The Clean Air Act has stronger measures where the air has been more polluted

[CreekDog]

The Voting Rights Act has stronger measures where voting rights have been historically restricted.

Many federal laws authorize stronger remedies where the problem they are designed to fix is worse.

If you oppose the Voting Rights Act on this basis, you are opposing a host of environmental and other laws on the same basis.

[badtoworse]

1. Bad analogy. Air emissions regulations are dynamic in that they account for change.

What was best available control technology 20 years ago would likely not get an air permit today. Similarly, states can and sometimes do achieve attainment status with respect to ambient air quality, where they were in non-attainment. When that happens, the requirements change.

That has apparently not happened in the VRA case, hence the SCOTUS ruling.

[CreekDog]

2. you support restrictive voter ID requirements, no point in arguing with you

you'd enable the Republicans in their efforts to disenfranchise.

everyone should realize you post with forked tongue on the issue, so to speak.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1135525#1140016

badtoworse (1000+ posts)
Fri May-20-11 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
11. What is so restrictive about it? You need ID to vote?
You need ID to cash a check or get on an airplane. What's the big deal?

[badtoworse]

3. Voting is important and I haven't changed my opinion about requiring ID to do it.

In my opinion, it's not restrictive and I've been pretty consistent on that.

[CreekDog]

4. you've supported the worst voter ID laws presented, again and again

do you not understand that many black people weren't even provided birth certificates, ever?

do you not know that? then how can you suggest a requirement that requires something they weren't issued?

how? you supported every measure BEFORE any of these issues were fixed.

screw them is what you say because you got yours. you care about yourself.

[badtoworse]

5. Sorry, doesn't pass the sniff test. Living without any ID would be extremely inconvenient.

Forget voting for a minute, I don't see how anyone can exist in the US today without ID of any knd. Without ID, you can't get a drivers license, open a bank account, cash a check, get a passport, board an airplane, rent a car, get a job, apply for government benefits, e.g. social security and do lots of other things. Can you live without ID? Maybe, but how many people do you think actually do?

In order to vote, you should be able to demonstrate that you are who you say you are and that you're eligible to vote at that polling place. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me

[CreekDog]

6. what about black folks who weren't provided birth certificates or birth records at birth?

will you wait for those situations to all be fixed before any ID requirement.

i seriously think you don't believe that black people were denied birth certificates in any part of the country. i absolutely believe you are ignorant of that.

[badtoworse]

7. I'm aware of that, but other forms of ID are acceptable as well

I saw where perhaps 1% of the population might be affected. That should be addressed, perhaps with an affidavit. Given the number of people in the country who are not eligible to vote, I can't see how you protect the integrity of the process without any controls, IOW, ID.

Where just going to have to disagree about this one.

[CreekDog]

8. don't be dishonest. you supported laws which didn't offer exceptions, right here.

of course, you rarely take a liberal position on most things, so it kinda gets lost.

myself, i'm not as impressed with your what you probably see as your "maverick" status in the party.

luckily, you're in a state where it mostly doesn't hurt us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=931815

[CreekDog]

9. what about absentee/mail-in-ballots

i never have to show ID for that.

but i only get one ballot and my signature is my proof that i'm who i say i am.