3 ms·

> So again I do not find this law, that is actually on the books to be burdensome You might consider yourself privileged, then. Because there is extensive rese

• syshum 6y ago
  >>You might consider yourself privileged This is all subjective and not even really worthy of response as the entire concept of "privilege" is itself political. Every single person in the US would be considered privileged by people in nations with extreme poverty (living on less than $1 per day). The "costs" your study talks about has been mitigated in any number of ways I have outlined in at least 4 comments now. you seem to simply want to ignore these things to push your political cause, that is fine but I am not going to keep addressing the same point over and over again >NYT is fine NYT is political biased to an extreme degree to authoritarian and collectivist ideologies and has been for decades though the last few years or so it is gotten a lot more bias dropping even the appearance of subjectivity as the bias as spread from its isolated section of the opinion pages to the actual "news" reporting >So; what is the problem do you want to solve with voter ids? it is not a matter of solving a problem. The need for ID happens in all facets of life and fail to see a compelling reason that voting should be excluded from this. You need an ID for all manner of other government and private interactions, you need an ID to rent a car, open a bank account, stay in a hotel, collect government / social services, and a whole host of other things It is implausible to me that a large number functioning adult in modern society does not have any of the forms of ID allowed under Voter ID laws, and to the extent that a person does not have said ID the solution is to make obtaining an ID easier and less costly not to simply prohibit voter ID. You believe Voter ID laws disenfranchise poor people, I think poor people not having access to an ID is far far far more likely to disenfranchise them, therefore providing easier and greater access to ID's for the poor, disabled and other groups will in the end be a net positive for people not a negative
  • esarbe 6y ago
    > Every single person in the US would be considered privileged by people in nations with extreme poverty (living on less than $1 per day). I agree. I therefore propose we limit this discussion to the US (and possibly western/central Europe). > NYT is political biased to an extreme degree to authoritarian and collectivist ideologies That's interesting. What make you think that? According to Media Bias/Fact Check[0] the NYT is considered center-left, hardly the of domain authoritarian ideologues. What do you think? > you seem to simply want to ignore these things to push your political cause You makes me curious! What do you think my political cause to be? > The "costs" your study talks about has been mitigated in any number of ways I have outlined in at least 4 comments now. If there is no need for voter ids, every cost related to them is an unnecessary barrier for the populate to fulfill its obligation to vote an thus to participate in democracy. Yes; the costs are mitigated to a degree, but as you agree yourself; why bother at all, especially if they risk to weight especially on poorer people that might otherwise be discouraged to vote? > The need for ID happens in all facets of life and fail to see a compelling reason that voting should be excluded from this. That's a strange formulation. But anyway; I fail to see why an ID should be necessary for most facets of life, as you put it. Why should it? > You believe Voter ID laws disenfranchise poor people, I think poor people not having access to an ID is far far far more likely to disenfranchise them [...] So why erect further barriers rather than removing the need for an ID in all these cases? Especially a government-issued ID? Thanks for this interesting exchange so far! [0] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/