10 ms·

How does that contradict my point? 10 percent of Americans do not have acceptable ID and would be disenfranchised by Republican voter ID laws. Even free ID does

How does that contradict my point? 10 percent of Americans do not have acceptable ID and would be disenfranchised by Republican voter ID laws. Even free ID doesn't make the operation frictionless, as you still have to provide a birth cert or citizenship doc. Don't tell me I'm "unfactual" while presenting this kind of weak sauce non sequitur.

throwawaypath 10d ago
>How does that contradict my point? Your point was states do not give free IDs. That point is an objectively false point. It directly contradicts your point. > 10 percent of Americans do not have acceptable ID Stop moving goalposts. >Even free ID doesn't make the operation frictionless, as you still have to provide a birth cert or citizenship doc. No one made the claim the operation is frictionless, stop straw manning. >Don't tell me I'm "unfactual" You are unfactual as proved in the thread. >while presenting this kind of weak sauce non sequitur. It's not a non sequitur, it dismantles your false statements.
- hackyhacky 10d ago
  > Your point was states do not give free IDs. No, it was not. Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment. > Stop moving goalposts. This is not moving goal posts. This is precisely the point. Voter ID laws will disenfranchise legal voters. That's it. That's the point. > No one made the claim the operation is frictionless, Good. Then you acknowledge that legal voters will be disenfranchised?
  - throwawaypath 10d ago
    >No, it was not. Yes, it was. >Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment. Stop projecting about being confused. Everyone can see where you poorly attempted to support your objectively false points. >This is not moving goal posts. This is precisely the point. The point was you thought IDs for voting were not free. That is false. Stop moving the goalposts. >Good. Then you acknowledge that legal voters will be disenfranchised? Non sequitur. Proving you're eligibility to vote is not disenfranchisement.
    - hackyhacky 10d ago
      Incredible sense of deja vu. I feel like I was just having this same conversation with another user who has the mind of a 13 year old child. > The point was you thought IDs for voting were not free I guess you choose to dwell on this particular issue because it makes you feel better, but actually we're talking about Republican rules to restrict voting. The availability of ID is an issue in that discussion. Any friction involved in getting an ID, including but not limited to paying for it, will limited voting in practice. > Proving you're eligibility to vote is not disenfranchisement. Disenfranchisement is causing eligible voters to not be able to vote. Which is what happens when add requirements that people don't fulfill. > Stop projecting about being confused. Everyone can see where you poorly attempted to support your objectively false points. Oh okay.

throwawaypath 10d ago

>How does that contradict my point? Your point was states do not give free IDs. That point is an objectively false point. It directly contradicts your point. > 10 percent of Americans do not have acceptable ID Stop moving goalposts. >Even free ID doesn't make the operation frictionless, as you still have to provide a birth cert or citizenship doc. No one made the claim the operation is frictionless, stop straw manning. >Don't tell me I'm "unfactual" You are unfactual as proved in the thread. >while presenting this kind of weak sauce non sequitur. It's not a non sequitur, it dismantles your false statements.

hackyhacky 10d ago
> Your point was states do not give free IDs. No, it was not. Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment. > Stop moving goalposts. This is not moving goal posts. This is precisely the point. Voter ID laws will disenfranchise legal voters. That's it. That's the point. > No one made the claim the operation is frictionless, Good. Then you acknowledge that legal voters will be disenfranchised?
- throwawaypath 10d ago
  >No, it was not. Yes, it was. >Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment. Stop projecting about being confused. Everyone can see where you poorly attempted to support your objectively false points. >This is not moving goal posts. This is precisely the point. The point was you thought IDs for voting were not free. That is false. Stop moving the goalposts. >Good. Then you acknowledge that legal voters will be disenfranchised? Non sequitur. Proving you're eligibility to vote is not disenfranchisement.
  - hackyhacky 10d ago
    Incredible sense of deja vu. I feel like I was just having this same conversation with another user who has the mind of a 13 year old child. > The point was you thought IDs for voting were not free I guess you choose to dwell on this particular issue because it makes you feel better, but actually we're talking about Republican rules to restrict voting. The availability of ID is an issue in that discussion. Any friction involved in getting an ID, including but not limited to paying for it, will limited voting in practice. > Proving you're eligibility to vote is not disenfranchisement. Disenfranchisement is causing eligible voters to not be able to vote. Which is what happens when add requirements that people don't fulfill. > Stop projecting about being confused. Everyone can see where you poorly attempted to support your objectively false points. Oh okay.