No borders, No nations, Stop deportations

[The Dad Fisherman]

Actually, i wasn't having a snowflake moment over the story. I am pretty happy with my stance on it. Become a citizen, enjoy your voting rights. Pretty cut and dry.

I was actually having a "snowflake" moment at your asinine assumption that since we don't think they should be allowed the right to vote until they are granted citizenship, that we somehow lack the intellect to understand the whole sentence/thought process.

....and you know what is an even weaker argument, thinking that just because they didn't do it before, doesn't make it a good idea to do it now.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Actually, i wasn't having a snowflake moment over the story. I am pretty happy with my stance on it. Become a citizen, enjoy your voting rights. Pretty cut and dry.

I was actually having a "snowflake" moment at your asinine assumption that since we don't think they should be allowed the right to vote until they are granted citizenship, that we somehow lack the intellect to understand the whole sentence/thought process.

....and you know what is an even weaker argument, thinking that just because they didn't do it before, doesn't make it a good idea to do it now.

change happens because of something usually factual ...the factual information is the need to require ID to vote is based on the rights conspiracy theory of voter fraud which no facts support ... yet we have many facts showing the assault on voting is a GOP led operation

heres one never made it into law but it make the point

The amendment, introduced by Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and approved on May 9, 2012, was aimed at preventing the Justice Department from using its funds “to bring any action against any state for implementation of a state law requiring voter identification.”almost entirely with Republican votes.


In other words, even if the Department of Justice thought a voter ID law discriminated against African Americans or Latinos, it could not sue to protect them.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

heres one never made it into law but it make the point

The amendment, introduced by Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and approved on May 9, 2012, was aimed at preventing the Justice Department from using its funds “to bring any action against any state for implementation of a state law requiring voter identification.”almost entirely with Republican votes.


In other words, even if the Department of Justice thought a voter ID law discriminated against African Americans or Latinos, it could not sue to protect them.

In other words??? How about in totally different, non-sensical words, based on assumptions, that don't have anything to do with the actual amendment.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by wdmso

change happens because of something usually factual ...the factual information is the need to require ID to vote is based on the rights conspiracy theory of voter fraud which no facts support ... yet we have many facts showing the assault on voting is a GOP led operation

heres one never made it into law but it make the point

The amendment, introduced by Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and approved on May 9, 2012, was aimed at preventing the Justice Department from using its funds “to bring any action against any state for implementation of a state law requiring voter identification.”almost entirely with Republican votes.


In other words, even if the Department of Justice thought a voter ID law discriminated against African Americans or Latinos, it could not sue to protect them.

In order to drive you need ID
To collect benefits you need an ID
To board a plane you need ID
To enter the country you need ID
To open a bank account you need ID
To cash a check you need ID

The list of things goes on and on, and it is not discriminatory to require it

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

In order to drive you need ID
To collect benefits you need an ID
To board a plane you need ID
To enter the country you need ID
To open a bank account you need ID
To cash a check you need ID

The list of things goes on and on, and it is not discriminatory to require it

is not discriminatory to require it.. your correct if the reason to to start requiring them . "to combat voter fraud " But prior to the 2006 election, no state ever required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition to voting. to start with ...

So yes its discriminatory enacted a law to solve a problem that never and still does not exist ..

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So yes its discriminatory ..

doesn't it apply to everyone?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

doesn't it apply to everyone?

Hey, they changed the meaning of the word "racist", why shouldn't they change the meaning of the word "discriminatory"

[spence]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

In order to drive you need ID
To collect benefits you need an ID
To board a plane you need ID
To enter the country you need ID
To open a bank account you need ID
To cash a check you need ID

The list of things goes on and on, and it is not discriminatory to require it

How many of those things are enumerated in the constitution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How many of those things are enumerated in the constitution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The constitutional enumerations are a few select categories (powers) under whose umbrella a host of specific things either are covered or they are not. Those specific things, which can be many, are not themselves, enumerations.

Your list of things are not enumerations. Some of them may fall within the enumerated power of the Federal Government to regulate. Others may not, and can either be a state right to regulate, or may not be within the purview of any government to regulate.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

How many of those things are enumerated in the constitution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

point?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

point?

Top of head
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

July 18, 2018 10:38 AM

San Francisco began registering non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, to register to vote Monday in the November election for the city school board, reported The San Francisco Chronicle.

The move follows passage of a 2016 ballot measure by San Francisco voters opening school elections to non-citizens who are over the age of 18, city residents and have children under age 19, reported the publication.

“This is no-brainer legislation,” Hillary Ronen, a San Francisco supervisor, told the Chronicle.