another reason to vote out the conservatives in the next two elections.
 
To limit people that would not vote for conservatives. It could hardly be more clear. Just another reason to vote out the conservatives in the next two elections.

That is ridicules to say the least. Most of my family are progressive/liberal including my wife. I imagine most people (conservatives and progressives) don't want to disfranchise anyone.

I mean the poll itself is pretty telling. The majority of independents, liberals, libertarians and conservatives have no problem with it. Only people who are just partisan hacks are stead fast against or for it. Those of us with no agenda just think it is a good idea with the proper limitations so it does not become a burden. Like the article I posted said of the 2008 election "those affected by ID laws (could not vote) were a fraction of a percent." Not 5,000,000 people as the report that "guessed" at the number reported in 2006.

So here you have a study vs the actual election and the election proved that states with ID laws had no problems at all. It also shows without a doubt the effects on voter turnout were "negligible" at best.
 
Last edited:
Why would any American be happy that large numbers of ineligible non citizens are allowed to vote when they have no right to do so?

What evidence can you provide that makes you think

1- the situation exists in the first place
2- any American is happy about such a problem
 
What evidence can you provide that makes you think

1- the situation exists in the first place
2- any American is happy about such a problem
When you demonstrate that you actually read and understood my first post to you and reply to it, I'll be glad to reply to questions and comments that come up organically from the exchange. I'm not going to be in the 30 posts a day club with you, time is money and you won't be wasting mine with that approach.
 
Tell me what other criminal fraud we do as good of job preventing as we currently do with voter fraud?
The a little fraud never hurt anyone slant was yours not mine. Same thing for the "devastate" argument nobody made. If I thought your argument was poor and unpersuasive before.......................
 
When you demonstrate that you actually read and understood my first post to you and reply to it, I'll be glad to reply to questions and comments that come up organically from the exchange. I'm not going to be in the 30 posts a day club with you, time is money and you won't be wasting mine with that approach.

It looks like that is your way of saying the situation does not exist in the first place thus no American needs to worry about it.
 
It looks like that is your way of saying the situation does not exist in the first place thus no American needs to worry about it.
If you refuse to engage my actual post I don't know what to say. Except oh well. Good bye.

EDIT: OR you could answer the original question I asked you.

Also, please share how requiring voters to show ID, proving they are whom they say they are and have the right to vote, disfranchises "voters". Ahead of time you can label me as quite happy that those being "disenfranchised" are those who have no right to be participating in the voting process in the first place. Requiring an ID from a citizen to vote only disenfranchises non citizens from voting, a necessary and long overdue part of election reform. Since the various ID requirements across the states enjoy bi partisan support, trying to pin this on one party of the other would be foolish.

How you got that is my way of saying the situation does not exist in the first place so America does not need to worry about, says something about your so called argument. Does it not?
 
Last edited:
If you refuse to engage my actual post I don't know what to say. Except oh well. Good bye.

EDIT: OR you could answer the original question I asked you.

Also, please share how requiring voters to show ID, proving they are whom they say they are and have the right to vote, disfranchises "voters". Ahead of time you can label me as quite happy that those being "disenfranchised" are those who have no right to be participating in the voting process in the first place. Requiring an ID from a citizen to vote only disenfranchises non citizens from voting, a necessary and long overdue part of election reform. Since the various ID requirements across the states enjoy bi partisan support, trying to pin this on one party of the other would be foolish.

How you got that is my way of saying the situation does not exist in the first place so America does not need to worry about, says something about your so called argument. Does it not?

I most certainly did speak to your original post #638. The very first lines of your post 638 were as follows

Why would any American be happy that large numbers of ineligible non citizens are allowed to vote when they have no right to do so?


I spoke right to that in asking you the following


What evidence can you provide that makes you think

1- the situation exists in the first place
2- any American is happy about such a problem


That is 100% speaking directly to the very first thought you made in your post. I engaged your post right from the first sentence. And you have yet to reply to that, instead engaging in smoke and mirrors and attempting to ask me questions why you yourself refuse to even defend what you wrote in your first sentence.

Perhaps you are familiar with the expression FIRST THINGS FIRST?
 
Last edited:
I most certainly did speak to your original post #638. The very first lines of your post 638 were as follows




I spoke right to that in asking you the following


What evidence can you provide that makes you think

1- the situation exists in the first place
2- any American is happy about such a problem


That is 100% speaking directly to the very first thought you made in your post. I engaged your post right from the first sentence. And you have yet to reply to that, instead engaging in smoke and mirrors and attempting to ask me questions why you yourself refuse to even defend what you wrote in your first sentence.

Perhaps you are familiar with the expression FIRST THINGS FIRST?
Now you really are choosing to be obtuse IMO. Even ignoring that you have tried to place me both as saying there is a problem and saying there is not a problem, added to the fact you won't answer my twice repeated question, I can see where this is going. Goodbye.
 
Now you really are choosing to be obtuse IMO. Even ignoring that you have tried to place me both as saying there is a problem and saying there is not a problem, added to the fact you won't answer my twice repeated question, I can see where this is going. Goodbye.

first things first

I most certainly did speak to your original post #638. The very first lines of your post 638 were as follows

Why would any American be happy that large numbers of ineligible non citizens are allowed to vote when they have no right to do so?

I spoke right to that in asking you the following


What evidence can you provide that makes you think

1- the situation exists in the first place
2- any American is happy about such a problem


That is 100% speaking directly to the very first thought you made in your post. I engaged your post right from the first sentence. And you have yet to reply to that, instead engaging in smoke and mirrors and attempting to ask me questions why you yourself refuse to even defend what you wrote in your first sentence.

Perhaps you are familiar with the expression FIRST THINGS FIRST?
 
The a little fraud never hurt anyone slant was yours not mine. Same thing for the "devastate" argument nobody made. If I thought your argument was poor and unpersuasive before.......................

That's what I thought, you can't come with any other criminal fraud that we do as good a job of preventing than we currently do with voter fraud.

Thanks for playing.
 
That's what I thought, you can't come with any other criminal fraud that we do as good a job of preventing than we currently do with voter fraud.

Thanks for playing.
Just another example of why your so called argument is poor and unpersuasive. It consist of asking silly questions that have nothing to do with my comments. I'm sure you would love to sit back, pose a thousand questions you think are very thoughtful and then at the end of the day pat your own back for such a well stated "argument". Still a poor and unpersuasive argument and it is that simple. As I said, if you decide you are up to addressing what I did say rather than the way I turned your own words back on you (guess it was over your head despite how obvious it was) and explaining how voters will be disenfranchised, please do so. At this point you clearly can't do that, despite how much your trumpet your so called "thought".

Here let me rephrase. That's what I thought six hours ago when I asked. You can't detail how anyone will be disenfranchised by requiring an ID to vote. Good night.
 
Back
Top Bottom