Win / GreatAwakening
GreatAwakening
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: diction

I already acknowledged that the bill bans local additional ID requirements, but the statement you quoted includes,

Imposing unnecessary obstacles to voter participation disproportionately burdens low-income voters, voters of color.”

If an American citizen, CA resident, and eligible voter already has a valid ID and uses it to comply with CA’s existing voter ID requirement, then an additional local voter ID requirement wouldn’t be an obstacle or an imposition. It would just be redundant. So why pass this bill? Because the CA commies are planning on at least not enforcing the existing voter ID state law, and are possibly planning on repealing it. They want to preclude the possibility of local laws taking its place. Notice the weaselly sequence they chose.

Don’t waste your time playing devil’s advocate with Democrats’ bullshit claims. “low… information resources” is their way of euphemizing ‘uninformed and unresourceful’. How concerned for black Americans’ supposed lack of ID resources were the Democrats in the 20th century when the logistics of getting an ID might’ve actually been more difficult and blacks had less wealth, but when there were also far fewer non-citizens in the US? The Democrats didn’t mention it at all because there was less of an opportunity for them to get non-citizens voting. 20th century Democrats were also better people than current Democrats. They took their losses to Republicans such as Reagan without becoming ridiculous traitors.

81 days ago
2 score
Reason: None provided.

I already acknowledged that the bill bans local additional ID requirements, but the statement you quoted includes,

Imposing unnecessary obstacles to voter participation disproportionately burdens low-income voters, voters of color.”

If an American citizen, CA resident, and eligible voter already has a valid ID and uses it to comply with CA’s existing voter ID requirement, then an additional local voter ID requirement wouldn’t be an obstacle or an imposition. It would just be redundant. So why pass this bill? Because the CA commies are planning on at least not enforcing the existing voter ID state law, and are possibly planning on repealing it. They want to preclude the possibility of local laws taking its place. Notice the weaselly sequence they chose.

Don’t waste your time playing devil’s advocate with Democrats’ bullshit claims. “low… information resources” is their way of euphemizing ‘uninformed and unresourceful’. How concerned for black Americans’ supposed lack of ID resources were the Democrats in the 20th century when the logistics of getting an ID might’ve actually been more difficult but when there were also far fewer non-citizens in the US? The Democrats didn’t mention it at all because there was less of an opportunity for them to get non-citizens voting. 20th century Democrats were also better people than current Democrats. They took their losses to Republicans like Reagan without becoming ridiculous traitors.

81 days ago
1 score
Reason: Original

I already acknowledged that the bill bans local additional ID requirements, but the statement you quoted includes,

Imposing unnecessary obstacles to voter participation disproportionately burdens low-income voters, voters of color.”

If an American citizen, CA resident, and eligible voter already has a valid ID and uses it to comply with CA’s existing voter ID requirement, then an additional local voter ID requirement wouldn’t be an obstacle or an imposition. It would just be redundant. So why pass this bill? Because the CA commies are planning on at least not enforcing the existing voter ID state law, and are possibly planning on repealing it. They want to preclude the possibility of local laws taking its place. Notice the weaselly sequence they chose.

Don’t waste your time playing devil’s advocate with Democrats’ bullshit claims. “low… information resources” is their way of euphemizing ‘uninformed and unresourceful’. How concerned for black Americans’ supposed lack of ID resources were the Democrats in the 20th century when the logistics of getting an ID might’ve actually been more difficult but when there were also far fewer non-citizens in the US? The Democrats didn’t mention it at all because there was less of a need for them and less of an opportunity to get non-citizens voting.

81 days ago
1 score