Voter ID laws appear to be working to suppress Democrat votes

No, that isn't the argument against it. The argument against it is that it isn't necessary, and is designed to prevent minorities and other voters who don't vote Republican from voting.

 

You say it's not necessary, but if it's not a legitimate barrier then there's no argument against allowing it for those who think it is. That's why so many people bend over backwards to try and prove something that they know is simply not true, it's because they know they have to in order to have a legitimate case against voter ID laws.

 

It's only a relevant argument if the laws didn't affect turnout amongst the groups that people who made the law claimed it would affect. Since we know those groups did have lower turnout where the voter ID laws were in place, then it isn't really relevant.

 

No, the only thing you spelled out were your assumptions.

More assumptions which are refuted by the facts in the case that resulted in Texas' voter ID law being struck down.

In an argument against you?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Not in this lifetime, rookie.

Well, except for all of the arguments you've chosen to ignore.

Again, you're just choosing to ignore my arguments as well as those made by the justices who decided the Texas case. You're choosing ignorance, as usual.

 

SMH, only a simpleton considers facts "assumptions".

You are clearly not intelligent enough for this (any?) conversation kiddo, so run along.

 

You haven't posted facts, you have assumed that your statements are factual, without doubt, but they are belied by the facts as stated by the justices who struck down the Texas voter ID law.

Bullshit and then an insult. SOP for bobby.

You should just take your lumps and slink away now, rookie.

 

You simpleton, I posted EXACTLY what the requirements to get an ID in Texas were, you called those "assumptions" when it was just fact.

Talking with you is honestly worse than talking with a brick wall because at least a brick wall remains silent in ignorance.

 

You posted the requirements, which are factual, along with your opinion that they don't cause an undue burden. This is the critical mistaken assumption you've made, an assumption that is refuted by the justices that struck down the Texas voter ID law.

The brick wall is ignorant because it cannot be anything else. You're ignorant because you've chosen to be so.

 

So if another court, the SCOTUS perhaps, were to reinstate the law, you'd then support it?

 

I've told you what would be necessary for me to support the law, but I'll repeat...

1. The required ID should be free and easy for any citizen to acquire
2. The law should be free from other provisions designed to limit voting such as restricting early voting, reducing the number of polling locations in a manner designed to suppress votes for partisan purposes, and reducing the number of voting machines available in certain polling locations in an effort to suppress votes for partisan purposes

If you knew the facts, you'd know that the voter ID laws, particularly those that have been struck down by the courts, contain many provisions like those listed in point 2 above. These are the provisions I find most distasteful, particularly when partisans such as yourself try to defend these laws with nonsensical "arguments" like "who disagrees that voters should have to identify themselves?" That isn't the only thing these laws do, which you would know if you hadn't chosen ignorance over knowledge.

 

If your answer is "no" then you shouldn't be using a court decision to support what you think is a case.

 

I didn't. I used the court case to give you material with which to inform yourself of the facts. You're assuming that voter ID laws don't create substantial barriers, the justice's opinions in that case clearly speak to that assumption.

And you continue to refuse to address the other provisions of voter ID laws.

 

SMh, I guess I didn't spell it out to you well enough but I don't have any crayons so you are just going to have to do a better job.

 

As usual, bobby isn't capable of forming a logical argument that responds to my points, so he tosses out insults instead.

 

SMH, I'll let you think that. I'm tired of your intellectual shortcomings getting in the way

 

I'm not the one resorting to insults and ignoring arguments. Those actions are yours.

 

No, you aren't "ignoring" arguments, you are too feeble minded to understand them....which is many ways is worse. Also, I'm not insulting you, I'm making an accurate assessment of the situation. Not the same thing.

 

Another insult and continuing to refuse to address the provisions in voter ID laws that have nothing to do with ID. Par for the course for bobby.

 

Arguing with him is futile. Bobby is the guy who joined the debate team in school, kept losing, but blamed it on the judges and quit instead of getting better.

 

I know, but I revel in watching him so clearly prove his ignorance.