DOE launches investigation into Maines compliance with title IX

[rodoheel]

Yep, ignore the 77 million, the clean sweep of swing states, and electoral beat down

Complete non-sequitur response. As expected. You are either unwilling or unable to engage with the legal aspect of this. I will just repeat the obvious point that you ignored:

"If you really think Trump and Republicans have a "mandate" on this issue, then they can enact laws and regulations pursuant to existing law and attempt to enforce them."

If you want to live in a country where the law is whatever the president arbitrarily decides it is on any given day - and in which he can arbitrarily cut off all government funding to anyone who displeases him - feel free to move to Russia. Or, like, 17th century France. We live in a constitutional republic, not a feudal monarchy. Only a fool celebrates tyranny just because he happens to agree with the policy the tyranny is trying to enforce.

 

[ZenMode]

None of the things you listed is a prerequisite to being eligible to vote.

The general concern is that requiring ID to vote is going to disenfranchise voters. I'm asking who these people are that are so disengaged from life that they don't have an ID and therefore don't have a job, don't have a bank account, don't cash checks, don't drive, don't collect welfare/SNAP, etc.

 

[rodoheel]

The general concern is that requiring ID to vote is going to disenfranchise voters. I'm asking who these people are that are so disengaged from life that they don't have an ID and therefore don't have a job, don't have a bank account, don't cash checks, don't drive, don't collect welfare/SNAP, etc.

You need a valid photo ID to apply for things like Medicaid, SNAP, etc but you don't need a valid photo ID to continue to receive the benefits. And you don't need a valid ID to deposit social security checks into an account you got when you did have a valid ID. Again, you're ignoring that many people who don't have a valid ID aren't people who never had an ID, it just may be expired.

 

[4thgenheel]

I used your analogy against you, simple as that. Again, then you claim you're the moral expert, but won't give Trump credit for keeping men out of women's sports. Alot of women were tired of competing against men, but your type ignore that grievance because its pro Trump.

no. it isn't my analogy. this is my 2nd post in this thread. wtf are you talking about?

you alone attempted to analogize rape and incest with bio women playing sports against transgender women.

it's a nonsensical analogy in addition to being abhorrent and not something that anyone who gives a shit about women would ever say.

 

[ZenMode]

I do think it's likely that most of the people we're talking about are (1) elderly, and/or (2) poor and/or unemployed. The old people may have bank accounts that they got either before photo ID was required or when they had a valid ID. (Keep in mind that many of these people likely had a drivers' license at some point, but it may be expired and they have no reason to renew it.) The poor people may simply not have bank accounts and do everything with cash; a quick Google suggests that something like 4% of US households (which is probably 10 million adults or more) don't have a checking account.

But in any event I think you are making an unwarranted assumption that most or all of those people are not in "a mental state that they should be permitted to vote." Being poor isn't a mental illness. Lots of old people have physical difficulties that limit their driving, working, and other participation in life, but that doesn't mean they are not in a "mental state" that makes them incapable of voting. (Besides, we don't limit voting to only people who are smart and free of mental illness; lord knows I sometimes wish some of the stupidest people in this country didn't vote.)

It sounds like you essentially have no problem with barring 2.2 million people, or very likely more, from voting based on your assumption (not backed by anything approaching data) that some unknown percentage of them are not fit to vote anyway. It sounds like it is easy for you to justify disenfranchising these people because you assume they are not worthy of voting or otherwise participating in society. I find your position to be both arrogant and callous. I will also note that the reasoning you're using is essentially the same reasoning that the people whose rights you are taking away somehow have less right to participate in society, in whatever way they're able, than you do.

Like I said earlier, I'm fine giving anyone who truly needs one a free ID to ensure they can vote. I don't want anyone denied the ability to vote, who truly wants to. I just don't know how much of an issue a free ID is going to address.

Banks, starting in 2001, required 2 forms of ID to open an account. I'd assume that things like SNAP/welfare, etc also required an ID at the same time. The people who opened an account before 2001, apparently arranged most everything else in their lives prior to, or near, that time, have been living for nearly a quarter of a decade with no ID, don't strike me as the kind of people who are going to be voting today.

But, again, I'm fine giving out free IDs to anyone who needs one.

 

[Enigma94]

I used your analogy against you, simple as that. Again, then you claim you're the moral expert, but won't give Trump credit for keeping men out of women's sports. Alot of women were tired of competing against men, but your type ignore that grievance because its pro Trump.

Not a lot. Very very few - because there are very very few transgender women competing with biologically born women. I actually have argued on these boards and its predecessor against transgender women being allowed to compete in women's sports, but I find most of the people (like you) who argue so vehemently about a minor issue to be so backwards on real women's issues that I can't take you seriously on this one.

 

[Silence Dogood]

Complete non-sequitur response. As expected. You are either unwilling or unable to engage with the legal aspect of this. I will just repeat the obvious point that you ignored:

"If you really think Trump and Republicans have a "mandate" on this issue, then they can enact laws and regulations pursuant to existing law and attempt to enforce them."

If you want to live in a country where the law is whatever the president arbitrarily decides it is on any given day - and in which he can arbitrarily cut off all government funding to anyone who displeases him - feel free to move to Russia. Or, like, 17th century France. We live in a constitutional republic, not a feudal monarchy. Only a fool celebrates tyranny just because he happens to agree with the policy the tyranny is trying to enforce.

The people of this country want what he's doing i can't simplify that anymore

 

[roostra]

The general concern is that requiring ID to vote is going to disenfranchise voters. I'm asking who these people are that are so disengaged from life that they don't have an ID and therefore don't have a job, don't have a bank account, don't cash checks, don't drive, don't collect welfare/SNAP, etc.

Homeless folks, for a start.

 

[rodoheel]

Like I said earlier, I'm fine giving anyone who truly needs one a free ID to ensure they can vote. I don't want anyone denied the ability to vote, who truly wants to. I just don't know how much of an issue a free ID is going to address.

Banks, starting in 2001, required 2 forms of ID to open an account. I'd assume that things like SNAP/welfare, etc also required an ID at the same time. The people who opened an account before 2001, apparently arranged most everything else in their lives prior to, or near, that time, have been living for nearly a quarter of a decade with no ID, don't strike me as the kind of people who are going to be voting today.

But, again, I'm fine giving out free IDs to anyone who needs one.

Again you seem to not be grasping the concept here. it's not just about people who only applied for benefits or bank accounts 20+ years ago (though I'm sure those people exist). It's anyone who had a valid ID at any point, then stopped having one (because they had no need to renew a DL). Like this scenario:

--Person has valid drivers license in 2022; opens bank account, applies for Medicaid, whatever
--Person's driver's license expires in 2023; they do not drive and do not renew it
--Person now lacks valid photo ID needed to vote

if you are fine with giving everyone a free ID what is the point of this speculation and denigration of the people who don't already have a valid ID? Why call their mental competence or ability to vote into question? is it just being mean-spirited for the sake of it? You seem far more willing to assume and believe negative things about people whose lives you know nothing about than to assume and believe that they have a good reason for not having a driver's license or passport of bank account or whatever. Why is that?

 

[4thgenheel]

Not a lot. Very very few - because there are very very few transgender women competing with biologically born women. I actually have argued on these boards and its predecessor against transgender women being allowed to compete in women's sports, but I find most of the people (like you) who argue so vehemently about a minor issue to be so backwards on real women's issues that I can't take you seriously on this one.

right there with you. it's a complicated issue. but it isn't for the executive branch to decide on a whim and use it to threaten states.

this is all about cruelty towards and disenfranchisement of trans people. neither the OP nor this clownshow admin give a flying fuck about women.

 

[Silence Dogood]

no. it isn't my analogy. this is my 2nd post in this thread. wtf are you talking about?

you alone attempted to analogize rape and incest with bio women playing sports against transgender women.

it's a nonsensical analogy in addition to being abhorrent and not something that anyone who gives a shit about women would ever say.

I'm told that a small percentage are affected by men in women's sports so we should leave the issue alone. I used a numbers analogy like yours. So somehow disgruntled women competing against men is not to be taken seriously since its not as high on your grievance list but the small percentage of rape and incest is to be taken seriously. Why not both? Be consistent

 

[roostra]

Like I said earlier, I'm fine giving anyone who truly needs one a free ID to ensure they can vote. I don't want anyone denied the ability to vote, who truly wants to. I just don't know how much of an issue a free ID is going to address.

Banks, starting in 2001, required 2 forms of ID to open an account. I'd assume that things like SNAP/welfare, etc also required an ID at the same time. The people who opened an account before 2001, apparently arranged most everything else in their lives prior to, or near, that time, have been living for nearly a quarter of a decade with no ID, don't strike me as the kind of people who are going to be voting today.

But, again, I'm fine giving out free IDs to anyone who needs one.

Take a look at States in the south that decreased the number of DMV locations where you can get ID as Voter ID laws started taking off. If the closest place to get an ID is 50-100 miles away (and the process for actually getting an ID has gotten more complicated) and you are poor and have no car, that is a significant hindrance to exercising your right to vote.

 

[superrific]

Like I said earlier, I'm fine giving anyone who truly needs one a free ID to ensure they can vote. I don't want anyone denied the ability to vote, who truly wants to. I just don't know how much of an issue a free ID is going to address.

A lot more than the issue of migrant or non-citizen voting, which isn't happening at all and will never happen.

Think about it this way: how much would someone have to pay you to illegally vote in an election for you to do it? You cast your vote in a precinct where you live. Then this person tells you to travel to a different precinct and vote there under a different name, all spelled out for you.

Would you do it for $10K? $100K? Let's say you're easily bought and it's $10K. Now, let's see how this works out for the payor. He's got $1M he wants to spend on influencing elections. With that $1M he can buy . . . 100 votes. In other words, not enough to sway any significant election in NC that I remember. Even the state supreme court cases are being decided by a few hundred.

Well, now the person commits $100M to the task. With that, he can buy 10K votes. All right, that's possibly enough to sway an election. But which election? The presidential race in NC? It *** could have been *** decided by less than 10K votes, but actually it wasn't nearly that close. That's $100M down the drain. A House race? Which one?

Oh, and there's a logistical problem. How do you hide this? Suddenly people all over the area are buying new cars or appliances or whatever. Maybe they just buy a round of drinks for everyone at a bar. In any event, are we going to assume that none of these 10K people are going to have loose lips. If word gets out, there will be an investigation. This payor would be facing a very lengthy prison sentence. Imagine going to prison for paying $100M out of your own pocket for a chance at maybe getting something you want (which is itself of limited benefit, since there are many legislators).

NONE OF IT MAKES SENSE. Which is why it doesn't happen. Nobody has an incentive to risk jail time to cast a vote that is 99.999% likely to be meaningless.

 

[Silence Dogood]

Take a look at States in the south that decreased the number of DMV locations where you can get ID as Voter ID laws started taking off. If the closest place to get an ID is 50-100 miles away (and the process for actually getting an ID has gotten more complicated) and you are poor and have no car, that is a significant hindrance to exercising your right to vote.

These are excuses at this point. Find who they are and bring them there

 

[rodoheel]

The people of this country want what he's doing i can't simplify that anymore

Buddy your own thoughts are simple enough; you don't need to simplify them more. Please, for all our sakes.

The entire problem is you trying to make things simple when they aren't that simple. Ignoring the fact that less than a majority of the country actually voted for Trump, any third grader can tell you based on their social studies class that the President does not simply get to do whatever he wants whether a majority of people want it or not. Congress is the lawmaking body, and Congress has further empowered executive agencies (not the president) to engage in administrative rulemaking. The major problem here isn't the policy that Trump is promoting (even though I happen to disagree with it). The problem is the way he's trying to implement and enforce it.

Again, if you want to live in a feudal monarchy then feel free to find one to move to. Our constitution explicitly rejects and prevents Trump's now-preferred doctrine of "L'État, c'est moi." (I know you don't know what that means. Google it. Or is that too much to ask as well? But just to make sure you understand, that statement is in French) I am begging you to find some sort of elementary school textbook to teach you about our system of government. It's a good thing you were born a citizen because I suspect you would have a real hard time passing a US citizenship test.

 

[4thgenheel]

I'm told that a small percentage are affected by men in women's sports so we should leave the issue alone. I used a numbers analogy like yours. So somehow disgruntled women competing against men is not to be taken seriously since its not as high on your grievance list but the small percentage of rape and incest is to be taken seriously. Why not both? Be consistent

once again: I HAVEN'T USED AN ANALOGY IN THIS THREAD. I JUST CRITICIZED YOURS.

the stupidity and callousness on display from you here is breathtaking. the bolded......chefs kiss. my god.

 

[rodoheel]

I'm told that a small percentage are affected by men in women's sports so we should leave the issue alone. I used a numbers analogy like yours. So somehow disgruntled women competing against men is not to be taken seriously since its not as high on your grievance list but the small percentage of rape and incest is to be taken seriously. Why not both? Be consistent

Did you just compare the harm of being "disgruntled" to the harm of being raped? LOL

 

[4thgenheel]

Did you just compare the harm of being "disgruntled" to the harm of being raped? LOL

mind-boggling stuff. he definitely cares about women, though!

 

[finesse]

Consistent would be treating 32000+ pregnancies from rape a year as much more of an atrocity than playing against the less than 10 transgender athletes in the NCAA right now.

 

[Silence Dogood]

mind-boggling stuff. he definitely cares about women, though!

I get it, you're losing the debate so you make wild accusations. Wheres StrangePackage so he can decide whether you're trying to have a discussion in good faith.