The conversation started from that argument being applied to DC statehood.
No, the "one side" argument is weak in the case of voter ID laws because we accept IDs in all aspects of our daily life with not a peep about it being racist.
Valid points but it doesn't change the fact of why one side is doing it. I am not agreeing with either side but feel anything we can do to get more people to vote is a good thing.
On the flip side, anything to make sure people have faith in the integrity of the election is a good thing.
I mean, there's no evidence of people trying to checkin to hotel rooms that aren't theirs, but you still need ID.I don't really understand why ID isn't racist to secure unemployment or buying a smoke, but it is for voting. Other than the one side argument, which is weak. Either IDs are OK to ensure security or they're not.
Meh. The only election integrity people have faith in is for the elections they win. That's just where we are as a country right now.
North, South, East, West, and Central Texas, here we come.
FTF the Democrats who want to pack the senate.
cancel the filibuster for state additions.
That would be exactly the same thing as cancelling it for everything.
Not true as they already canceled it for some things but not all.
I understand that, but all were appointments not laws. Even there, once it was for one appointment it very quickly became all. There is no real difference between a cabinet secretary, federal judge or SCOTUS justice. Once they start with one law it is all. The next is any law regarding purple flowers in Kansas or any other arbitrary item on the agenda.
Better to have them fall one at a time than all at once. Maybe someone will wake up.
They are one and the same.
anything to make sure people have faith in the integrity of the election is a good thing.