Thanks for proving my point.

Unsurprising. When losing a debate, always try for an assumptive close. I’m sure the ad hominems will follow. :-)

You literally said that it’s ok for the government to make baseless accusations and deny people their inalienable rights based on that baseless accusation that has no precedence historically.

Nope. What I said was that if you’re going to have restrictions on who can vote, then it makes logical sense to check to insure that people meet those restrictions. Otherwise, there’s no point in having the restriction.

It has nothing to do with “baseless accusations”, quite obviously.

Voter ID laws are directly correlated to Obama’s presidency.

Uh….no. You’re uniformed. Voter ID requirements go back to the 1950’s. PHOTO voter ID started to appear at that time, and as early as 2000, you had (see below) 10 states with some sort of voter ID requirement; the “strict photo” requirements started to be debated prior to 2000, commensurate with concerns other than Mr. Obama.

Image for post

Your whole voter analysis is gibberish.

Terribly sorry you didn’t understand it.

Even the Republicans said it was bullshit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html

My support for voter ID is not partisan; and in fact, (go read the article) Voter ID was not always a partisan issue. As to the citation, yes, some Republicans are stupid, and don’t understand the larger concern here.

I hardly think the fact that some politicians are stupid is news.

Written by

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store