At the number of (white) (liberal) people that really believe that requiring an ID (or, as in the Save Act, proof of citizenship) will disenfranchise black and brown people.
They really believe that people, especially black people, cannot get a drivers license of state issued ID, and go through life without one on a daily basis.
(I suspect that because they don’t know many people that aren’t white, they really believe that those people are lesser, and are simply not intelligent enough to figure out how to get an ID and that they, unlike whites, simply don’t need one because they pay cash for everything and don’t have bank accounts and such)
I’m not sure if it is “Soft Racism” or simply ignorance…..
Soft Racism” or simply ignorance…..Don’t they go hand in hand?
I don’t know any people who believe Black or Hispanic Americans are incapable of obtaining identification. That seems to be arguing against a position few actually hold. The real question is whether the specific documentation requirements create enough burden to prevent some eligible citizens from voting and whether that burden is justified by the election-security benefit gained. That’s a policy debate. It doesn’t require believing anyone is less intelligent or less capable than anyone else.
Are you unaware of what your DNC fellows are stating? Say, Chuck Schumer….Cory Booker, Barry Obama and many others?
Have you seen the videos of the “Man-On-The-Street” interviews (and even some news reports showing that people (generally liberals) that state exactly that?
Or are you just being deliberately obtuse here?
B, this is exactly why specificity matters.
If Schumer, Booker, Obama, or anyone else said Black or brown Americans are too unintelligent to get ID, quote them. I’ll reject that too.
But saying a law may disproportionately burden eligible voters is not the same as saying those voters are incapable. The SAVE Act is not just “show ID.” It adds documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements for registration, and critics point to birth certificates, passports, name changes, rural access, cost, bureaucracy, and past examples like Kansas, where proof-of-citizenship rules blocked thousands of eligible voters.
You can argue those concerns are exaggerated. Fair enough. But turning “this may disenfranchise some eligible citizens” into “liberals think minorities are too dumb to get ID” is not an argument. It’s a caricature.
So no, I wasn’t being obtuse. I was asking you to support the specific claim you made.
Is it an unnecessary burden to have ID to fly, to get a job, to apply for government benefits?
What a ridiculous argument.
RJW tends to make those kinds of arguments…He is a DNC Party operative (or at least a follower and congregant).
I let him post for the amusement value, not for his intelligent commentary.
“It adds documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements for registration, and critics point to birth certificates, passports, name changes, rural access, cost, bureaucracy,”
Interesting set of arguments. Birth certificates, if I have correctly understood what I have read (and it is itself accurate) are sufficient. Passports, again with the comprehension/accuracy disclaimer, sufficient. Name changes: has none of these critics heard of a marriage certificate? Rural access: I have lived rural. We-uns hab ourselfz dese things called, um, lemme tink a minit….COURTHOUSES, post offices, even! Cost: buy cigarettes lately (or, know someone who has bought legal marijuana)? It seems to me (clinician in a clinic serving a poverty population) that everybody walks around smelling like a Willie Nelson/Snoop Dogg/Bob Marley concert. So, in short, in general and in detail, I call malarkey.