Trust the process

 kcar wrote:

This is the crux of the matter. The republicans are not concerned about enabling legitimate voters to cast their ballots. They want to prevent valid votes by using the guise of preventing an insignificant number of incorrect votes. 

 kurtster wrote:

My point was that it doesn't matter if you are mentally incapacitated for any reason. It doesn't give you a pass for your support of cruelty to children and others who sometimes are in the country illegally and sometimes are not but are caught up in the weponization of ICE.

As for Biden, I previously set out my disagreement with him and my reasons for supporting him over the alternative. You are the one who refuses to consider trump's mental incapacity in spite of his own statements and you excuse his behaviour in any case.

When genocide denial rules...

 kurtster wrote:

Again: requiring a voter ID pretends to be a safeguard against an almost non-existent problem—voter fraud. 

Requiring voter ID, like requiring a literacy test, has been used to suppress voting among poorer and minority voters. 

If you don't understand that Trump and the Republicans are trying to suppress the vote and voting rights, then I really can't help you. 

 rgio wrote:
It was self-admitted. Aside from being obvious due to trolly posts.

 islander wrote:
Sadly... I think that's the trap he was (unsuccessfully) fighting to avoid.  Do I think he supports rape... I hope not... but in the process he missed the chance to claim a shred to objectivity and honesty.

 rgio wrote:

what's a little child rape as long as you don't have to admit you were wrong?

 R_P wrote:
I don't think so.  My sense is that he's not truly on board with a lot of Trump's BS, but it's too late to pull the rip cord.

 rgio wrote:
"Always has been"

 islander wrote: 
I did not pick the subject.  Isabeau did.

I just responded to her.  So deflect, obfuscate anything but engage.  Talk about being disingenuous ... your picture is in the dictionary with the definition.

You just keep embarrassing yourself, which in your case with all of your hubris, is impossible.

 islander wrote:
Voting is a state activity... Employment laws are national.  Should NYC have come out and said "show up...no documentation needed...no questions asked....cash paid for shoveling"?

He's an echo chamber troll at this point.

 kurtster wrote:
You are entertaining with your insufferable ineptness. 

 islander wrote:

 kurtster wrote:

a) Voting is a state activity and the states rights people insisted they get to set the parameters.
b) Voter registration is required in most states that I know of to get a ballot, and that step typically involves verification of your person/residency. Here in WA we mostly vote my mail, so there is no one to show an ID to, but in order to get my ballot, I have to register and show and ID. When my ballot is counted, the signature is validated against voter registration records, and verified that way. 

Voter fraud, which is what you are claiming to want to prevent, is very uncommon, it rarely impacts the outcome of a race, and it is mostly carried out by republicans.  Voter intimidation/suppression, which is what you aim to accomplish with these policies, typically helps republicans who aren't competitive without dishonest antics.

 islander wrote:
The subject is requiring verifiable ID for voting.

 Proclivities wrote:

Can also come from overlapping agencies. We used to support a lot of government stuff. Many of them required two forms of ID for their credentials/process, but different agencies had different policies on what qualified. Since we had to satisfy multiple agencies, we often had to get three forms of ID to satisfy the different groups.  Security clearances have a lot of this stuff too, we had people that previously had clearances and we had to prove that they had successfully exited the program, that was a load of paperwork. 

 Proclivities wrote:

I totally get that.  The point is that valid ID is required for almost everything, especially when interacting with government.  Why the glaring exception for voting, one of the most sacred acts and rights of citizenship ?  There is, imo, no justification anymore, not that there ever was any justification to begin with.

Do we or don't we want a secure voting process where only those eligible can vote ?  I do.

 black321 wrote: Really.

 kurtster wrote:
The ID forms are for order in those people to be able to get paid and show that they are eligible to work in the US. I'm not sure why they need two forms of ID - I guess a driver's license (or non-driver's state ID) or passport, but I don't know what else would be considered ID. I don't know what the small photos are for - maybe ID badges or to keep on file somewhere? I doubt these are directly his rules; I assume they are standard, NYC boilerplate protocol for hiring subcontractors or temps.

So let's go back to my post which set off this latest shit storm of name calling as opposed to an actual discussion since no one was interested in defending the hypocrisy of the party's new standard bearer.  Which was a reaction to an earlier post made by Isabeau.

kurtster wrote:  

and SFW's criticism of the post ...

ScottFromWyoming wrote:  
and then came all of the piling on and name calling.

So here is another version of the story from an international source that might be considered a more legitimate messenger since the NY Post is not considered to be a legitimate news source.

NYC mayor blasted for requiring multiple forms of ID to shovel snow… while his socialist group says you don't need it to vote

I seem to be the only one here who sees this as a legitimate gross inconsistency.  Perhaps it is because I have chemo brain and no one else here does ?  Is that what it takes to see things for what they are these days ?

So can anyone defend this hypocrisy in a way other than calling me names and without unwarranted personal attacks ?