YOU'RE FIRED!

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .

Image

“Frankly, we did win this election.” * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"


"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia “wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing”.

Trump’s dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy – particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been “at the store, shopping for airhorns.” We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasn’t yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is “far from over” and promising an intense legal fight.

“The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor,” the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

“Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots,” he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source


So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #81

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:46 am

If it tends to disenfranchise legal voters, it's wrong and generally illegal, regardless of other purposes.
Not necessarily it doesn't because all you have to do is get an ID. I can see if the people had no ability to get an ID, but I question how much of that is the case.

Also, I used your own source to show that voter ID does not always correlate with lower voter turnout. And it didn't just focus on one study but multiple studies. So you're repeating a falsehood.

I also question these studies if they didn't ask the voters why they didn't vote. Poorer people may not vote because of lower education about voting. Not having ID could just be a coincidental factor. So poor people tend to lack education AND not have IDs. Did the study look at both factors to rule out one over the other?

It also seems real political to say that the ONLY reason for voter ID is to suppress voter turnout. When Democrats say that, it makes it sound as though they don't care about security because they ignore the security aspect or function of voter ID.
Last edited by AgnosticBoy on Sat Jan 30, 2021 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #82

Post by AgnosticBoy »

If Democrats are willing to fight for Universal healthcare, why aren't they also willing to fight for Universal ID, as in programs that offer financial assistance to those who can't afford to get an ID? They were giving out free cellphones under president OBama, but no ID?!

Why is the solution of some Democrats involve undercutting voter security by not having voter ID? One reason someone would do that is if they don't want security.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #83

Post by The Barbarian »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 12:15 pm If Democrats are willing to fight for Universal healthcare,
Not all of them are. It's controversial there. Even a single-payer system seems out of reach right now.
why aren't they also willing to fight for Universal ID, as in programs that offer financial assistance to those who can't afford to get an ID?
That was what Stacey Abrams was advocating in Georgia.
They were giving out free cellphones under president OBama,
Not quite what you were told...

Those types of questions prompted the Federal Communication Commission to implement the Lifeline benefit program for income-eligible consumers in 1984.
...
The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/phone-home/

Yep. Ronald Reagan. And Bill Clinton Part of Reagan's "social safety net."
Why is the solution of some Democrats involve undercutting voter security by not having voter ID?
As you have seen, the exist security works better. It actually catches illegal voters. ID generally won't. Mail-in ballots, which were commonly used by older republican voters, would not be more secure if we had voter ID cards. On the other hand, republicans have declined to do anything about that.

One reason someone would do that is if they don't want security.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #84

Post by The Barbarian »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:53 am
The Barbarian wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:46 am If it tends to disenfranchise legal voters, it's wrong and generally illegal, regardless of other purposes.
Not necessarily it doesn't because all you have to do is get an ID. I can see if the people had no ability to get an ID, but I question how much of that is the case.
One dodge republicans use is "you get the card for free; just show us your birth certificate. Don't have one? Easy just run down to the county seat and pay $X to get one."
Also, I used your own source to show that voter ID does not always correlate with lower voter turnout.
Doesn't have to. Some states allow all sorts of documents to be sufficient, such as a driver's license, a utility bill, student ID, and so on. There, it has little effect. That's why republicans, when they discovered this, took action:

Typically, states with voter ID requirements have allowed things like a utility bill — even student IDs in some cases — to proof a voter’s identity. But Republican lawmakers in “purple” states want to put a stop to it.

Making It Harder to Prove Who You Are: Arizona’s Republican state Rep. Kelly Townsend is apparently preparing to introduce legislation that would ban the use of utility bills, vehicle registrations, and even bank statements as ways for voters to prove their identity before casting a ballot. Plus, it was mentioned not once, but twice that young voters, who overwhelmingly backed Democratic candidates in 2018, would not be allowed to use their student ID cards.

Although the bill would explicitly outlaw the use of student ID cards, they’re already not accepted by election officials because Arizona schools don’t include students’ addresses. Even if a university were to add students’ addresses to their ID cards, the bill is just one of the many tactics Republican state lawmakers are using to suppress turnout for college students during the 2020 election.

https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/12/30/voter ... ll-purges/

Apples and oranges. Where a state allows a number of ways for voters to prove who they are, voter suppression fails. This is why republicans are moving to outlaw forms of ID that democratic voters are more likely to use.
It also seems real political to say that the ONLY reason for voter ID is to suppress voter turnout.
See above. Every state has some ID requirements. The problem for republicans is that many of them don't effectively suppress voting by people likely to vote democrat.

Last spring, for example, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai told a gathering of Republicans that their voter identification law would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/republica ... tic-voters

When republicans say that, it makes it sound as though they don't care about security because they ignore the security aspect or function of voter ID.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #85

Post by AgnosticBoy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #85]

Give a straight answer.

Would requiring ID be a way to catch someone who tries to vote for someone else?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #86

Post by The Barbarian »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 5:06 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #85]

Give a straight answer.
I just showed you a straight answer. Sometimes, the facts aren't what we'd like them to be. But they are facts.
Would requiring ID be a way to catch someone who tries to vote for someone else?
As I showed you, ID checks caught a number of fraudulent voters. All states require voters to identify themselves. From the republican POV, it doesn't matter, because most state ID laws allow forms of ID that almost everyone has. And because such ID laws don't suppress voting by citizens likely to vote democrat, they don't do what republicans want them to do. From their perspective, an ID law that doesn't suppress democrat votes defeats the whole purpose of having ID laws.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #87

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 10:18 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 5:06 pmWould requiring ID be a way to catch someone who tries to vote for someone else?
As I showed you, ID checks caught a number of fraudulent voters.
Good, a straight answer.

The Barbarian wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 10:18 am All states require voters to identify themselves.

I didn't ask about this.
The Barbarian wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 10:18 am [From the republican POV, it doesn't matter, because most state ID laws allow forms of ID that almost everyone has. And because such ID laws don't suppress voting by citizens likely to vote democrat, they don't do what republicans want them to do. From their perspective, an ID law that doesn't suppress democrat votes defeats the whole purpose of having ID laws.
I didn't ask about the Republican pov. I just wanted to make sure you understood that requiring ID can serve as a security function. That point might get missed if you keep adding in other issues that go beyond the security aspect.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #88

Post by historia »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pm
historia wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 1:54 pm
My overarching point is that the approach you are advocating -- where we have to wait for "all the facts to come in" before drawing any conclusions -- is impractical. And your criticism of those who don't follow that approach as "jumping the gun" or somehow being "partisan" is completely misguided.
Ask yourself, what is "impractical" about waiting for a long standing agreed upon deadline for challenging the election?
Waiting for "all the facts to come in" before drawing any conclusion is impractical as a general epistemology. That's not the standard we use in science, history, or our law courts. So insisting on it here is just special pleading.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pm
Why draw conclusions before that deadline?
Because that's simply how beliefs work. Once we have sufficient reason to draw a conclusion, we cannot help but do so. The conclusion just follows necessarily in our minds.

Once the facts regarding Trump's legal challenges overwhelmingly pointed to one outcome -- which was obvious just a couple of weeks after the election -- there remained no compelling reason to refrain from reaching that conclusion.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pm
Because you made up your mind that he would've lost or had no evidence??? That's all I can see a lot of Democrats doing since some were drawing conclusions even before Trump's team had any court cases.

In contrast, as a non-partisan, I waited until the deadline. I not only did so because it was practical (and agreed upon) legal deadline, but I also thought it was possible for Trump's team to find evidence by looking into claims of voter fraud and irregularities. To draw conclusions before that process, and to not even consider that we can at least look into the matter, is not only partisan but also dismissive.
I think this is an extremely poor way to frame the issue.

First of all, for many decade now, news organizations and political leaders in both parties have acknowledged the winner of the presidential election once the states announce their results. So there is nothing "partisan" about doing that this time around.

Second, you're setting out a false dichotomy here between reaching a conclusion before any lawsuits have been filed on the one hand and waiting until the electoral college vote on the other. It was also possible to conclude somewhere in the middle that Trump was not mounting a serious legal challenge to the election and so would almost certainly not overturn the results -- which even some conservative commentators recognized, again making this not a "partisan" conclusion.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pm
I also thought it was possible for Trump's team to find evidence by looking into claims of voter fraud and irregularities.
The mere fact that an alternate outcome, or explanation, is possible is the weakest reason to refrain from reaching a conclusion.

We would never use that as justification to refrain from reaching a conclusion in science or history, as there is almost always a possible alternative explanation for everything. If that was the standard for not reaching a verdict in a court of law, no criminal would ever be convicted!

Again, insisting on that standard in this particular case amounts to special pleading.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pm
When people argue their case as if it's absolute truth then they shouldn't expect me to believe that their conclusion is "tentative". Let me also say that tentative conclusions based on NON-scientific evidence should not be treated the same as scientific conclusions.
It's a good thing no one in this thread is doing that, then.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pm
Part of the problem is that you're mixing different issues together.
Simply asserting someone is wrong or mistaken without argument or explanation does not a debate make.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pm
historia wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 1:54 pm
I also don't think we should refrain from calling our elections "fair" or "free" now just because they could be marginally better in both respects.
When you have stronger standards for buying alcohol than you do voting, then I can never call such a system "fair". Forget the "free" part as well because you have to be a millionaire and lawyered up (in effect) to be able to run for president.
Again, it seems you are using unusual definitions for key terms.

Perhaps the Civics Academy website, developed by the Nelson Mandela Foundation and the Hanns Seidel Foundation, can be useful here. It notes:
Civics Academy wrote:
An election is considered ‘free’ when you can decide whether or not to vote and vote freely for the candidate or party of your choice without fear or intimidation. A ‘free’ election is also one where you are confident that who you vote for remains your secret.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #89

Post by AgnosticBoy »

historia wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:36 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pm
historia wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 1:54 pm My overarching point is that the approach you are advocating -- where we have to wait for "all the facts to come in" before drawing any conclusions -- is impractical. And your criticism of those who don't follow that approach as "jumping the gun" or somehow being "partisan" is completely misguided.
Ask yourself, what is "impractical" about waiting for a long standing agreed upon deadline for challenging the election?
Waiting for "all the facts to come in" before drawing any conclusion is impractical as a general epistemology. That's not the standard we use in science, history, or our law courts. So insisting on it here is just special pleading.
You're building a strawman. I did state that I wanted to "wait for all facts to come in" but I meant that within the context of an investigation and the completion of that. I clearly brought up the investigation and the legal deadline for it in that same area where I talked about "all facts coming in".
historia wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:36 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pmWhy draw conclusions before that deadline?
Because that's simply how beliefs work. Once we have sufficient reason to draw a conclusion, we cannot help but do so. The conclusion just follows necessarily in our minds.
I know that's how belief works, but in a debate or any other intellectual context, I like to deal with knowledge, facts, verifiable evidence, etc. Until that is reached or presented, I remain an agnostic. Belief tends to not only lack good evidence, but it is often influenced by bias, political or otherwise.
historia wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:36 amOnce the facts regarding Trump's legal challenges overwhelmingly pointed to one outcome -- which was obvious just a couple of weeks after the election -- there remained no compelling reason to refrain from reaching that conclusion.
Obvious to who? No compelling reason according to who? The judges? You brought up a court case that did not even involve showing that Trump's point about poll observers was wrong. Trump's point on that was correct, even if he lost the case, and he lost the case because the law wasn't on the side of allowing poll watchers to be able to see much. I question how many court cases were dismissed for similar reasons or just for simply lacking 'standing'.

I've offered logic and evidence that shows that we aren't in a position to know if cheating occurs and its frequency. I defended that point by pointing to the lack of security and/or oversight. However, unlike Trump I'm not using that to say that there is cheating but rather that we should investigate it, and one way to do that is to have RECOUNTs with better oversight. And unlike you, I'm not just going to say there is no cheating just because there's no evidence of it. I'd expect it to be hard to catch much evidence if there is a lack of oversight. When there are elections or even RECOUNTS with adequate oversight, then I can say with some reasonable confidence that our elections are fair.
historia wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:36 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pmBecause you made up your mind that he would've lost or had no evidence??? That's all I can see a lot of Democrats doing since some were drawing conclusions even before Trump's team had any court cases.

In contrast, as a non-partisan, I waited until the deadline. I not only did so because it was practical (and agreed upon) legal deadline, but I also thought it was possible for Trump's team to find evidence by looking into claims of voter fraud and irregularities. To draw conclusions before that process, and to not even consider that we can at least look into the matter, is not only partisan but also dismissive.
I think this is an extremely poor way to frame the issue.

First of all, for many decade now, news organizations and political leaders in both parties have acknowledged the winner of the presidential election once the states announce their results. So there is nothing "partisan" about doing that this time around.
They have but when there's a dispute, I don't remember them just brushing it off as if it's nothing. I can understand accepting state results that are not disputed, but that shouldn't be done when there's a dispute or even an investigation.
historia wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:36 am Second, you're setting out a false dichotomy here between reaching a conclusion before any lawsuits have been filed on the one hand and waiting until the electoral college vote on the other. It was also possible to conclude somewhere in the middle that Trump was not mounting a serious legal challenge to the election and so would almost certainly not overturn the results -- which even some conservative commentators recognized, again making this not a "partisan" conclusion.
That would depend on when Democrats were making up their mind. Some made up their minds even before any court cases. I only know that you made up your mind after court cases because you stated that. In my case, my arguments were not based just on Trump's arguments and that's why I say there's some partisanship involved here. You want to make this just about Trump, which I know a lot of Democrats love to hate him, but in reality, my arguments are valid irrespective of Trump.

Perhaps if it were a Democrat challenging the election, or if a Democrat lost, or even if Trump wasn't in the picture, then you can't fault me for considering that lots of Democrats would be taking my stance. Hypocrisy in politics is not unprecedented.
historia wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:36 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pm I also thought it was possible for Trump's team to find evidence by looking into claims of voter fraud and irregularities.
The mere fact that an alternate outcome, or explanation, is possible is the weakest reason to refrain from reaching a conclusion.

We would never use that as justification to refrain from reaching a conclusion in science or history, as there is almost always a possible alternative explanation for everything. If that was the standard for not reaching a verdict in a court of law, no criminal would ever be convicted!

Again, insisting on that standard in this particular case amounts to special pleading.
Science offers tentative conclusions based on logic and scientific evidence. At best, all you've offered is historical evidence and some logic, logic that is flawed in some cases. You've argued as if your scenarios are the only possible ones. You've drawn conclusions on an investigation before it was over. I mean I can see someone having some justification to conclude that there was little to no fraud discovered based on reasons that Trump offered before the investigation was over or even started. That just amounts to saying that Trump has not offered any evidence at this point of time. But you're wanting to draw conclusions that would cover all points of time, as if the matter was completely settled, even before RECOUNTS were done. Fast forward to after the recounts, we now know that uncounted votes were discovered and that this would not have been discovered had there been no recount. If I were a scientist on this matter, I would be requesting empirical evidence in the form of RECOUNTS as opposed to just offering history or logic based on theoretical scenarios.
historia wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:36 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pm When people argue their case as if it's absolute truth then they shouldn't expect me to believe that their conclusion is "tentative". Let me also say that tentative conclusions based on NON-scientific evidence should not be treated the same as scientific conclusions.
It's a good thing no one in this thread is doing that, then.
Well you have offered a lot of theoretical explanations as to why there wouldn't be cheating. When I suggested a more empirical route, such as RECOUNTS, which would involve verifying your claims since it involves actually looking for cheating, rather than just THEORIZING about cheating based on past cases, you seem to be against that. On a related point, you were drawing conclusions that Trump's investigation would find nothing BEFORe the investigation was over.
historia wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:36 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pm Part of the problem is that you're mixing different issues together.
Simply asserting someone is wrong or mistaken without argument or explanation does not a debate make.
I was making points about two different standards. One point was made to address Tcg's unqualified claim that the election was fair which I took to mean perfect or with no fraud nor potential for it. The second point was made to address your scaled down standard of a "reasonable" election.

Here are statements where you distinguished between a perfect election and a reasonable one:
"I see. I can assure you that when people use the term "fair" they almost certainly don't mean perfect, as you have defined it here. To that end, it seems you have been attacking a straw man argument here." - Historia post #18

"Good, then we should be able to draw reasonable conclusions about this election despite the fact that we can never be completely certain of all that took place and no election, including this one, is perfect." - Historia post #18

Do you see that you made a distinction between a perfect election, which is what my first point addressed, and a reasonable one (my second point addresses that?)
historia wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:36 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:45 pm
historia wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:36 am I also don't think we should refrain from calling our elections "fair" or "free" now just because they could be marginally better in both respects.
When you have stronger standards for buying alcohol than you do voting, then I can never call such a system "fair". Forget the "free" part as well because you have to be a millionaire and lawyered up (in effect) to be able to run for president.
Again, it seems you are using unusual definitions for key terms.

Perhaps the Civics Academy website, developed by the Nelson Mandela Foundation and the Hanns Seidel Foundation, can be useful here. It notes:
Civics Academy wrote:
An election is considered ‘free’ when you can decide whether or not to vote and vote freely for the candidate or party of your choice without fear or intimidation. A ‘free’ election is also one where you are confident that who you vote for remains your secret.
That description is not "free" enough. When you have people running for president that are not representative (socioeconomic-wise) of the people at large, then I don't consider that free. I'll consider it free once I start seeing a middle class person without political or power connections run for president. Otherwise, all I've seen are either rich guys or those who have connections to the rich and powerful.
Last edited by AgnosticBoy on Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #90

Post by The Barbarian »

Bottom line?

Is there any evidence at all for widespread voter fraud (other than voter suppression)?

It's very clear that there isn't.

In the absence of any such evidence, and with abundant evidence that limiting voter ID is designed to keep certain groups from voting, there's no reason to let them change the rules on identification.

Post Reply