What do I find wrong with Confederate Monuments?

[RaleBulgarian]

It's very simple. If all voters have approved ID, we (election officials) will know who is voting. I've made no claim of fraud, large or small despite your insistence otherwise. I don't know how much fraud takes place now and neither do you. Having ID makes fraud extremely difficult and that's better for everyone, unless you have an objection to only legal voters participating in our elections.

I’m 100% in support of only legal voters participating in our elections. I’m also 100% for not interfering with anyone’s right to vote.

 

[SoCal]

I’m 100% in support of only legal voters participating in our elections. I’m also 100% for not interfering with anyone’s right to vote.

I agree. It's when someone shows up with an ID that says, Robert V. Smith and are turned away because they're on the voter roll as, Robert Victor Smith, it's an outrage and a clear attempt at voter suppression...

 

[JasperL]

I offered no myth. All I did was point out that the large majority of the indigenous peoples died from disease, not warfare or other punishments imposed upon them.

You offered no numbers, or evidence, just baseless speculation, but even to the extent it's true (and there is no doubt disease played a big role), it's largely irrelevant because 10s of thousands were maimed, slaughtered, committed mass suicide rather than exist in the oppressive environment, or were sold like the little girls into slavery. So, fine, not ALL the deaths were deliberate. Lots were.

 

[JasperL]

Glad to hear it. From the universal opposition to ID from the left since it was first proposed, it makes sense for one to conclude that they simply don't want it, under any conditions.

You're beating straw men. There was never an opposition, universal or otherwise, to "ID" when "it" [I assume some form of voter ID, which you've hackishly conflated into a single set of rules when in fact 'voter ID' rules vary dramatically from state to state] was first proposed decades ago. You're fabricating either ignorant or dishonest positions, then ascribing them "universally" to "the left." Don't you ever get tired of making crap arguments like that?

 

[veritas1]

You're beating straw men. There was never an opposition, universal or otherwise, to "ID" when "it" [I assume some form of voter ID, which you've hackishly conflated into a single set of rules when in fact 'voter ID' rules vary dramatically from state to state] was first proposed decades ago. You're fabricating either ignorant or dishonest positions, then ascribing them "universally" to "the left." Don't you ever get tired of making crap arguments like that?

The only opposition I've ever seen to voter ID is from Democrats and the reason for that is that the only people proposing it are Republicans. The Dems seem to have a vested interest in not having any ID laws, regardless of what they are or what they entail. They similarly oppose attempts to clean up voter rolls as automatically being efforts at suppression. I live in a very blue state and ID was always required to vote. Then it disappeared for no apparent reason.

 

[veritas1]

You offered no numbers, or evidence, just baseless speculation, but even to the extent it's true (and there is no doubt disease played a big role), it's largely irrelevant because 10s of thousands were maimed, slaughtered, committed mass suicide rather than exist in the oppressive environment, or were sold like the little girls into slavery. So, fine, not ALL the deaths were deliberate. Lots were.

I never said people weren't killed, only that the majority who died did so from diseases to which they had no immunity. They suffered serious pandemics of smallpox, influenza, whooping cough, bubonic plague and other diseases. That is what decimated the indigenous peoples encountered by Columbus and other early explorers.

 

[JasperL]

The only opposition I've ever seen to voter ID is from Democrats and the reason for that is that the only people proposing it are Republicans.

So you've never read any of the cases that struck down some version or another of GOP 'voter ID' laws. That's what I suspected, because if you had you'd know that the opposition isn't in general to "voter ID" which isn't actually a policy - it's a vague concept with about 100 ways to implement in practice. What Democrats have opposed are some of the specific actual "voter ID" plans AS ENACTED in recent years, nearly always in red states.

The Dems seem to have a vested interest in not having any ID laws, regardless of what they are or what they entail. They similarly oppose attempts to clean up voter rolls as automatically being efforts at suppression. I live in a very blue state and ID was always required to vote. Then it disappeared for no apparent reason.

That's just complete horse crap. Read a case, and get back to us when you understand the ACTUAL issues versus ones you pull from your rear end because you don't want to or cannot discuss those actual issues.

Just for example, Kris Kobach pushed an incredibly flawed 'matching' program that was wrong more often than it was right as a tool states could use to clean up their voting rolls. Liberals opposed that because the program was either deliberately flawed, or designed by a moron, and using crap tools to kick people off the voting rolls is stupid. See, that's an ACTUAL objection, as opposed to the horse crap you're making up.

BTW, which blue state (MD?), and can you document when the ID requirements changed?

 

[Wayne Jr]

I agree. It's when someone shows up with an ID that says, Robert V. Smith and are turned away because they're on the voter roll as, Robert Victor Smith, it's an outrage and a clear attempt at voter suppression...

State IDs don't allow initials for middle names.

 

[veritas1]

So you've never read any of the cases that struck down some version or another of GOP 'voter ID' laws. That's what I suspected, because if you had you'd know that the opposition isn't in general to "voter ID" which isn't actually a policy - it's a vague concept with about 100 ways to implement in practice. What Democrats have opposed are some of the specific actual "voter ID" plans AS ENACTED in recent years, nearly always in red states.



That's just complete horse crap. Read a case, and get back to us when you understand the ACTUAL issues versus ones you pull from your rear end because you don't want to or cannot discuss those actual issues.

Just for example, Kris Kobach pushed an incredibly flawed 'matching' program that was wrong more often than it was right as a tool states could use to clean up their voting rolls. Liberals opposed that because the program was either deliberately flawed, or designed by a moron, and using crap tools to kick people off the voting rolls is stupid. See, that's an ACTUAL objection, as opposed to the horse crap you're making up.

BTW, which blue state (MD?), and can you document when the ID requirements changed?

Yes, the Dems are great at objecting and not so great at proposing. Have they proposed any ID laws of their own? How about methods for cleaning voting rolls? Yes, I live in MD and have voted here for about 40 years. I do not know when the ID requirement was dropped but it's been some time. Prior to that, we showed ID although it was probably not photo ID at that time.

 

[JasperL]

Yes, the Dems are great at objecting and not so great at proposing. Have they proposed any ID laws of their own? How about methods for cleaning voting rolls? Yes, I live in MD and have voted here for about 40 years. I do not know when the ID requirement was dropped but it's been some time. Prior to that, we showed ID although it was probably not photo ID at that time.

Okee dokee. When you're fabricating crap arguments and dishonestly attributing them to "the left" you're moving goal posts. I'll quit here.

 

[veritas1]

Okee dokee. When you're fabricating crap arguments and dishonestly attributing them to "the left" you're moving goal posts. I'll quit here.

You didn't answer my question. When have Democrats pro-actively pursued either voter ID or cleaning up voting rolls?