Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 1, 2014 15:57:29 GMT -5
This is going to sound patronizing, alas.
I wish everybody here was as reasonable as happyhoix.
Maybe it sounds less patronizing if I confirm I include myself, there. I aspire to be more like you, happyhoix Umm, I think you are pulling my leg, or else you've missed some of my more pissy tantrums.
I wasn't pulling your leg. And I see no point in judging anybody by their worst behavior. I'm genuinely and sincerely impressed by your capacity to fairly acknowledge the other side, while still disagreeing with it.
I often don't share your view on things, but it's a lot easier to be civil about it with you than with some because of the contextualization of that view.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 1, 2014 16:03:10 GMT -5
You mean the Ann Coulter who thinks soccer is destroying America?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 1, 2014 16:04:54 GMT -5
I'd argue that the Voting Rights Act does a lot more to ghettoize nonwhite populations than anything else.
Whose bright idea was that, again?
What you call "pushing for restrictions" I call "enforcing the law." You get to vote once, if you're a valid registered voter. You do not get to vote in your dead grandfather's name. You do not get to vote in six different wards. You do not get to vote and then return home to Mexico. And even if nobody is doing these things, and the 18 million illegitimate registrations in 2010 were all innocent mistakes, then still the "restriction" is so miniscule as to be entirely innocuous itself. HAVE PICTURE ID. I cannot take seriously anybody who suggests either that this is too burdensome a requirement, or, more offensively to my mind, that it is disproportionately MORE burdensome on a black voter than a white one. Are we seriously making the argument that your average black man is so incapable that he cannot obtain a free voter ID from the appropriate authority?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 1, 2014 16:05:35 GMT -5
You mean the Ann Coulter who thinks soccer is destroying America? Yes, and it was the fresh memory of that train-wreck that led me to name check her instead of some of the other contenders.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jul 1, 2014 17:04:58 GMT -5
I'd argue that the Voting Rights Act does a lot more to ghettoize nonwhite populations than anything else.
Whose bright idea was that, again?
What you call "pushing for restrictions" I call "enforcing the law." You get to vote once, if you're a valid registered voter. You do not get to vote in your dead grandfather's name. You do not get to vote in six different wards. You do not get to vote and then return home to Mexico. And even if nobody is doing these things, and the 18 million illegitimate registrations in 2010 were all innocent mistakes, then still the "restriction" is so miniscule as to be entirely innocuous itself. HAVE PICTURE ID. I cannot take seriously anybody who suggests either that this is too burdensome a requirement, or, more offensively to my mind, that it is disproportionately MORE burdensome on a black voter than a white one. Are we seriously making the argument that your average black man is so incapable that he cannot obtain a free voter ID from the appropriate authority?
That's what always confused me as well. The democrats talk about poor and minorities in a condescending way. They act like they want to help, but think so little of them and their resourcefulness they don't think they can get a free ID. It's really kind of a back handed insult when you think about it. I'd be pretty upset if some politician said that me or my demographic couldn't follow basic administrative procedures to obtain government documents.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 1, 2014 17:09:32 GMT -5
Especially if you're THAT poor, you already have gobmt issued ID to obtain all your freebies.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jul 1, 2014 17:53:18 GMT -5
I would argue that lately, maybe in the last 25 years, the Republican party has invested a lot of time and effort in two things - gerrymandering districts to create areas guaranteed to vote Republican and pushing for restrictions on the ability to vote.
Hmmmmmm, in this area you can put 'democrat' where you have 'Republican' and it would be true.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2014 20:49:00 GMT -5
I have always described myself as a moderate, independent, social liberal, fiscal conservative. I believe that everyone has the right to live their life pretty much any way they want, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. What they do NOT have is the right to expect the rest of us to pay for their choices.
In those little tests that measure where one is politically, I am always almost dead-center between right and left, with a noticeable libertarian shift. When I was younger my leanings were Republican, but the Republican Party left me long ago. I usually vote Democrat now, not because they are inherently better, but because they are not as dangerous, for the most part. Republicans are far more likely to deny liberties to those unlike them. And also, given that both are going to screw up spending, I at least have more respect for the fact that Democrats are more honest about taxing to pay for it rather than borrowing more and further imperilling our future that way. Also, I would rather tax dollars go to people who need them than to people who don't.
I would love to have a Republican Party I can believe in again. Put the focus on fiscal conservatism rather than social conservatism. Stop trying to dictate how other people live their lives. Is that really a difficult concept?
And as far as Democrat vs. Republican, there are any number of issues where they really do want to end up at roughly the same place. The difference is mainly from which direction they approach the problem, and in whose ox they are willing to gore to get there.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 1, 2014 21:09:52 GMT -5
Very few left. They emerged back when the southern working man had to be defended against the rich northern snobs, but when the dems began pushing for racial equality in the sixties the dems began to loose the South.
I live in the heart of the Bible belt, in a rural area, so I'm surrounded by die hard republican/ TEA party people, and I understand them, although I don't agree with them on most things. They feel that the hard working middle class is being overwhelmed by a greedy lower class that refuses to work and always has a hand out, and that the federal government does nothing but impose greater restrictions and taxes. Many of them look around and see the progress the gays have made towards marriage equality, the increasing presence of Hispanics and blacks at all levels of society (and not just as the working class laborers) and the progress women have made in the workplace and they feel that their traditional lifestyle is under attack. They are afraid, and egged on by conservative talking heads predicting the worst, they are certain the American way of life is doomed, the country guaranteed to either plunge into chaos and anarchy or simply become a Spanish speaking 3rd world, inferior country.
That is what I find as well- I am surrounded by these folks. They feel they haven't got a fair piece of the pie and work their asses off- so they blame the folks on the bottom or immigrants- yet admire those on the top that are directly responsible for their situation.
They have a singular view of welfare- as in 'inner city people' that sit on their ass and live large- even though that is not even remotely close to the truth. I blame Reagan for that- and of course AM radio and the other shit slingers.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 1, 2014 21:11:57 GMT -5
You mean the Ann Coulter who thinks soccer is destroying America? I think she was trying real hard to be funny and missed the mark.
What was funny is one comment I read- that said "since when does the GOP let a transvestite speak for them"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 22:18:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 21:26:08 GMT -5
There are FIVE bad reasons to vote for someone:
1> Gender 2> Religion 3> Party Affiliation 4> Race 5> "best of two bad choices" when there are MORE THAN TWO choices.
I've never voted Republican or Democrat in my voting life. Some of the people I voted for may have been either of those two parties though. I vote for "best available person for the job".
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2014 22:06:10 GMT -5
When I read about the way other states handled primary elections I always considered myself fortunate to be in Washington. The system here for decades was a blanket primary where not only could you vote for any candidate for any office regardless of party, but you never had to declare for a party either. For a voter it was wonderful, in that you could actually vote for the best available option. Of course the parties disagreed, and went to court to overturn it. (Just one more reason why neither party is worth a damn.) We now have a Top Two primary which was passed by voter initiative. It was originally ruled unconstitutional by the District and Circuit Courts, but then upheld by the U.S Supreme Court. The history of the system and the court challenges is a pretty good read for anyone truly interested in the subject.
I could never understand how voters in other states would allow themselves to be subjected to the limitations of closed primaries.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 1, 2014 23:42:50 GMT -5
There are FIVE bad reasons to vote for someone: 1> Gender 2> Religion 3> Party Affiliation 4> Race 5> "best of two bad choices" when there are MORE THAN TWO choices. I've never voted Republican or Democrat in my voting life. Some of the people I voted for may have been either of those two parties though. I vote for "best available person for the job". No shit- that's the way it used to be before our country dissolved into this my team/your team bullshit. I voted for the people- at least n local elections.
On the national stage my last GOP vote was for Bush- over Al Gore even though I am a Tennessean. I fucking regret that one. Never change horses when things are doing fine
But as long as there are these tea-party people, I can't vote for a republican. Until they tell these assholes like Hannity or Rush to fuck off, then the GOP is the tea party as far as I am concerned. I'd rather vote for a turd in the EPA hallway.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 2, 2014 0:10:18 GMT -5
There are FIVE bad reasons to vote for someone: 1> Gender 2> Religion 3> Party Affiliation 4> Race 5> "best of two bad choices" when there are MORE THAN TWO choices. I've never voted Republican or Democrat in my voting life. Some of the people I voted for may have been either of those two parties though. I vote for "best available person for the job". this is precisely the way we get out of this mess. if EVERYONE did this, we would be out of it in about 2 election cycles. study the candidates, and find the ones that most closely align with your beliefs. if that is the Green Party, VOTE GREEN. if that is the Constutional Law Party, VOTE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PARTY. the sooner we start voting for candidates, rather than parties, the better.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 2, 2014 1:15:21 GMT -5
Jimmy,
I have always posted how I want to and not to further dialogue so people such as yourself can be happy with what I write. Deal.
You put reasons down...I simply responded to why they suck from my historical perspective. Instead of attacking my alleged 'inhibition of dialogue' you should wonder why you repos are so full of crap and so easy to call BS on when you start pontificating about what you think you stand for..
|
|
truthbound
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 1, 2014 6:01:51 GMT -5
Posts: 814
|
Post by truthbound on Jul 2, 2014 4:34:53 GMT -5
For the same reason people vote Democrat, Independent or Libertarian. Because they are idiots. Glad I cleared that up for you.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 2, 2014 7:27:49 GMT -5
... VOTE GREEN. ..., VOTE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PARTY. the sooner we start voting for candidates, rather than parties, the better.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 2, 2014 7:37:37 GMT -5
On voting day, when people go to the polls and find out they have to have a driver's license to vote and get turned away without being able to cast their vote because they don't have the right ID, who do you think gets denied a right to vote, the rich and middle class republicans who all drive cars, or the poor mostly Democrats, who probably don't own a car and therefore don't have a license?
Yes the poor people have the opportunity to read the papers and find out that the voting laws have changed and they now need to come to the poll with one of the approved forms of ID, but how many would have missed that story in the news? And if they missed that story, they didn't get to vote.
A cold calculation on the part of the Republican party to try to deny the vote to people who most likely would vote democratic. Modern Jim Crow laws.
And no it isn't that democrats think the poor are stupid. It's that they think the poor, like everyone else, maybe missed the article in the paper that said what the new rules were, but the poor, unlike everyone else, doesn't always carry around a driver's license with them, because they probably don't own a car.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 2, 2014 8:16:56 GMT -5
Jimmy, I have always posted how I want to and not to further dialogue so people such as yourself can be happy with what I write. Deal. You put reasons down...I simply responded to why they suck from my historical perspective. Instead of attacking my alleged 'inhibition of dialogue' you should wonder why you repos are so full of crap and so easy to call BS on when you start pontificating about what you think you stand for.. Dubby,
I'm just yanking your chain. Chill thyself.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 2, 2014 8:39:31 GMT -5
On voting day, when people go to the polls and find out they have to have a driver's license to vote and get turned away without being able to cast their vote because they don't have the right ID, who do you think gets denied a right to vote, the rich and middle class republicans who all drive cars, or the poor mostly Democrats, who probably don't own a car and therefore don't have a license?
Yes the poor people have the opportunity to read the papers and find out that the voting laws have changed and they now need to come to the poll with one of the approved forms of ID, but how many would have missed that story in the news? And if they missed that story, they didn't get to vote.
A cold calculation on the part of the Republican party to try to deny the vote to people who most likely would vote democratic. Modern Jim Crow laws.
And no it isn't that democrats think the poor are stupid. It's that they think the poor, like everyone else, maybe missed the article in the paper that said what the new rules were, but the poor, unlike everyone else, doesn't always carry around a driver's license with them, because they probably don't own a car.
You don't need a driver's license in my state. You need a voter registration card, which is free and costs no money. You have to get yourself to the registration place - just as you have to get yourself to the voting place - but the means you avail yourself for in the latter instance work just fine in the former instance, as well.
If the information isn't out there with this nebulous population of "the poor" with its uniform characteristics of apparently inviolable stupidity, helplessness, and rigid inability to adapt, who's fault is that? Obviously we cannot blame "the poor" - but what of those supposedly caring for "the poor," that great hand-wringing mass of earnest humanitarians who can spend millions trashing a Republican candidate on the airwaves but can't throw together a cheap PSA or leaflet distribution about basic civic responsibilities?
Accepting that you're not calling "the poor" stupid... what percentage of them do you think don't know they need a picture ID to vote? Is it larger than the percentage that don't know they need a picture ID to buy a beer or cigarettes; to open a bank account; get food stamps or Medicaid; get a job, or file for unemployment; rent a home...?
I just don't believe there is that large a population of people who go through life unable to do any of the things you need picture ID to do; and I don't believe that anybody in that population is primarily injured by being unable to vote every now and then. I think they probably have more pressing problems.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 2, 2014 9:38:53 GMT -5
... You don't need a driver's license in my state. You need a voter registration card, which is free and costs no money. You have to get yourself to the registration place - just as you have to get yourself to the voting place - but the means you avail yourself for in the latter instance work just fine in the former instance, as well. ... I do support reasonable ID requirements. The is always (potentially) in the details. For example, what documentation is required to get the voter registration card? Are the registration locations reasonably accessible to all citizens? What hours are they open? Are there reasonable means to update the registration when a person moves? The details need to be examined to make sure they do not create unreasonable impediments.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 2, 2014 9:48:18 GMT -5
... You don't need a driver's license in my state. You need a voter registration card, which is free and costs no money. You have to get yourself to the registration place - just as you have to get yourself to the voting place - but the means you avail yourself for in the latter instance work just fine in the former instance, as well. ... I do support reasonable ID requirements. The is always (potentially) in the details. For example, what documentation is required to get the voter registration card? Are the registration locations reasonably accessible to all citizens? What hours are they open? Are there reasonable means to update the registration when a person moves? The details need to be examined to make sure they do not create unreasonable impediments. See, I totally agree with this. If it's materially harder for anybody to register than it is for them to vote, there's a problem. If it's materially harder for any legitimate voter to vote than for any other legitimate voter to vote, there's a problem. If it's materially possible for one voter to cast more votes than another voter in a democratic election, there's a problem. If it's materially possible for a voter's vote to get overridden by either the technology or the personnel involved in administrating that vote, there's a problem. And electoral reform folks should be alive to, and responsive to, all those problems.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 2, 2014 9:59:55 GMT -5
I do support reasonable ID requirements. The is always (potentially) in the details. For example, what documentation is required to get the voter registration card? Are the registration locations reasonably accessible to all citizens? What hours are they open? Are there reasonable means to update the registration when a person moves? The details need to be examined to make sure they do not create unreasonable impediments. See, I totally agree with this. If it's materially harder for anybody to register than it is for them to vote, there's a problem. If it's materially harder for any legitimate voter to vote than for any other legitimate voter to vote, there's a problem. If it's materially possible for one voter to cast more votes than another voter in a democratic election, there's a problem. If it's materially possible for a voter's vote to get overridden by either the technology or the personnel involved in administrating that vote, there's a problem. And electoral reform folks should be alive to, and responsive to, all those problems. So, what are the details of your state's registration process? You implied no problems with it. (I will look it up if you give me the state.)
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 2, 2014 10:11:15 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 2, 2014 10:28:48 GMT -5
Does look reasonable to me except the ID requirements do nothing to stop a person from voting in a district they no reside. But is that materially important?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 2, 2014 10:32:11 GMT -5
Does look reasonable to me except the ID requirements do nothing to stop a person from voting in a district they no reside. But is that materially important? I guess in a statewide election, as long as nobody votes more than once, it might not be. That said, it's grist to conspiracy-theorist mills when one precinct has calculated turnout over 100% because it was easier to get there to vote than four others...
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,971
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 2, 2014 10:51:18 GMT -5
Except for having to vote on a specific day in person, I think registering generally is more effort than voting although now one can register with most DMV transactions at the same time. For some of my votes I can just walk down the street. Pretty easy. No cost.
Registering through the DMV requires a stamp if you get the forms and the cost of gas to drive there unless you are part of the lucky few that live in walking distance. I think there is one DMV facility in my county and I am lucky it is only a few miles away versus say a 15 mile drive one way.
Few things are cost free. People with adequate resources tend to forget that.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 2, 2014 11:02:47 GMT -5
Except for having to vote on a specific day in person, I think registering generally is more effort than voting although now one can register with most DMV transactions at the same time. For some of my votes I can just walk down the street. Pretty easy. No cost.
Registering through the DMV requires a stamp if you get the forms and the cost of gas to drive there unless you are part of the lucky few that live in walking distance. I think there is one DMV facility in my county and I am lucky it is only a few miles away versus say a 15 mile drive one way.
Few things are cost free. People with adequate resources tend to forget that.
The nearest DMV to me is in Reidsville, which is more like 40 miles one way.
That's why the Georgia law doesn't require you to get a voter ID from the DMV; you can get it from your own county registrar.
Few things are cost free. But most of "the poor" can afford the costs associated with registering for a free voter ID in the state of Georgia. I am not writing this from an ivory tower, Optimist. I know "the poor" well enough. I was trying to help a guy settle a hospital bill and avoid a lawsuit last week. I'd negotiated a 60% discount on the bill. He had the money. Everything was set up. Two days later, I find he'd decided to spend the money on guns instead, after his father, a cancer survivor, advised him he could file bankruptcy on the hospital instead of paying the bill with the funds he had available to do that. This, after I'd got a sob-story from the same guy about how hard it was to support himself and his pregnant girlfriend when he could barely scrape together enough to pay his rent.
At least they'll be well defended in the event of a zombie apocalypse.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 2, 2014 11:07:38 GMT -5
What do you think would happen if we make a new law that everyone has to have a special voter card, that they can get for free, but that they have to go get prior to the election, if they want to vote? How many people read their local newspapers now, so that they know they would need to take time off work and go in advance to the special office where they would stand in line to get their special ID? How many voters would get turned away from the polls because they didn't know they had to have that special card, or didn't bother to take time off work and go stand in line at the office that supplied them, because they've been voting all their lives without one?
It didn't happen that way though, did it? You didn't hear furious republicans screaming that they'd been turned away from the polls because they didn't know they now needed that special ID card - because the Republicans made sure that their base - the middle and upper classes, mostly - would already come to the poll with what they needed in their pocket to vote, whether they knew about the new voter ID rule or not.
To be perfectly fair, everyone should have had to go get a voter ID card. In fact, if we did that, maybe it would weed out a lot of the people who aren't really mentally sound enough to be voting, from both parties. I think our country would be a lot better off if it took a little effort to vote.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 2, 2014 11:12:31 GMT -5
You kind of answered your own question there, hoix.
By the way, the Georgia law is that everyone has to have a valid ID. I'm pretty sure the State Supreme Court wouldn't have upheld it if it was called the "Special Negro Voting Card Law," or if that was either its intent or its effect.
It's interesting that you seem to suggest that Republicans - legendary for their turn-out-the-vote and microtargeting operations as they are - could align all their ducks and get all their voters savvy to the extremely basic requirements of voting...
While those shambling Democrats, with their archaic ideas of electoral strategy, presumably just offer up secular prayers for their voters and hope for the best. That makes sense to me. The party that will go knocking on people's doors to encourage them to register (not for the Democrats necessarily, oh no, a recruitment drive like that would be illegal - it's bipartisan don'chaknow), that will pick them up at their door and bus them to the polling place on the big day... nah, they wouldn't make sure those folks had picture ID. Sure they wouldn't.
Can you think of a cogent reason why they wouldn't?
|
|