freeman3 wrote:Don't we already have that--a US passport?

Are you saying everyone should have a US passport to vote? That doesn't sound like you.

freeman3 wrote:This is not some made up issue for Democrats; we would be quite fine with the way things were--Republicans do quite enough to alienate minority voters without voter ID laws. If a state put in a voter ID law and combined it with substantial efforts to identify those who would be disenfranchised, made serious efforts to make sure those folks would get ID, provided a transition period where other types of ID were allowed, helped to pay for costs for getting an ID, and publicized the new laws through public ads then I think Democrats would be more receptive. If Republicans were really concerned about fraud then that's how the laws would be done. But, no, they do almost nothing to make sure people can get IDs or help the poor pay for any costs associated for paying for the IDs.

Sorry, this makes me chuckle.

If it was true, the problem would have been solved already. Democrats and the ACLU have fought every effort in this area without proposing solutions.

Let's say you're right. Let's say the GOP is too stringent and not generous enough with ID subsidies. Let's leave aside the restrictions on alcohol, allergy medications, etc. which somehow the poor and minorities manage to obtain. Let's ignore all of that.

What proposals have Democrats put forward to ensure Voter ID laws can be implemented?

bbauska wrote:
This is what I mean by simple. If there is a better plan, I would love to hear it.

If we are not conflating this with guns, isn't indelible ink at voting a very simple way to cut personation fraud, as it would stop someone voting more than once. A lot simpler and cheaper than issuing photo ID to hundreds of millions of people.

And also, can we have some research into the scale of the problem first?

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's say you're right. Let's say the GOP is too stringent and not generous enough with ID subsidies. Let's leave aside the restrictions on alcohol, allergy medications, etc. which somehow the poor and minorities manage to obtain. Let's ignore all of that.

Isn't the main restriction on alcohol purchase "age"? And so the purpose of ID checking in shops and bars is to ensure the buyer is over 21. So they tend not to ID people who look well over that age.

For allergy medicine, the FDA regulations do require Photo ID (or "a document that is considered acceptable by the seller" which perhaps may noy be photo ID at all) and for pharmacies to hold a log of who bought products containing Pseudoephedrine. But those are not normal allergy medicine. Standard antihistamine does not require ID to purchase.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's say you're right. Let's say the GOP is too stringent and not generous enough with ID subsidies. Let's leave aside the restrictions on alcohol, allergy medications, etc. which somehow the poor and minorities manage to obtain. Let's ignore all of that.

Isn't the main restriction on alcohol purchase "age"? And so the purpose of ID checking in shops and bars is to ensure the buyer is over 21. So they tend not to ID people who look well over that age.

For allergy medicine, the FDA regulations do require Photo ID (or "a document that is considered acceptable by the seller" which perhaps may noy be photo ID at all) and for pharmacies to hold a log of who bought products containing Pseudoephedrine. But those are not normal allergy medicine. Standard antihistamine does not require ID to purchase.

This makes me chuckle. I took generic pseudoephedrine for years for my allergies. At the time (80's and 90's) it was the least expensive, least side effect medicine you could take. Since it was over the counter I could look at costs and determine the cheapest alternative. However, since that changed, it was no longer easy to compare prices or buy it quickly as you had to wait for the pharmacist, so I stopped, which is probably for the best.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's say you're right. Let's say the GOP is too stringent and not generous enough with ID subsidies. Let's leave aside the restrictions on alcohol, allergy medications, etc. which somehow the poor and minorities manage to obtain. Let's ignore all of that.

Isn't the main restriction on alcohol purchase "age"? And so the purpose of ID checking in shops and bars is to ensure the buyer is over 21. So they tend not to ID people who look well over that age.

For allergy medicine, the FDA regulations do require Photo ID (or "a document that is considered acceptable by the seller" which perhaps may noy be photo ID at all) and for pharmacies to hold a log of who bought products containing Pseudoephedrine. But those are not normal allergy medicine. Standard antihistamine does not require ID to purchase.

Let's see . . . I say "let's ignore all that . . ." and you want to debate all that. Brilliant.

It doesn't matter what the "purpose" for checking ID's for alcohol and other things is, the point is that somehow minorities and the poor manage to get them. Did you ever see a protest about not being able to buy alcohol because of ID requirements? Why is that?

Oh, because they can get ID?

What I have heard/seen: minority community leaders complaining about the number of liquor stores and bars in their neighborhoods.**** Why do they care since IDs aren't available (allegedly) and therefore no one can buy alcohol?

But, if the talk comes around to voting . . . Wo-ah, the "hurdle" of getting ID is "too high."

That's just not credible.


***Academic study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17149517

well I guess the drunks can all vote...but clearly the Republican Party thinks it can reduce minority turnout with these voter ID laws. I cannot believe that you seriously believe otherwise.

I'm starting to groc that neither party really cares about the principle. Republicans want to suppress voter turnout and Democrats want to create a wedge issue that rallies the base.

That about sums it up.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's say you're right. Let's say the GOP is too stringent and not generous enough with ID subsidies. Let's leave aside the restrictions on alcohol, allergy medications, etc. which somehow the poor and minorities manage to obtain. Let's ignore all of that.

Isn't the main restriction on alcohol purchase "age"? And so the purpose of ID checking in shops and bars is to ensure the buyer is over 21. So they tend not to ID people who look well over that age.

For allergy medicine, the FDA regulations do require Photo ID (or "a document that is considered acceptable by the seller" which perhaps may noy be photo ID at all) and for pharmacies to hold a log of who bought products containing Pseudoephedrine. But those are not normal allergy medicine. Standard antihistamine does not require ID to purchase.

Let's see . . . I say "let's ignore all that . . ." and you want to debate all that. Brilliant.

Well, I did not realise it was an order, it looked more like rhetorical sarcasm. Of course you drop them in for a reason, and you don't actually want us to ignore it at all. And you want us to accept it without question?

It doesn't matter what the "purpose" for checking ID's for alcohol and other things is, the point is that somehow minorities and the poor manage to get them. Did you ever see a protest about not being able to buy alcohol because of ID requirements? Why is that?

Oh, because they can get ID?

Because many people don't need ID to buy alcohol. Because those who do and don't have it can easily get someone else to do it for them. Because it may be about different forms of ID, even. Because not all vendors actually check ID.

You are missing my point. ID is required as an age check for alcohol. Some of the people who have raised problems with voting ID are quite old - a pattern is people who were born out of state decades ago and maybe were not registered properly at birth. These are people who are unlikely to be asked for ID when buying alcohol.

Yes, poor people drink. Your moral opprobrium is noted. But it is irrelevant.

Ray Jay wrote:
This makes me chuckle. I took generic pseudoephedrine for years for my allergies. At the time (80's and 90's) it was the least expensive, least side effect medicine you could take. Since it was over the counter I could look at costs and determine the cheapest alternative. However, since that changed, it was no longer easy to compare prices or buy it quickly as you had to wait for the pharmacist, so I stopped, which is probably for the best.

PE is a decongestant, and is regulated because it does have effects. It is added to antihistamines to deal with symptoms of allergies while the AH deals with the allergy. Alone, it does not help with the allergy itself, just symptoms, and there are now quite a few alternatives availablem

Is there something more to a pollen allergy than just dealing with symptoms? It wasn't life threatening

Ray Jay wrote:Is there something more to a pollen allergy than just dealing with symptoms? It wasn't life threatening

Many conditions are not life threatening but we try to treat more than just the symptoms. With a pollen allergy, the body's reaction is what causes the symptoms. Alleviating the symptoms does not stop the body reacting. Antihistamines do.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm starting to groc that neither party really cares about the principle. Republicans want to suppress voter turnout and Democrats want to create a wedge issue that rallies the base.

There is no evidence the GOP wants to or even CAN suppress voter turnout via voter ID laws.

However, I've never seen any voter ID proposal from Democrats.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Let's see . . . I say "let's ignore all that . . ." and you want to debate all that. Brilliant.

Well, I did not realise it was an order, it looked more like rhetorical sarcasm. Of course you drop them in for a reason, and you don't actually want us to ignore it at all. And you want us to accept it without question?

No, it just happens to be true. Of course, you want to argue about lesser anti-histamines that can't be turned into meth. Whatever. Everything I said demands ID does--and there are many more, like renting cars.

We don't see marching in the street about Hertz, Avis, etc. If ID is so unavailable to minorities, then Hertz et. al. must be the moral equivalent of the KKK.

It doesn't matter what the "purpose" for checking ID's for alcohol and other things is, the point is that somehow minorities and the poor manage to get them. Did you ever see a protest about not being able to buy alcohol because of ID requirements? Why is that?

Oh, because they can get ID?

Because many people don't need ID to buy alcohol. Because those who do and don't have it can easily get someone else to do it for them. Because it may be about different forms of ID, even. Because not all vendors actually check ID.

You're funny. The law doesn't matter because there are ways of avoiding it? Therefore, ID requirements are not discriminatory?

You are missing my point. ID is required as an age check for alcohol. Some of the people who have raised problems with voting ID are quite old - a pattern is people who were born out of state decades ago and maybe were not registered properly at birth. These are people who are unlikely to be asked for ID when buying alcohol.

Sorry, but again this is false. There are businesses who "card" everyone.

Also, I've never seen liberals restrict their arguments about ID laws being discriminatory to the elderly only.

Yes, poor people drink. Your moral opprobrium is noted. But it is irrelevant.

I really don't care that they drink. This is America, not Saudi Arabia.

It is not irrelevant. All the activities that require ID are carried out everyday by minorities. There is no "discrimination" in requiring ID. It's a pile of rubbish.