Trump

[BOBB]

And yes, it's a terrible public tragedy that QT doesn't have a suction curette next to the Rooster Booster so that any scared 14 year old can clear up their problems on the fly.

This is agreat idea. Get a lifelong taker of the government teat before it's born and free refills at $1.19. Market based solution.

[SHOXJOCK]

Again, I'm all for the free birth certificate for those in question. The inability to pay the fee probably accounts for roughly half a dozen people who actually were aware of a vote and wanted to but couldn't. And probably a few dozen cases of voter fraud. I'll take that tradeoff, but I still want the free birth certificate. You can send me the bill for those that want it, need it and can't find it. Should cost me dozens.

Does anyone think providing free birth certificates will stop the left from fighting to require an ID to vote? If the people on the left spent 1% of the money they spend fighting the voter ID laws,they could pay for all the birth certificates that are lost. So what's the real reason they fight so hard on this issue?

[CBB_Fan]

Oh bullshit. Saying votes are being "suppressed" because they require ID is worse than saying they slashed spending by slowing the already built in growth of future year's spending from 5% to 4%. I'm so sick of that argument.

And yes, it's a terrible public tragedy that QT doesn't have a suction curette next to the Rooster Booster so that any scared 14 year old can clear up their problems on the fly.

My tax accountant might have something to say about your burden locale whine.

We live in the state that produced Kris Kobach. His Crosscheck program alone, not even accounting for state ID issues, is a massive cause of voter suppression. 1/6 minority voters are on that list. If there's an Eric Gonzalez registered to vote in Kansas and one registered to vote in Texas, both could be removed from voter rolls even if they had different middle names. This isn't an a made up problem, as 2 million voters on the Crosscheck list have that exact issue. So a voter could legally register to vote, legally show up with Voter ID, and still get turned away on election day because they happen to share a name with another voter in another state. This happened to over a million voters in 2016, courtesy of Kris "Lost four voter suppression lawsuits" Kobach.

I'd go into Voter ID lawsuits, but I'm sure you've already heard the arguments. I'll just summarize them instead:

1. Other countries avoid suppressing the vote with Voter ID laws by giving a free ID through the mail. For example, in Switzerland, you get sent your registration card.
2. Places that institute Voter ID also make it much more difficult to get one. Alabama cut 33 DMVs. Wisconsin has a city with a DMV open 4 days a year.
3. ID laws are designed so that certain types of ID are favored. In Texas, you can vote with a handgun license but not a student license.
4. Voter ID laws can prevent out-of-state students from voting. This is the case in North Carolina.
5. Voter ID laws can situationally make it much more time/money intensive to vote without affecting everyone. IE, clerical errors or marital name changes can require multiple DMV trips or further documentation.

[wufan]

We live in the state that produced Kris Kobach. His Crosscheck program alone, not even accounting for state ID issues, is a massive cause of voter suppression. 1/6 minority voters are on that list. If there's an Eric Gonzalez registered to vote in Kansas and one registered to vote in Texas, both could be removed from voter rolls even if they had different middle names. This isn't an a made up problem, as 2 million voters on the Crosscheck list have that exact issue. So a voter could legally register to vote, legally show up with Voter ID, and still get turned away on election day because they happen to share a name with another voter in another state. This happened to over a million voters in 2016, courtesy of Kris "Lost four voter suppression lawsuits" Kobach.

I'd go into Voter ID lawsuits, but I'm sure you've already heard the arguments. I'll just summarize them instead:

1. Other countries avoid suppressing the vote with Voter ID laws by giving a free ID through the mail. For example, in Switzerland, you get sent your registration card.
2. Places that institute Voter ID also make it much more difficult to get one. Alabama cut 33 DMVs. Wisconsin has a city with a DMV open 4 days a year.
3. ID laws are designed so that certain types of ID are favored. In Texas, you can vote with a handgun license but not a student license.
4. Voter ID laws can prevent out-of-state students from voting. This is the case in North Carolina.
5. Voter ID laws can situationally make it much more time/money intensive to vote without affecting everyone. IE, clerical errors or marital name changes can require multiple DMV trips or further documentation.

I'm done with the Swiss model.

[Cdizzle]

3. ID laws are designed so that certain types of ID are favored. In Texas, you can vote with a handgun license but not a student license.

What is required to acquire a handgun license and a student license in Texas? Without that underlying information, this statement is inflammatory and biased without the slightest bit of merit.

[MoValley John]

What is a student license?
Does he mean student id? Student id's do not require citizenship, gun permits do. I would hope the two were weighted differently with regard to voting.

[shocka khan]

What is required to acquire a handgun license and a student license in Texas? Without that underlying information, this statement is inflammatory and biased without the slightest bit of merit.

I am not going to comment on validity, bias or contexting, here is a website containing the information:

https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/

'DPS administers the Handgun Licensing Program under the authority of the Texas Government Code Chapter 411, Subchapter H. DPS licenses individuals to carry handguns within Texas, evaluates the eligibility of applicants through criminal history background checks and monitors those currently licensed to ensure their continued eligibility. DPS also trains and certifies instructors who teach the required course to applicants.

All Original License To Carry a Handgun (LTC) applicants are required to submit fingerprints to DPS as part of the complete LTC application. Please see LTC Fingerprint and Photo Information."

Note, my opinion is the author of the original post when referencing 'students' is actually meaning 'campus carry'.

I think it goes without saying that a 'campus carrier' must also have an LTC, and be bound by those rules in addition to the campus carry rules.

I will also opine I think the author is quoting information without understanding the meaning (i.e. contexting) of the definition.

I may kvetch about the lack of training required to get an LTC, but I think if you have to provide fingerprints and get your photo taken, that effort, in and of itself, should be sufficient to establish identity for the purpose of voting.

My commens regards the training requirement apply only to the program as administered in the State of Texas.

[MoValley John]

Let me clarify. A non-citizen can possess a handgun, but the permit requires that the holder be a permanent resident and non-citizen is printed on the permit. Therefore, a legal gun permit presented at an election would immediately disqualify any resident aliens. A school id would not.

[Cdizzle]

I am not going to comment on validity, bias or contexting, here is a website containing the information:

https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/

'DPS administers the Handgun Licensing Program under the authority of the Texas Government Code Chapter 411, Subchapter H. DPS licenses individuals to carry handguns within Texas, evaluates the eligibility of applicants through criminal history background checks and monitors those currently licensed to ensure their continued eligibility. DPS also trains and certifies instructors who teach the required course to applicants.

All Original License To Carry a Handgun (LTC) applicants are required to submit fingerprints to DPS as part of the complete LTC application. Please see LTC Fingerprint and Photo Information."

Note, my opinion is the author of the original post when referencing 'students' is actually meaning 'campus carry'.

I think it goes without saying that a 'campus carrier' must also have an LTC, and be bound by those rules in addition to the campus carry rules.

I will also opine I think the author is quoting information without understanding the meaning (i.e. contexting) of the definition.

I may kvetch about the lack of training required to get an LTC, but I think if you have to provide fingerprints and get your photo taken, that effort, in and of itself, should be sufficient to establish identity for the purpose of voting.

Right. So, one had to have an already valid form of voter ID (as defined in Texas, right or wrong) in order to receive a handgun license in Texas. Is the same true for a 'student license?' (still not sure what is meant by student license in this context).

[shocka khan]

Right. So, one had to have an already valid form of voter ID (as defined in Texas, right or wrong) in order to receive a handgun license in Texas. Is the same true for a 'student license?' (still not sure what is meant by student license in this context).

I would believe, unless open carrying, the answer is yes. You can't carry a concealed handgun on a campus without being a CHL holder. I would imagine any requirements for campus carry would be in addition to the ones required to be a CHL holder (as it is obvious a concealed campus carrier is part of the subset of the larger CHL group).

Since I live in Texas and watched the debate and the bill move forward in the legislature, I am absolutely certain requirements for 'campus carry' are over and above those required for concealed carry due to the risk associated with a young college-age student carrying a firearm on a college campus.

Although I don't own a gun, I absolutely support the rights for other properly trained individuals to be able to carry a gun. I believe it is a crime deterrent.

Where I would have disagreement, if any, would be in the specific area of training - i.e. how much is enough and the frequency of training. I have seen instances (in the Houston area) where CHL carriers have been careless and either shot the wrong person (who they thought was the 'bad guy') or had their gun accidently discharge while carrying and injured someone else (if they injure themselves, that's their problem).

[MoValley John]

Right. So, one had to have an already valid form of voter ID (as defined in Texas, right or wrong) in order to receive a handgun license in Texas. Is the same true for a 'student license?' (still not sure what is meant by student license in this context).

I think he means student id. Like, a Wichita State student id. Or an id to any other college, university, juco or high school. Citizenship is not part of the student id process.

Purchasing a handgun requires residency, plus citizenship is also part of the paperwork. You can obtain a firearm as a permant resident non-citizen, green card holder, or other legal form of US residency, but your application lists citizenship.

[CBB_Fan]

What is required to acquire a handgun license and a student license in Texas? Without that underlying information, this statement is inflammatory and biased without the slightest bit of merit.

NOTE: The article I linked was referring to Student ID cards, not campus carry cards.

I disagree. The point of the statement wasn't about the validity of license A versus license B, it is that lawmakers pick and choose which licenses to accept based on which is most likely to help "their people" vote without helping the other side.

If gun licensees are overwhelmingly conservative and students are overwhelmingly liberal, then allowing easy voting access for one group and not the other will affect the election. That point stands regardless of the validity of the licenses, and as a statement of fact may be inflammatory but isn't biased.

Furthermore, a Voter ID is not proof of lawful registration. It is a proof of identity. Eligibility to vote should be determined at registration; on election day you should only need to proof you are a previously-verified legal voter.

For instance, in Kansas if you aren't already on the voter registration list you must present proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

Thus if Roberto Emmanuel is a registered voter (post-2013), then they have already proven citizenship. They don't need to prove it while registering AND while voting, they just need to prove that the person calling themselves Roberto Emmanuel is in fact that the Roberto Emmanuel living at 123 Pleasant Lane, Smileyburg who already proved citizenship. He does that by providing a photo ID verifying that information, and shouldn't need to duplicate the work proving him to be a citizen.

So in conclusion, I disagree with your post on two accounts. First, on the attack that the statement was biased and without merit. The point remains true even if you think the difference in classification has merit. Second, on the unstated context that posits a Voter ID needs to show citizenship. That is not necessary to achieve its purpose.

(And this doesn't go into the other 4 points that allow the laws to be abused to suppress the vote and influence elections).

[MoValley John]

NOTE: The article I linked was referring to Student ID cards, not campus carry cards.

I disagree. The point of the statement wasn't about the validity of license A versus license B, it is that lawmakers pick and choose which licenses to accept based on which is most likely to help "their people" vote without helping the other side.

If gun licensees are overwhelmingly conservative and students are overwhelmingly liberal, then allowing easy voting access for one group and not the other will affect the election. That point stands regardless of the validity of the licenses, and as a statement of fact may be inflammatory but isn't biased.

Furthermore, a Voter ID is not proof of lawful registration. It is a proof of identity. Eligibility to vote should be determined at registration; on election day you should only need to proof you are a previously-verified legal voter.

For instance, in Kansas if you aren't already on the voter registration list you must present proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

Thus if Roberto Emmanuel is a registered voter (post-2013), then they have already proven citizenship. They don't need to prove it while registering AND while voting, they just need to prove that the person calling themselves Roberto Emmanuel is in fact that the Roberto Emmanuel living at 123 Pleasant Lane, Smileyburg who already proved citizenship. He does that by providing a photo ID verifying that information, and shouldn't need to duplicate the work proving him to be a citizen.

So in conclusion, I disagree with your post on two accounts. First, on the attack that the statement was biased and without merit. The point remains true even if you think the difference in classification has merit. Second, on the unstated context that posits a Voter ID needs to show citizenship. That is not necessary to achieve its purpose.

(And this doesn't go into the other 4 points that allow the laws to be abused to suppress the vote and influence elections).

You bring a valid point that picking and choosing could create a bias. That said, there is a huge difference between a CHL and a student id. A student id is not issued by the state, a handgun permit, is. The simplest form of id would be a state issued id, a CHL is probably the most difficult. While you have a valid concern, your example, a student id vs. a gun license is a poor comparison as the student id, which would favor liberals, is easy, while a CHL, which favors conservatives, is a much tougher burdon.

By the way, just to placate the PC crowd, assuming gun owners are conservative and students are liberal are both microaggressions.

[CBB_Fan]

You bring a valid point that picking and choosing could create a bias. That said, there is a huge difference between a CHL and a student id. A student id is not issued by the state, a handgun permit, is. The simplest form of id would be a state issued id, a CHL is probably the most difficult. While you have a valid concern, your example, a student id vs. a gun license is a poor comparison as the student id, which would favor liberals, is easy, while a CHL, which favors conservatives, is a much tougher burdon.

By the way, just to placate the PC crowd, assuming gun owners are conservative and students are liberal are both microaggressions.

I feel that we are getting into circular arguments. I refuted the very point you tried to use as a rebuttal:

The point remains true even if you think the difference in classification has merit.

I was directly addressing the idea of a higher burden between IDs. Bringing it up again won't refute what I was saying, but it will keeping us going in circles.

But to dig deeper, the relative ease of getting a CHL (or in this case, an LTC) versus a student ID shouldn't matter. They have different levels of burden to fulfill their primary purpose. Either functionally fulfills the secondary purpose of validating a registered voters ID.

And just to nitpick, the accepted Student IDs are from state colleges. IE, a Newman ID wouldn't work but a Wichita State ID would, because the Wichita State ID is functionally administered by a state entity.

Furthermore, Student IDs are very important because they are the sole source of ID for a relatively large demographic: out-of-state college students. These students often don't have a car (or state driver's license), and can't physically return home to their state to vote. By selectively choosing not to accept Student IDs, you can pretty much completely cut off this voting block.

To reiterate: The different levels of burden in accessing the two forms of ID is not itself justification for one being a valid Voter ID and the other not.

[MoValley John]

I feel that we are getting into circular arguments. I refuted the very point you tried to use as a rebuttal:



I was directly addressing the idea of a higher burden between IDs. Bringing it up again won't refute what I was saying, but it will keeping us going in circles.

But to dig deeper, the relative ease of getting a CHL (or in this case, an LTC) versus a student ID shouldn't matter. They have different levels of burden to fulfill their primary purpose. Either functionally fulfills the secondary purpose of validating a registered voters ID.

And just to nitpick, the accepted Student IDs are from state colleges. IE, a Newman ID wouldn't work but a Wichita State ID would, because the Wichita State ID is functionally administered by a state entity.

Furthermore, Student IDs are very important because they are the sole source of ID for a relatively large demographic: out-of-state college students. These students often don't have a car (or state driver's license), and can't physically return home to their state to vote. By selectively choosing not to accept Student IDs, you can pretty much completely cut off this voting block.

To reiterate: The different levels of burden in accessing the two forms of ID is not itself justification for one being a valid Voter ID and the other not.

I'm not going into a circular debate, if you look,at my previous statement, I'm mostly agreeing with you that picking and choosing id's could be problematic.

Should a state enact a constitutional voter id law,the problem I see with student id's in particular, is that obtaining a student id does nothing to verify either A. Residency, or B. Citizenship, both requirements to vote.

I also believe that for voter id to be required, the state needs to provide state id's free of charge and easily accessable. If you get past the arguing with me at all costs, you will find that we really aren't that far apart.