Probably the Native population, if we're not making jokes.
Well yes, in all seriousness the natives would be the reason. However the excuse the republicans will give is illegal Russian immigrants. Illegal Mexicans in Alaska is probably not that good of a lie is it?
...Louisiana hasn't jumped on the ID law wagon yet?
What gives?
2.5% of their black population is in prison at any given time, so they don't need voter ID to keep them from voting. And you don't get the vote back until after your parole term and probation have expired so that's probably a considerably larger percentage.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Yes, because literacy tests are somehow the same thing as getting a state-issued I.D. Good one.
It has exactly the same purpose without being as blunt: give people at a polling station a subjective tool that allows them to turn away voters they don't like the look of (i.e. black people). Seriously - what is stopping a person at a polling station from saying, "Eh, this doesn't look like you. Do you have another piece of ID? No? Oh, I'm afraid you won't be able to vote here without another piece of ID..."
That's without even touching the fact that IDs can & do often have only partially correct information on them, or even information that isn't necessarily wrong but becomes subjective & requires the person reading it to give a good faith / half-brained interpretation. My stepfather hates his first name and so always uses his middle name, for example, and this has caused problems in the past with documents conflicting with his driver's license information if / when someone doing his paperwork decided that it's Be An Asshole Day at work.
Given that we know voter fraud isn't actually a problem, and given that we know people in favor of the law have explicitly said, "This will win us elections,", and given that we know the information on IDs requires a subjective interpretation in favor of the person presenting the ID, I'd say it ought to be really clear what the connection is between voter ID laws & literacy test laws. They're designed to block voters - and especially voters of color. The fact that one is a little less loud-mouthed about it's intended function doesn't mean the function is different.
EDIT: Anyone who wants first-hand experience regarding the subjective nature of IDs should play Papers, Please if you haven't already done so.
...Louisiana hasn't jumped on the ID law wagon yet?
What gives?
2.5% of their black population is in prison at any given time, so they don't need voter ID to keep them from voting. And you don't get the vote back until after your parole term and probation have expired so that's probably a considerably larger percentage.
...Louisiana hasn't jumped on the ID law wagon yet?
What gives?
Uh, yeah we have? There is technically a way to do it without an ID, but it's a pain in the ass. I have also been denied that ability when I didn't have a photo ID on me.
On the upside there is almost never a line. Like 8 hour wait to vote is inconceivable to me. An 8 minute wait would be amazingly long by comparison. Other states need to copy whatever we are doing.
...Louisiana hasn't jumped on the ID law wagon yet?
What gives?
2.5% of their black population is in prison at any given time, so they don't need voter ID to keep them from voting. And you don't get the vote back until after your parole term and probation have expired so that's probably a considerably larger percentage.
1) The number I'm looking at is just state prisons, while your Wisconsin link includes county jails. Haven't tracked down a similar study from Louisiana.
2)
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
...Louisiana hasn't jumped on the ID law wagon yet?
What gives?
2.5% of their black population is in prison at any given time, so they don't need voter ID to keep them from voting. And you don't get the vote back until after your parole term and probation have expired so that's probably a considerably larger percentage.
1) The number I'm looking at is just state prisons, while your Wisconsin link includes county jails. Haven't tracked down a similar study from Louisiana.
2)
I am not certain what that graph proves, and less sure of its relevance. Using New Orleans in comparison to the rest of the state is usually a bad idea. We do our own thing as much as possible. There is a lot of racial tension, but a lot less systemic oppression. Which is to say it is still a huge problem, just better than the rest of the state.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Your arguement is that because there are laws that apply to a very small infinitesimal number, voter laws that also apply to a very small infinitesimal number of cases are justified?
Cause if that is the case, then you have sidestepped all of the nuance of the argument of why this disenfranchises, purposefully, many people. It does not follow.
The post I replied to advanced the argument that voter fraud was not a real problem. My argument would be that if there were 86 prosecutions per year, that would be evidence that voter fraud was a real problem, as that's a relatively high number.
But since there isn't 86, but rather 3 or 4 the argument is untenable. That might as well be zero.
Even if every one of those 86 had cast an illegal vote for the same election they would not change an outcome.
In person voter fraud is not an actual problem beyond a very binary "illegal things are a problem" line of thought.
I don't want to go far down the rabbit hole, as there aren't 86. But if there were, 86 prosecutions would represent a lot more than 86 votes, just as some have argued that 60 lying-on-form prosecutions represent more than 60,000 actual instances. But there aren't 86, so this is moot.
I'd argue with the numbers but you're essentially correct in the "each actual prosecution probably means a lot of instances of it not getting prosecuted". I think that people would argue though that even 86 prosecutions, even representing way more actual cases, is not very much. These cases are over the total of the US and the US is huge. Per state these numbers would be even more negligible.
Like I said. The Netherlands and other European countries can do voter ID with little difficulty, the US should not even try right now. (I think many people would have less trouble with it if several thing were different but those things are so prevalent and difficult to change that a flat "No!" is a better answer than arguing about it.)
The SCOTUS majority opinion wasn't so much saying voter id's were carte blanche constitutional, but rather, the burden of impact according to the legal test used was not substantial enough to warrant overturning the law based on a lack of witnessed disenfranchisement, lack of proof in regards to corruption, and that their process allowed a provisional ballot to be cast without an ID.
That does not necessarily mean the Texas and Wisconsin laws will not require a higher level of scrutiny based upon their impact on disenfranchisement of protected classes, historical context, and the restrictiveness of the respective laws.
I big part of the ones they've overturned have been trying to implement them mere months before the elections and not giving adequate time for people to get the necessary IDs
The thing about vote fraud is that the probability of it being detected rises far faster than the probability of it even mattering.
The 2008 MN senate race was won by about 300 votes... and only settled after a massive and protracted legal campaign. The notion that any fraud of any scale that mattered (i.e. more than random people screwing up and voting twice, or voting while a felon, or a number of other things that are technically illegal, have no malicious intent, and would not be stopped by ID regardless) could survive that level of scrutiny is mind boggling.
Hell, the initial recount caused a far greater swing in numbers than any of the further legal battles - the error in the vote total from simple random chance was actually greater than the final margin of victory. If there was ever a race where systemic fraud could have affected things, that was it. Guess how much fraud was actually found in that whole process?
Edit: Bah, lost a giant extra wall of text here so I'll just summarize it. You can't aim for 51% when doing fraud. You have to aim higher because you can't predict the exact numbers (unless you're Nate Silver but I digress), and because you're fucking hosed if it's close enough to trip mandatory recount. That is, by 2008 turnout, hundreds of thousands of fake ballots. You can't round up enough people to cast that many on election day without it breaking down somewhere.
Electoral fraud (or just malfeasance) does occur in some races at a scale that matters. It's just that the fraud takes place on the other side of the county clerk's desk than the voter's.
Didn't the supreme court just rule the Texas and Wisconsin voter ID laws illegal likes the days ago?
I think what happened is that in three cases lower courts ruled that the laws passed by Texas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina were unconstitutional infringements on the right to vote. Those courts blocked the implementation of those laws for the upcoming election. In North Carolina, SCOTUS overturned that bit pending their actual ruling, while in Wisconsin and Texas, they did not.
Not sure why that's different, though it could just be which judge is responsible for such things in each circuit? I think that has something to do with it.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The Netherlands is a really different case. You can make an appointment at City Hall here (About 1 minute online), including at least 1 evening/week and a few hours on saturday, with minimal waits (usually under 10mins) to get the ID. The government also created a cheaper ID that is just for identifying yourself/travelling within the Schengen zone.
Furthermore every citizen has the duty to be able to identify themselves anyway (a subject of debate here, mostly because it does lend itself to some bias in police doubling up on penalties, and they do stop minorities more often), and with a country this tiny not having a passport is pretty inconvenient anyway. Even then there are leniency rules for people who forget ID, or forget to renew ID (mostly the elderly).
The Dutch bureaucracy is also built upon IDs, you have to show it every time you talk to a government official, especially when money or privacy is involved.
Our polling stations are open 08.00 to 22.00 on elections, the average wait to vote is under 5 minutes, there are voting stations in major transport hubs like train stations, the government has done everything opposite to the US, where the whole system is designed to enable voting as easy and fast as possible.
This is mostly done by a) having uniform rules in the entire country b) throwing a bunch of money at it.
The Netherlands is a really different case. You can make an appointment at City Hall here (About 1 minute online), including at least 1 evening/week and a few hours on saturday, with minimal waits (usually under 10mins) to get the ID. The government also created a cheaper ID that is just for identifying yourself/travelling within the Schengen zone.
Furthermore every citizen has the duty to be able to identify themselves anyway (a subject of debate here, mostly because it does lend itself to some bias in police doubling up on penalties, and they do stop minorities more often), and with a country this tiny not having a passport is pretty inconvenient anyway. Even then there are leniency rules for people who forget ID, or forget to renew ID (mostly the elderly).
The Dutch bureaucracy is also built upon IDs, you have to show it every time you talk to a government official, especially when money or privacy is involved.
Our polling stations are open 08.00 to 22.00 on elections, the average wait to vote is under 5 minutes, there are voting stations in major transport hubs like train stations, the government has done everything opposite to the US, where the whole system is designed to enable voting as easy and fast as possible.
This is mostly done by a) having uniform rules in the entire country b) throwing a bunch of money at it.
Further furthermore, you do not have a history of a racial minority that was enslaved less than a century and a half ago, and where they were systematically denied the rights of citizenship (especially voting rights) in a large part of the country in living memory. And the end of that practice by federal action almost single handedly switched the votes at a federal level for that large part of the country. It's highly relevant context.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Didn't the supreme court just rule the Texas and Wisconsin voter ID laws illegal likes three days ago?
No they simply stayed implementation for now. The main concern from all justices was there had already been early ballots mailed out that had no indications that a photo ID would need to be included for the votes to count. Basically it buys time for it to hit the supreme court for real before the 2016 election season or hopefully a democratic state attorney general is elected who won't keep pushing this piece of poo.
It should just be an across the board rule that you can't change election rules less than 2 years away from the election. full stop. Lots of the ID and voting hours changes are obviously meant to confuse voters and spread disinformation.
Judge Richard Posner wrote the most important ruling defending these travesties back in '08. It's been reference in this thread, even.
He has... well, let's say he's recanted. A conservative I respect! Disagree with frequently, but he's an actual honest to god conservative.
Also, University of Delaware finds a small but statistically significant increase in support for voter ID among white people who are shown images of black people voting as opposed to being shown no image or images of white people voting.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Judge Richard Posner wrote the most important ruling defending these travesties back in '08. It's been reference in this thread, even.
He has... well, let's say he's recanted. A conservative I respect! Disagree with frequently, but he's an actual honest to god conservative.
Also, University of Delaware finds a small but statistically significant increase in support for voter ID among white people who are shown images of black people voting as opposed to being shown no image or images of white people voting.
The US system is horribly patchwork and uneven. The only truly universal form of Photo ID is a passport and getting of those is a colossal pain in the ass than can take months
The Netherlands is so tiny that a non-universal ID wouldn't even make sense. A driver's license and national ID card are both valid everywhere and because you are required to provide ID for many reasons everyone has one or the other. You can get them, and a passport too, in a week. (Or two days if you really need it and don't mind paying extra.)
Basically there is no comparing the two unless you're comparing "things that make requiring voter ID not a bad idea" and have The Netherlands checking all the items on the list and the US none.
In Taiwan we have something similar, the National Identification Card system that's intended for all nationals (note, not citizens) over the age of 14. You literally need it to vote and to register your household (i.e. benefit from any sort of state-funding assistance). I don't recall it being particularly difficult to get one (in fact, I'm fairly certain you are considered liable after a certain age if you don't have one, and you will be issued one regardless of how you feel about it, unless you're instead eligible for a Residency Certificate (for foreign nationals for example). It's also used as part of the conscription/mobilization system, so it's not surprising that I've never heard of a Taiwanese male who didn't get one issued either. It exists independent of the passport system I believe.
I can't think of any other kind of ID being close to universal (certainly not driver's licenses for cars or motorcycles), with the possible exception of school IDs in some areas?
I do think it's the best possible system in a small country of 23 million people that 1) has elections 2) has a genuine interest in the average citizen (are they sick? are they starving? if so, where do they live?). Back during the White Terror, not having national IDs certainly wasn't keeping people from getting arrested or shot after all.
Cultural and political nuances aside briefly, it could be as simple as the difference between 23 million and 320 million people, but apparently any sort of universal issuing system (except many a social security card?) is largely impossible to implement. So there isn't a reasonable ID expectation.
EDIT: Additionally, as already pointed out--it isn't necessary. A National ID card in the US isn't going to be used to see if people have proper access to healthcare, aren't starving, and aren't absent from public schooling. Those things, generally speaking, aren't particularly requirements of the United States or local governments, just general guidelines--as far as I can tell. If the R.O.C. is any indication National ID system is very useful if your bureaucracy is adamantly required to ensure these things, and considered "not starving" in the same league of importance as "voting."
Judge Richard Posner wrote the most important ruling defending these travesties back in '08. It's been reference in this thread, even.
He has... well, let's say he's recanted. A conservative I respect! Disagree with frequently, but he's an actual honest to god conservative.
Also, University of Delaware finds a small but statistically significant increase in support for voter ID among white people who are shown images of black people voting as opposed to being shown no image or images of white people voting.
Taking a wild swing, but I think this
"The panel opinion does not discuss the cost of obtaining a photo ID. It assumes the cost is negligible. That's an easy assumption for federal judges to make, since we are given photo IDs by court security free of charge. And we have upper-middle-class salaries. Not everyone is so fortunate."
Is what probably turned him around. He realized his privilege and how the people the law this affects doesn't have anywhere near the privilege that he has. Once you come to that realization and actually apply that knowledge, rather than simply acknowledging it exists and then ignoring the effects of that privilege, it can completely change your view on many (if not most) political issues in this country.
Judge Richard Posner wrote the most important ruling defending these travesties back in '08. It's been reference in this thread, even.
He has... well, let's say he's recanted. A conservative I respect! Disagree with frequently, but he's an actual honest to god conservative.
Also, University of Delaware finds a small but statistically significant increase in support for voter ID among white people who are shown images of black people voting as opposed to being shown no image or images of white people voting.
shocker of the century
That I respect any conservative?
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The Netherlands is a really different case. You can make an appointment at City Hall here (About 1 minute online), including at least 1 evening/week and a few hours on saturday, with minimal waits (usually under 10mins) to get the ID. The government also created a cheaper ID that is just for identifying yourself/travelling within the Schengen zone.
Furthermore every citizen has the duty to be able to identify themselves anyway (a subject of debate here, mostly because it does lend itself to some bias in police doubling up on penalties, and they do stop minorities more often), and with a country this tiny not having a passport is pretty inconvenient anyway. Even then there are leniency rules for people who forget ID, or forget to renew ID (mostly the elderly).
The Dutch bureaucracy is also built upon IDs, you have to show it every time you talk to a government official, especially when money or privacy is involved.
Our polling stations are open 08.00 to 22.00 on elections, the average wait to vote is under 5 minutes, there are voting stations in major transport hubs like train stations, the government has done everything opposite to the US, where the whole system is designed to enable voting as easy and fast as possible.
This is mostly done by a) having uniform rules in the entire country b) throwing a bunch of money at it.
Further furthermore, you do not have a history of a racial minority that was enslaved less than a century and a half ago, and where they were systematically denied the rights of citizenship (especially voting rights) in a large part of the country in living memory. And the end of that practice by federal action almost single handedly switched the votes at a federal level for that large part of the country. It's highly relevant context.
Well, that part they did have, but those former members of oppressed peoples are now the populations of Indonesia, Suriname, and a number of Caribbean islands that are variously part of the Netherlands and part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Posts
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Its those Russians.
Probably the Native population, if we're not making jokes.
What gives?
Well yes, in all seriousness the natives would be the reason. However the excuse the republicans will give is illegal Russian immigrants. Illegal Mexicans in Alaska is probably not that good of a lie is it?
2.5% of their black population is in prison at any given time, so they don't need voter ID to keep them from voting. And you don't get the vote back until after your parole term and probation have expired so that's probably a considerably larger percentage.
It has exactly the same purpose without being as blunt: give people at a polling station a subjective tool that allows them to turn away voters they don't like the look of (i.e. black people). Seriously - what is stopping a person at a polling station from saying, "Eh, this doesn't look like you. Do you have another piece of ID? No? Oh, I'm afraid you won't be able to vote here without another piece of ID..."
That's without even touching the fact that IDs can & do often have only partially correct information on them, or even information that isn't necessarily wrong but becomes subjective & requires the person reading it to give a good faith / half-brained interpretation. My stepfather hates his first name and so always uses his middle name, for example, and this has caused problems in the past with documents conflicting with his driver's license information if / when someone doing his paperwork decided that it's Be An Asshole Day at work.
Given that we know voter fraud isn't actually a problem, and given that we know people in favor of the law have explicitly said, "This will win us elections,", and given that we know the information on IDs requires a subjective interpretation in favor of the person presenting the ID, I'd say it ought to be really clear what the connection is between voter ID laws & literacy test laws. They're designed to block voters - and especially voters of color. The fact that one is a little less loud-mouthed about it's intended function doesn't mean the function is different.
EDIT: Anyone who wants first-hand experience regarding the subjective nature of IDs should play Papers, Please if you haven't already done so.
We're at 13% incarceration rate for black men in Wisconsin and it didn't stop us. Have any other reasons?
Uh, yeah we have? There is technically a way to do it without an ID, but it's a pain in the ass. I have also been denied that ability when I didn't have a photo ID on me.
On the upside there is almost never a line. Like 8 hour wait to vote is inconceivable to me. An 8 minute wait would be amazingly long by comparison. Other states need to copy whatever we are doing.
Two thoughts:
1) The number I'm looking at is just state prisons, while your Wisconsin link includes county jails. Haven't tracked down a similar study from Louisiana.
2)
I am not certain what that graph proves, and less sure of its relevance. Using New Orleans in comparison to the rest of the state is usually a bad idea. We do our own thing as much as possible. There is a lot of racial tension, but a lot less systemic oppression. Which is to say it is still a huge problem, just better than the rest of the state.
I'd argue with the numbers but you're essentially correct in the "each actual prosecution probably means a lot of instances of it not getting prosecuted". I think that people would argue though that even 86 prosecutions, even representing way more actual cases, is not very much. These cases are over the total of the US and the US is huge. Per state these numbers would be even more negligible.
Like I said. The Netherlands and other European countries can do voter ID with little difficulty, the US should not even try right now. (I think many people would have less trouble with it if several thing were different but those things are so prevalent and difficult to change that a flat "No!" is a better answer than arguing about it.)
The SCOTUS majority opinion wasn't so much saying voter id's were carte blanche constitutional, but rather, the burden of impact according to the legal test used was not substantial enough to warrant overturning the law based on a lack of witnessed disenfranchisement, lack of proof in regards to corruption, and that their process allowed a provisional ballot to be cast without an ID.
That does not necessarily mean the Texas and Wisconsin laws will not require a higher level of scrutiny based upon their impact on disenfranchisement of protected classes, historical context, and the restrictiveness of the respective laws.
The law in question for Marion County did not obligate a photo id for all attempts at exercising the franchise. I would also note, interestingly enough, the Appellate Court jurist who wrote the opinion which SCOTUS agreed with has since disavowed his views (views which denied the conjectural claims of the effect the law would have due to a lack of evidence) thanks to the actual effects the law had once it was allowed to go through and the horrifying evidence it produced. (pdf)
The 2008 MN senate race was won by about 300 votes... and only settled after a massive and protracted legal campaign. The notion that any fraud of any scale that mattered (i.e. more than random people screwing up and voting twice, or voting while a felon, or a number of other things that are technically illegal, have no malicious intent, and would not be stopped by ID regardless) could survive that level of scrutiny is mind boggling.
Hell, the initial recount caused a far greater swing in numbers than any of the further legal battles - the error in the vote total from simple random chance was actually greater than the final margin of victory. If there was ever a race where systemic fraud could have affected things, that was it. Guess how much fraud was actually found in that whole process?
Edit: Bah, lost a giant extra wall of text here so I'll just summarize it. You can't aim for 51% when doing fraud. You have to aim higher because you can't predict the exact numbers (unless you're Nate Silver but I digress), and because you're fucking hosed if it's close enough to trip mandatory recount. That is, by 2008 turnout, hundreds of thousands of fake ballots. You can't round up enough people to cast that many on election day without it breaking down somewhere.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I think what happened is that in three cases lower courts ruled that the laws passed by Texas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina were unconstitutional infringements on the right to vote. Those courts blocked the implementation of those laws for the upcoming election. In North Carolina, SCOTUS overturned that bit pending their actual ruling, while in Wisconsin and Texas, they did not.
Not sure why that's different, though it could just be which judge is responsible for such things in each circuit? I think that has something to do with it.
Furthermore every citizen has the duty to be able to identify themselves anyway (a subject of debate here, mostly because it does lend itself to some bias in police doubling up on penalties, and they do stop minorities more often), and with a country this tiny not having a passport is pretty inconvenient anyway. Even then there are leniency rules for people who forget ID, or forget to renew ID (mostly the elderly).
The Dutch bureaucracy is also built upon IDs, you have to show it every time you talk to a government official, especially when money or privacy is involved.
Our polling stations are open 08.00 to 22.00 on elections, the average wait to vote is under 5 minutes, there are voting stations in major transport hubs like train stations, the government has done everything opposite to the US, where the whole system is designed to enable voting as easy and fast as possible.
This is mostly done by a) having uniform rules in the entire country b) throwing a bunch of money at it.
Further furthermore, you do not have a history of a racial minority that was enslaved less than a century and a half ago, and where they were systematically denied the rights of citizenship (especially voting rights) in a large part of the country in living memory. And the end of that practice by federal action almost single handedly switched the votes at a federal level for that large part of the country. It's highly relevant context.
No they simply stayed implementation for now. The main concern from all justices was there had already been early ballots mailed out that had no indications that a photo ID would need to be included for the votes to count. Basically it buys time for it to hit the supreme court for real before the 2016 election season or hopefully a democratic state attorney general is elected who won't keep pushing this piece of poo.
He has... well, let's say he's recanted. A conservative I respect! Disagree with frequently, but he's an actual honest to god conservative.
Also, University of Delaware finds a small but statistically significant increase in support for voter ID among white people who are shown images of black people voting as opposed to being shown no image or images of white people voting.
shocker of the century
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
In Taiwan we have something similar, the National Identification Card system that's intended for all nationals (note, not citizens) over the age of 14. You literally need it to vote and to register your household (i.e. benefit from any sort of state-funding assistance). I don't recall it being particularly difficult to get one (in fact, I'm fairly certain you are considered liable after a certain age if you don't have one, and you will be issued one regardless of how you feel about it, unless you're instead eligible for a Residency Certificate (for foreign nationals for example). It's also used as part of the conscription/mobilization system, so it's not surprising that I've never heard of a Taiwanese male who didn't get one issued either. It exists independent of the passport system I believe.
I can't think of any other kind of ID being close to universal (certainly not driver's licenses for cars or motorcycles), with the possible exception of school IDs in some areas?
I do think it's the best possible system in a small country of 23 million people that 1) has elections 2) has a genuine interest in the average citizen (are they sick? are they starving? if so, where do they live?). Back during the White Terror, not having national IDs certainly wasn't keeping people from getting arrested or shot after all.
Cultural and political nuances aside briefly, it could be as simple as the difference between 23 million and 320 million people, but apparently any sort of universal issuing system (except many a social security card?) is largely impossible to implement. So there isn't a reasonable ID expectation.
EDIT: Additionally, as already pointed out--it isn't necessary. A National ID card in the US isn't going to be used to see if people have proper access to healthcare, aren't starving, and aren't absent from public schooling. Those things, generally speaking, aren't particularly requirements of the United States or local governments, just general guidelines--as far as I can tell. If the R.O.C. is any indication National ID system is very useful if your bureaucracy is adamantly required to ensure these things, and considered "not starving" in the same league of importance as "voting."
I prefer the term "Republican Testing Ground" myself, but to each his own.
Taking a wild swing, but I think this
Is what probably turned him around. He realized his privilege and how the people the law this affects doesn't have anywhere near the privilege that he has. Once you come to that realization and actually apply that knowledge, rather than simply acknowledging it exists and then ignoring the effects of that privilege, it can completely change your view on many (if not most) political issues in this country.
That I respect any conservative?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Part?
don't sell them short, republicans are also interested in disenfranchising students too
Don't forget women.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Sarcasm, Feral.
It's basically 100% partyism. That is, anyone who won't vote for them can just not be able to vote. That'll show em!
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy