The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early CampFIRE
|Subject: Re: Question for TMFPMarti||Date: 7/11/2013 1:19 PM|
|Author: TheDope1||Number: 688591 of 708869|
Just hilarious. I don't even need to post; I'll let you blow apart your own argument.
First you said
My father, age 93. My father-in-law, age 89. Neither has a valid "government approved" ID. Both cannot use public transportation, nor can they drive. So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised.
Now you say
My father has now been in two large retirement communities. The first was "independent living", the current one is "assisted living." (The first also had assisted living, but he didn't want to move there when the time came.) (The father-in-law is a shut-in, living in a daughter's spare bedroom. She works three jobs, so there isn't a lot of "spare time." Probably not much of an "outlier" either.)
Both establishments have over 1,000 inhabitants, and a conservative estimate would be that half of the people there have no living relatives nearby, no one to take them to city hall, and no one to deal with this sort of issue.
This destroys your anecdote. You made it sound like they were shut-ins and couldn't travel. Now you're saying they're actually in a place where someone could take them to wherever they needed to go. So much for your anecdotal evidence as to why voter ID laws disenfranchise voters.
Now here comes the part where you change your argument but don't cop to it. To wit:
As I indicated in the original post, which you obviously couldn't be bothered to read, given that it comes from someone who occasionally disagrees with you, I am in favor of voter IDs. But not just for "rest homes" but also for inner city dwellers and all others who have a need and not the means to achieve it. And no, I'm not going to leave that to "rest homes." It's a GOVERNMENT FUNCTION.
So now you're raising the bar and discarding your original "evidence". Fine. Now the argument is, there are tons of people who are trapped in the inner cities, I suppose. You threw in a strawman (that the rest homes run the voting program. Um, I meant that you could have the government come to the rest homes and give out IDs. In other words, I used your suggestion) and are now trying to move the goalposts.
Won't work. I already stipulated to you that the government could spend money to ensure that everyone could have a photo ID for free. But that's not good enough for you. Never mind that it already takes photo ID to get welfare, buy cold medicine, get a job, buy alcohol or cigarettes, get on a train or plane or do any number of other things. Let's assume there are vast numbers of people out there who never do ANY of those things.
I'm stipulating that the government should provide a photo ID to everyone and that photo ID should be REQUIRED for the polls. What's the problem with that?
Pay the bureaucracy to ensure that every eligible voter is able to vote, or just admit that you don't care. To me, voting is the most sacred privilege of a democracy, and nothing should be allowed to get in the way of that, certainly not a few bucks to register people who are unable to travel, for whatever reason.
This is like beating on a punching bag. I've already stipulated this.
Let's keep it simple, to make this less taxing for you:
If every effort was made to give every person a photo ID, would you support showing them at polling places to verify identity?
Yes or no.
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|