1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

Now you're just getting into semantics. Sure, there's a microscopic amount of value in eliminating the extremely rare cases of individual voter fraud. The cost is either violating the Constitution or billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Likely both. Agreed?

No, I’ve been 100% consistent that it is only a valid idea when it doesn’t violate the 24th and it can certainly be done without a violation. Yes to the taxpayer money. That is a real cost.

How about having photos on registration cards? Bring those on gradually. Same process as the one when photos were gradually added to drivers licenses as licenses expired. All new voters and those moving or in some cases changing party would move over to photos.

Randy Fine Voter Fraud in Floriduh. As if no one will notice.

38 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Let’s not build a flood wall because we have no flood right now.

This is quite literally a simple risk vs. cost assessment. There is no way the risk outweighs the cost.

Video Shows him accepting a bag of cash. And the DOJ covers it up. No investigation. This is the most corrupt administration in history.

20 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Not having a problem right now isn’t a valid reason not to add safeguards.

Yes it is. Let's start by outlining the scenarios of voter fraud an ID prevents? Can you give me a few of those first?

So now Fox News has the worst polling.

3 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Nothing like chugging a tall glass of whole milk in a hot tub with the boys.

*raw milk

More Republican voter fraud.

53 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Depending on how you do it the move wouldn’t be an issue. The initial cost would be significant of course but plenty of things cost $10B or whatever.

Equivalent cost does not denote equivalent value.

I'm not going to approve of something because of a theoretical unforeseen consequence, the probabilities of which occurring cannot be determined.

A flood wall is built based on historical data, from which probabilities of future occurrences are deduced. A flood wall isn't built where there isn't already water because theoretically some might show up someday.

When I look at something with an exorbitant cost, with no value, that does not fix a problem, and that does not improve upon anything, I'm not going to twist my rationale until I can find a way to make it work.

I'm going to say "no" and then go on about my business.

38 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

This is quite literally a simple risk vs. cost assessment. There is no way the risk outweighs the cost.

The cost is very small relatively speaking. Would you say there is a risk Trump rigs the midterms, for example? If he does the damage is sky high.

12 minutes ago, Bill said:

Equivalent cost does not denote equivalent value.

I'm not going to approve of something because of a theoretical unforeseen consequence, the probabilities of which occurring cannot be determined.

A flood wall is built based on historical data, from which probabilities of future occurrences are deduced. A flood wall isn't built where there isn't already water because theoretically some might show up someday.

When I look at something with an exorbitant cost, with no value, that does not fix a problem, and that does not improve upon anything, I'm not going to twist my rationale until I can find a way to make it work.

I'm going to say "no" and then go on about my business.

All we have to do is look at other countries and also Trump’s failed attempt to steal ‘20 to see there are quite obvious risks related to election security. That shouldn’t be a debate at all. The question is whether requiring a photo ID to vote is worth the cost or not. Other countries with good election security and fairness seem to think so.

FYI - As I’ve said 27x now I’m saying "no” to SAVE as defined but open to improvement long term.

6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The cost is very small relatively speaking. Would you say there is a risk Trump rigs the midterms, for example? If he does the damage is sky high.

How does voter ID prevent that?

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Like I said, we have LOTS of new problems today because of Trump that we couldn’t even have dreamed up 10 years ago. Not having a problem right now isn’t a valid reason not to add safeguards. Stick with the priority of funding argument.

You would agree that problems should be prioritized though correct? Like trying to figure out which of our elected leaders are pedo rapists, and why Americans were murdered by the state for no good reason, or why health care costs are skyrocketing out of control, or why the cost of energy is up. All of which are more important than addressing a made up problem that doesn't really exist.

4 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

How does voter ID prevent that?

It doesn't. Low turnout helps the republicans. And even if they lose Trump will say it's rigged anyway.

8 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

How does voter ID prevent that?

I’m not suggesting it will. The point is that investing in the integrity of our elections is something that has real value and mainly because the price to pay is so high if the integrity is compromised.

7 minutes ago, Gannan said:

It doesn't. Low turnout helps the republicans. And even if they lose Trump will say it's rigged anyway.

Sure. Thats looking at the topic as a specific event rather than a matter of long term principle.

9 minutes ago, Gannan said:

You would agree that problems should be prioritized though correct? Like trying to figure out which of our elected leaders are pedo rapists, and why Americans were murdered by the state for no good reason, or why health care costs are skyrocketing out of control, or why the cost of energy is up. All of which are more important than addressing a made up problem that doesn't really exist.

Yes I agree 100% with the caveat that while the problem does not exist today that doesn’t mean it won’t exist in the future.

Trump would like the government he leads to pay him billions : NPR

22 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

All we have to do is look at other countries and also Trump’s failed attempt to steal ‘20 to see there are quite obvious risks related to election security. That shouldn’t be a debate at all. The question is whether requiring a photo ID to vote is worth the cost or not. Other countries with good election security and fairness seem to think so.

FYI - As I’ve said 27x now I’m saying "no” to SAVE as defined but open to improvement long term.

I give zero Fs what other countries do w/r/t their elections.

Trump's attempt to steal '20 involved trying to purge legal votes, and when that didn't work, create an alternate elector scheme, which also didn't work.

The fact that we are dealing with Trump again is for two reasons: the inability of the political machine of both parties to adapt, and the idiocy of the electorate.

The only reason why this is being talked about at all is because Trump is a huge narcissist who can't believe that he legitimately lost the election, and that it was "stolen".

I'm not going to spend any time or money on something that is wanted to assuage the grief of a petulant narcissist.

Neil Gorsuch’s 'told you so' moment on Donald Trump's tariffs

4 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

see, more proof that illegals can vote!!!!!! justeatsheet was right!!!!!!

13 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

investing in the integrity of our elections is something that has real value

You have yet to explain how this adds value.

17 minutes ago, Bill said:

I give zero Fs what other countries do w/r/t their elections.

Trump's attempt to steal '20 involved trying to purge legal votes, and when that didn't work, create an alternate elector scheme, which also didn't work.

The fact that we are dealing with Trump again is for two reasons: the inability of the political machine of both parties to adapt, and the idiocy of the electorate.

The only reason why this is being talked about at all is because Trump is a huge narcissist who can't believe that he legitimately lost the election, and that it was "stolen".

I'm not going to spend any time or money on something that is wanted to assuage the grief of a petulant narcissist.

You don’t have to give a F about other countries to learn from them. That’s an ignorant take and quite unlike you.

The rest is Trump blah blah Trump in which I agree 100% but also isn’t what I’m talking about.

18 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

You have yet to explain how this adds value.

I did explain. It adds integrity and fairness to our elections which obviously adds value. You can disagree with that and say it won’t add integrity or maybe you’ll say it doesn’t add significant value but I did explain it.