Coors: The better question is, ''Why require a photo ID for voting when the old IDs worked just fine?''
No one can come up with an answer that will stand up to logical scrutiny.
Palerider
dosset ''stricter'' means what? 4918 PM: Doss [Quote] -- 1:11pm -- Fri, Apr 1, 16 pst
doss
Pale: You may have noticed that I answered your question.
Now it's your turn.
Why should states require MORE IDs than they did in the past when it comes to voting?
4941 PM: Palerider [Quote] -- 1:29pm -- Fri, Apr 1, 16 pst
Palerider
dosset ok, photo ID, that's simply keeping up to date with ID standards.
For example, my first driver's license had no photo. It had been good for
decades, but the standards changed and now a photo is ubiquitous. There's
no logical reason it should nit be he same for this case
4948 PM: Palerider [Quote] -- 1:34pm -- Fri, Apr 1, 16 pst
Palerider
dosset New standards, just as states started requiring driver's licenses
have photos when they didn't before. Again, it's logical that standards
are up to date with the times just as it is with driver's licenses
So, back to the question.
Why should states impose restrictive ID requirements ABOVE what has worked VERY WELL for literally generations?
No one can offer an answer that will stand up to scrutiny.
4998 PM: Doss [Quote] -- 2:05pm -- Fri, Apr 1, 16 pst
doss
Palerider
dosset another strawman, I didn't say it's logical because it's logical
Indeed, you didn't use those very words.... you argued that ''it's logical.'' Plus, you offered that there is no logical reason it should NOT be required.
I put the lie to both those claims.
I explained to you the logical reason photo IDs should NOT be required; and I pointed out to you that there IS NO logical reason for imposing stricter ID requirements on voters; this part of my claim is born out by your inability to offer any logic other than ''it's logical.''
