3 ms·

> Your point was states do not give free IDs. No, it was not. Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment. > Stop moving goalposts. This is

> Your point was states do not give free IDs. No, it was not. Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment. > Stop moving goalposts. This is not moving goal posts. This is precisely the point. Voter ID laws will disenfranchise legal voters. That's it. That's the point. > No one made the claim the operation is frictionless, Good. Then you acknowledge that legal voters will be disenfranchised?

throwawaypath 19d ago
>No, it was not. Yes, it was. >Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment. Stop projecting about being confused. Everyone can see where you poorly attempted to support your objectively false points. >This is not moving goal posts. This is precisely the point. The point was you thought IDs for voting were not free. That is false. Stop moving the goalposts. >Good. Then you acknowledge that legal voters will be disenfranchised? Non sequitur. Proving you're eligibility to vote is not disenfranchisement.
- hackyhacky 19d ago
  Incredible sense of deja vu. I feel like I was just having this same conversation with another user who has the mind of a 13 year old child. > The point was you thought IDs for voting were not free I guess you choose to dwell on this particular issue because it makes you feel better, but actually we're talking about Republican rules to restrict voting. The availability of ID is an issue in that discussion. Any friction involved in getting an ID, including but not limited to paying for it, will limited voting in practice. > Proving you're eligibility to vote is not disenfranchisement. Disenfranchisement is causing eligible voters to not be able to vote. Which is what happens when add requirements that people don't fulfill. > Stop projecting about being confused. Everyone can see where you poorly attempted to support your objectively false points. Oh okay.
  - throwawayfifo 9d ago
    >I feel like I was just having this same conversation with another user who has the mind of a 13 year old child. You should stop debating with 13 year olds and losing. >I guess you choose to dwell on this particular issue because it makes you feel better I guess you choose to ignore this particular issue because it makes you feel like a loser >but actually we're talking about Republican rules to restrict voting. No we're not. >The availability of ID is an issue in that discussion. Glad that I cleared this up for you: every state has a free ID that is valid for voting. They are available to everyone. >Any friction involved in getting an ID, including but not limited to paying for it, will limited voting in practice. No it won't. >Disenfranchisement is causing eligible voters to not be able to vote. Which is what happens when add requirements that people don't fulfill. Glad that's not what's happening.

throwawaypath 19d ago

>No, it was not. Yes, it was. >Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment. Stop projecting about being confused. Everyone can see where you poorly attempted to support your objectively false points. >This is not moving goal posts. This is precisely the point. The point was you thought IDs for voting were not free. That is false. Stop moving the goalposts. >Good. Then you acknowledge that legal voters will be disenfranchised? Non sequitur. Proving you're eligibility to vote is not disenfranchisement.

hackyhacky 19d ago
Incredible sense of deja vu. I feel like I was just having this same conversation with another user who has the mind of a 13 year old child. > The point was you thought IDs for voting were not free I guess you choose to dwell on this particular issue because it makes you feel better, but actually we're talking about Republican rules to restrict voting. The availability of ID is an issue in that discussion. Any friction involved in getting an ID, including but not limited to paying for it, will limited voting in practice. > Proving you're eligibility to vote is not disenfranchisement. Disenfranchisement is causing eligible voters to not be able to vote. Which is what happens when add requirements that people don't fulfill. > Stop projecting about being confused. Everyone can see where you poorly attempted to support your objectively false points. Oh okay.
- throwawayfifo 9d ago
  >I feel like I was just having this same conversation with another user who has the mind of a 13 year old child. You should stop debating with 13 year olds and losing. >I guess you choose to dwell on this particular issue because it makes you feel better I guess you choose to ignore this particular issue because it makes you feel like a loser >but actually we're talking about Republican rules to restrict voting. No we're not. >The availability of ID is an issue in that discussion. Glad that I cleared this up for you: every state has a free ID that is valid for voting. They are available to everyone. >Any friction involved in getting an ID, including but not limited to paying for it, will limited voting in practice. No it won't. >Disenfranchisement is causing eligible voters to not be able to vote. Which is what happens when add requirements that people don't fulfill. Glad that's not what's happening.