Breaking News

2,491,537 Views | 19365 Replies | Last: 10 hrs ago by Aunburdened
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:14p, 2/2/26
Reply Quote
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cal83dls79 • 3:15p, 2/2/26
cal83dls79 said:
https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/40-percent-stanford-undergraduates-claim-disabled-sw99r3k8c


Young people are being led to believe that they can have passes and excuses for everything. It's ruining their ability to actually work and meet deadlines. They expect modifications and extra support. I haven't read the article yet but I see it in my teaching world also
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 4:02p, 2/2/26
BearlySane88 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
Huge swing in this district, mostly driven by Hispanic neighborhoods flipping blue.





Low turn out. Republicans never turn out for off cycle elections, I'll never understand it. I'll give dems credit for that






20,000+ less people voted. Yeah, it's definitely not lower turnout though

Special elections are always lower turnout than a proper midterm or presidential, but the partisan makeup of the electorate does not look significantly different from a normal election. It can't just be blamed on Dems turning out at a higher rate. Republicans have lost support.
Hey, if BS88 and others want to whistle past the graveyard, I say let them have their heads in the sand. November will be that much sweeter.


It's hard to whistle while your heads in the sand

Well, with that attitude it sure will be!
Reply Quote
LudwigsFountain
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cal83dls79 • 4:38p, 2/2/26
cal83dls79 said:
https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/40-percent-stanford-undergraduates-claim-disabled-sw99r3k8c

I'm surprised. According to the article only 40% of Stanfurd students are jerks.
Reply Quote
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:53p, 2/2/26


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card
Reply Quote
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:00p, 2/2/26
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 5:08p, 2/2/26
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is:

Voter fraud is a vanishingly small problem. It's an extremely rare thing, even without ID laws in many states:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

As such, implementing mandatory ID everywhere is solving a problem that hardly exists and therefore is an unnecessary barrier to citizens exercising their rights. It also tends to disproportionately hurt lower-income people who are less likely to have gone through the process to obtain/maintain a government ID.

Now that said, if this is something that voters generally want would I want to go to the mat fighting against it? No, probably not. People can get IDs. It's not a grave injustice. But I do think it's a lot of energy spent solving a virtually non-existent problem. Certainly not a problem worthy of a Twitter post with 20+ exclamation points!!!!!!
Reply Quote
1 edit
Aunburdened
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 5:13p, 2/2/26
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is

There is no legitimate argument against it and the fact that Democratic politicians fight so hard in the name of "It's just too much of a burden for these folks to get something that they're already getting so they can drive a car legally" tells you that they want to protect it for nefarious reasons.

Do I think the Democrats won the 2020 Presidential election based on fraud? No. Do I believe these stories about how voter fraud is astonishingly rare? About as much I believe all those stories by liberal corporate journalists that asserted confidently that COVID came from a bat in a wet market.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aunburdened • 5:17p, 2/2/26
Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is

There is no legitimate argument against it and the fact that Democratic politicians fight so hard in the name of "It's just too much of a burden for these folks to get something that they're already getting so they can drive a car legally" tells you that they want to protect it for nefarious reasons.

Not everyone drives a car but they should still get to vote.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aunburdened • 5:21p, 2/2/26
Aunburdened said:
Do I think the Democrats won the 2020 Presidential election based on fraud? No. Do I believe these stories about how voter fraud is astonishingly rare? About as much I believe all those stories by liberal corporate journalists that asserted confidently that COVID came from a bat in a wet market.

So I had a link that broke down numbers from the Heritage Foundation (a group that actively wants to push the idea that voter fraud is a big problem) and the instances just aren't very common. The most common was a rate of about 0.0001522% in Wisconsin.

What's the evidence that it's extremely common?
Reply Quote
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 5:25p, 2/2/26
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is:

Voter fraud is a vanishingly small problem. It's an extremely rare thing, even without ID laws in many states:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

As such, implementing mandatory ID everywhere is solving a problem that hardly exists and therefore is an unnecessary barrier to citizens exercising their rights. It also tends to disproportionately hurt lower-income people who are less likely to have gone through the process to obtain/maintain a government ID.

Now that said, if this is something that voters generally want would I want to go to the mat fighting against it? No, probably not. People can get IDs. It's not a grave injustice. But I do think it's a lot of energy spent solving a virtually non-existent problem. Certainly not a problem worthy of a Twitter post with 20+ exclamation points!!!!!!


It is when dem lawmakers are fighting it. It's a ridiculous hill to die on
Reply Quote
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 5:26p, 2/2/26
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is

There is no legitimate argument against it and the fact that Democratic politicians fight so hard in the name of "It's just too much of a burden for these folks to get something that they're already getting so they can drive a car legally" tells you that they want to protect it for nefarious reasons.

Not everyone drives a car but they should still get to vote.


Get an ID card. Simple
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 6:25p, 2/2/26
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is:

Voter fraud is a vanishingly small problem. It's an extremely rare thing, even without ID laws in many states:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

As such, implementing mandatory ID everywhere is solving a problem that hardly exists and therefore is an unnecessary barrier to citizens exercising their rights. It also tends to disproportionately hurt lower-income people who are less likely to have gone through the process to obtain/maintain a government ID.

Now that said, if this is something that voters generally want would I want to go to the mat fighting against it? No, probably not. People can get IDs. It's not a grave injustice. But I do think it's a lot of energy spent solving a virtually non-existent problem. Certainly not a problem worthy of a Twitter post with 20+ exclamation points!!!!!!


It is when dem lawmakers are fighting it. It's a ridiculous hill to die on

As I said, I wouldn't make it a hill to die on but I don't buy the arguments that this is some big deal either. It all seems to me like a waste of energy. If voter ID will get people to shut up about election integrity, then fine. (SPOILER: It won't.)
Reply Quote
1 edit
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 6:36p, 2/2/26
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is:

Voter fraud is a vanishingly small problem. It's an extremely rare thing, even without ID laws in many states:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

As such, implementing mandatory ID everywhere is solving a problem that hardly exists and therefore is an unnecessary barrier to citizens exercising their rights. It also tends to disproportionately hurt lower-income people who are less likely to have gone through the process to obtain/maintain a government ID.

Now that said, if this is something that voters generally want would I want to go to the mat fighting against it? No, probably not. People can get IDs. It's not a grave injustice. But I do think it's a lot of energy spent solving a virtually non-existent problem. Certainly not a problem worthy of a Twitter post with 20+ exclamation points!!!!!!


It is when dem lawmakers are fighting it. It's a ridiculous hill to die on

As I said, I wouldn't make it a hill to die on but I don't buy the arguments that this is some big deal either. It all seems to me like a waste of energy. If voter ID will get people to shut up about election integrity, then fine. (SPOILER: It won't.)


Please tell me why anyone would oppose this? Why would dems shut down the government over this?
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 8:22p, 2/2/26
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is:

Voter fraud is a vanishingly small problem. It's an extremely rare thing, even without ID laws in many states:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

As such, implementing mandatory ID everywhere is solving a problem that hardly exists and therefore is an unnecessary barrier to citizens exercising their rights. It also tends to disproportionately hurt lower-income people who are less likely to have gone through the process to obtain/maintain a government ID.

Now that said, if this is something that voters generally want would I want to go to the mat fighting against it? No, probably not. People can get IDs. It's not a grave injustice. But I do think it's a lot of energy spent solving a virtually non-existent problem. Certainly not a problem worthy of a Twitter post with 20+ exclamation points!!!!!!


It is when dem lawmakers are fighting it. It's a ridiculous hill to die on

As I said, I wouldn't make it a hill to die on but I don't buy the arguments that this is some big deal either. It all seems to me like a waste of energy. If voter ID will get people to shut up about election integrity, then fine. (SPOILER: It won't.)


Please tell me why anyone would oppose this? Why would dems shut down the government over this?

The shutdown is about DHS funding, not voter ID.
Reply Quote
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 8:26p, 2/2/26
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is:

Voter fraud is a vanishingly small problem. It's an extremely rare thing, even without ID laws in many states:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

As such, implementing mandatory ID everywhere is solving a problem that hardly exists and therefore is an unnecessary barrier to citizens exercising their rights. It also tends to disproportionately hurt lower-income people who are less likely to have gone through the process to obtain/maintain a government ID.

Now that said, if this is something that voters generally want would I want to go to the mat fighting against it? No, probably not. People can get IDs. It's not a grave injustice. But I do think it's a lot of energy spent solving a virtually non-existent problem. Certainly not a problem worthy of a Twitter post with 20+ exclamation points!!!!!!


It is when dem lawmakers are fighting it. It's a ridiculous hill to die on

As I said, I wouldn't make it a hill to die on but I don't buy the arguments that this is some big deal either. It all seems to me like a waste of energy. If voter ID will get people to shut up about election integrity, then fine. (SPOILER: It won't.)


Please tell me why anyone would oppose this? Why would dems shut down the government over this?

The shutdown is about DHS funding, not voter ID.




Tell Schumer that
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 8:33p, 2/2/26
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is:

Voter fraud is a vanishingly small problem. It's an extremely rare thing, even without ID laws in many states:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

As such, implementing mandatory ID everywhere is solving a problem that hardly exists and therefore is an unnecessary barrier to citizens exercising their rights. It also tends to disproportionately hurt lower-income people who are less likely to have gone through the process to obtain/maintain a government ID.

Now that said, if this is something that voters generally want would I want to go to the mat fighting against it? No, probably not. People can get IDs. It's not a grave injustice. But I do think it's a lot of energy spent solving a virtually non-existent problem. Certainly not a problem worthy of a Twitter post with 20+ exclamation points!!!!!!


It is when dem lawmakers are fighting it. It's a ridiculous hill to die on

As I said, I wouldn't make it a hill to die on but I don't buy the arguments that this is some big deal either. It all seems to me like a waste of energy. If voter ID will get people to shut up about election integrity, then fine. (SPOILER: It won't.)


Please tell me why anyone would oppose this? Why would dems shut down the government over this?

The shutdown is about DHS funding, not voter ID.




Tell Schumer that

He's against them tossing it into a bill about government funding. The SAVE act would be a new law and should be debated separately. (Granted, Dems would probably vote against it anyway but that's not the same as shutting down the government over it. Republicans are trying to tie it to the shutdown vote as a political maneuver.)
Reply Quote
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 8:37p, 2/2/26
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is:

Voter fraud is a vanishingly small problem. It's an extremely rare thing, even without ID laws in many states:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

As such, implementing mandatory ID everywhere is solving a problem that hardly exists and therefore is an unnecessary barrier to citizens exercising their rights. It also tends to disproportionately hurt lower-income people who are less likely to have gone through the process to obtain/maintain a government ID.

Now that said, if this is something that voters generally want would I want to go to the mat fighting against it? No, probably not. People can get IDs. It's not a grave injustice. But I do think it's a lot of energy spent solving a virtually non-existent problem. Certainly not a problem worthy of a Twitter post with 20+ exclamation points!!!!!!


It is when dem lawmakers are fighting it. It's a ridiculous hill to die on

As I said, I wouldn't make it a hill to die on but I don't buy the arguments that this is some big deal either. It all seems to me like a waste of energy. If voter ID will get people to shut up about election integrity, then fine. (SPOILER: It won't.)


Please tell me why anyone would oppose this? Why would dems shut down the government over this?

The shutdown is about DHS funding, not voter ID.




Tell Schumer that

He's against them tossing it into a bill about government funding. The SAVE act would be a new law and should be debated separately. (Granted, Dems would probably vote against it anyway but that's not the same as shutting down the government over it. Republicans are trying to tie it to the shutdown vote as a political maneuver.)


Schumer thinks it's the new era Jim Crow laws and you're saying the Republicans are using it as a political maneuver?
Reply Quote
Aunburdened
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 9:25p, 2/2/26
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is

There is no legitimate argument against it and the fact that Democratic politicians fight so hard in the name of "It's just too much of a burden for these folks to get something that they're already getting so they can drive a car legally" tells you that they want to protect it for nefarious reasons.

Not everyone drives a car but they should still get to vote.

You need ID for about 10 other things other than just driving a car and you expose how intellectually dishonest you are when you pretend it's a burden for those folks to get ID.
Reply Quote
Aunburdened
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 9:27p, 2/2/26
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:
Do I think the Democrats won the 2020 Presidential election based on fraud? No. Do I believe these stories about how voter fraud is astonishingly rare? About as much I believe all those stories by liberal corporate journalists that asserted confidently that COVID came from a bat in a wet market.

So I had a link that broke down numbers from the Heritage Foundation

I don't give a crap about your link. How many links told us COVID came from a wet market?

I'm quite accustomed to large entities lying to us and the bottom line is that Democrats fight way too hard against this for it not to be patently obvious that they have ulterior motives for wanting to make sure voting doesn't require ID.
Reply Quote
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:41a, 2/3/26
Reply Quote
BearlySane88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 6:21a, 2/3/26
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is:

Voter fraud is a vanishingly small problem. It's an extremely rare thing, even without ID laws in many states:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

As such, implementing mandatory ID everywhere is solving a problem that hardly exists and therefore is an unnecessary barrier to citizens exercising their rights. It also tends to disproportionately hurt lower-income people who are less likely to have gone through the process to obtain/maintain a government ID.

Now that said, if this is something that voters generally want would I want to go to the mat fighting against it? No, probably not. People can get IDs. It's not a grave injustice. But I do think it's a lot of energy spent solving a virtually non-existent problem. Certainly not a problem worthy of a Twitter post with 20+ exclamation points!!!!!!


It is when dem lawmakers are fighting it. It's a ridiculous hill to die on

As I said, I wouldn't make it a hill to die on but I don't buy the arguments that this is some big deal either. It all seems to me like a waste of energy. If voter ID will get people to shut up about election integrity, then fine. (SPOILER: It won't.)


Please tell me why anyone would oppose this? Why would dems shut down the government over this?

The shutdown is about DHS funding, not voter ID.




Tell Schumer that

He's against them tossing it into a bill about government funding. The SAVE act would be a new law and should be debated separately. (Granted, Dems would probably vote against it anyway but that's not the same as shutting down the government over it. Republicans are trying to tie it to the shutdown vote as a political maneuver.)


Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aunburdened • 9:38a, 2/3/26
Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is

There is no legitimate argument against it and the fact that Democratic politicians fight so hard in the name of "It's just too much of a burden for these folks to get something that they're already getting so they can drive a car legally" tells you that they want to protect it for nefarious reasons.

Not everyone drives a car but they should still get to vote.

You need ID for about 10 other things other than just driving a car and you expose how intellectually dishonest you are when you pretend it's a burden for those folks to get ID.

When did I say it's a burden? That's your language. I said that I think voter ID laws are an unnecessary waste of time.

I also think people will probably find a way to vote anyway even with those laws, so whatever, if people want them then have them. I just don't think they solve an actual problem.
Reply Quote
1 edit
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:39a, 2/3/26
Association between vaccinations and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Source: PubMed Association between vaccinations and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed https://share.google/EtpAO0nqbarWsFWPm

Also see:

Vaccines Are Helping Older People More Than We Knew https://share.google/0BcWwFEbaAOWylXvd

…5…4..3..2..1…





Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside

“I love Cal deeply, by the way, what are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aunburdened • 9:39a, 2/3/26
Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:
Do I think the Democrats won the 2020 Presidential election based on fraud? No. Do I believe these stories about how voter fraud is astonishingly rare? About as much I believe all those stories by liberal corporate journalists that asserted confidently that COVID came from a bat in a wet market.

So I had a link that broke down numbers from the Heritage Foundation

I don't give a crap about your link. How many links told us COVID came from a wet market?

I'm quite accustomed to large entities lying to us and the bottom line is that Democrats fight way too hard against this for it not to be patently obvious that they have ulterior motives for wanting to make sure voting doesn't require ID.

So your argument is just vibes, bro. This other outlet lied to me so I won't read this one either. Cool.
Reply Quote
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlySane88 • 9:41a, 2/3/26
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:
sycasey said:
BearlySane88 said:


I didn't have Nicki being the voice of reason on my 2026 bingo card

Okay, if anyone actually wants the legitimate argument against this, here it is:

Voter fraud is a vanishingly small problem. It's an extremely rare thing, even without ID laws in many states:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

As such, implementing mandatory ID everywhere is solving a problem that hardly exists and therefore is an unnecessary barrier to citizens exercising their rights. It also tends to disproportionately hurt lower-income people who are less likely to have gone through the process to obtain/maintain a government ID.

Now that said, if this is something that voters generally want would I want to go to the mat fighting against it? No, probably not. People can get IDs. It's not a grave injustice. But I do think it's a lot of energy spent solving a virtually non-existent problem. Certainly not a problem worthy of a Twitter post with 20+ exclamation points!!!!!!


It is when dem lawmakers are fighting it. It's a ridiculous hill to die on

As I said, I wouldn't make it a hill to die on but I don't buy the arguments that this is some big deal either. It all seems to me like a waste of energy. If voter ID will get people to shut up about election integrity, then fine. (SPOILER: It won't.)


Please tell me why anyone would oppose this? Why would dems shut down the government over this?

The shutdown is about DHS funding, not voter ID.




Tell Schumer that

He's against them tossing it into a bill about government funding. The SAVE act would be a new law and should be debated separately. (Granted, Dems would probably vote against it anyway but that's not the same as shutting down the government over it. Republicans are trying to tie it to the shutdown vote as a political maneuver.)


Schumer thinks it's the new era Jim Crow laws and you're saying the Republicans are using it as a political maneuver?

Schumer sucks as a messenger. I would not have used that argument.

But yes, the Republicans are definitely using it as a political maneuver. As are the Democrats. It's all political maneuvering here. I'm just offering my opinion on the policy.
Reply Quote
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:51a, 2/3/26
CNBC: Jill Biden's ex-husband arrested and charged with killing his current wife
Reply Quote
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 10:10a, 2/3/26
movielover said:
CNBC: Jill Biden's ex-husband arrested and charged with killing his current wife
People can change a lot in the 50 years since they were divorced.
Reply Quote
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:11a, 2/3/26
Reply Quote
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:22a, 2/3/26
Reply Quote
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PAC-10-BEAR • 11:32a, 2/3/26
PAC-10-BEAR said:


If it really only affects an infinitesimal number of citizens, why are the Democrsts fighting it so hard?

During Trump 1.0 there were exposes on voter fraud in... Minneapolis. One local immigrant came forward and said votes were openly being purchased. Minnesota was in play for Trump.

Arizona appears a toss up yet formerly conservative state, but another state where chicanery popped up in right-leaning districts, machines shutting down.

Look at a state which enacted reforms. Florida's Miami-Dade County was rife with fraud, late counts, chicanery. Reforms were enacted and Florida seems to vote Conservative, with the Gov and both senators Red.

We know some illegal immigrants are registered to vote and millions were given SS numbers. That wasn't an accident.
Reply Quote
cal83dls79
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LudwigsFountain • 11:34a, 2/3/26
LudwigsFountain said:
cal83dls79 said:
https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/40-percent-stanford-undergraduates-claim-disabled-sw99r3k8c

I'm surprised. According to the article only 40% of Stanfurd students are jerks.
that number just increased

https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/news/story/stanford-university-meal-plan-controversy-students-pretend-to-be-jain-to-skip-usd-7944-fees-2862190-2026-02-03
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
Reply Quote
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:52a, 2/3/26
Return the stolen land!


Reply Quote
smh
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cal83dls79 • 12:00p, 2/3/26
cal83dls79 said:
> ..www.indiatoday.in/education-today/news/story/stanford-university-meal-plan-controversy-students-pretend-to-be-jain-to-skip-usd-7944-fees-2862190-2026-02-03

"jain"? most always clueless, had to look it up. tanks '79
signed, '73

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
> Jainism (/denzm, danzm/ JAY-niz-m, JYE-niz-m),[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#cite_note-1][1][/url] also known as Jain Dharma,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#cite_note-2][2][/url] is an Indian religion which teaches a path toward spiritual purity and enlightenment through disciplined non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures. The tradition is spiritually guided by twenty-four tirthankaras (ford-makers)

Reply Quote
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:01p, 2/3/26
?Naive much?



Reply Quote
1 edit
First Page Last Page
Page 528 of 554 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.