No. of Recommendations: 3
Ummm...there's lots of people who don't fly - about 10-15% of Americans have never ever flown. And who don't buy firearms - about 68% of Americans do not own a gun. And who are uninsured - although I'm not entirely sure why you think you need a photo id to get health insurance, about 10% of the population is currently uninsured. Do you genuinely not believe that such people exist?
I never mentioned health insurance. I said "health care". So...nice try on your part, but no dice: doctors ask to see photo ID when you check in.
Here's the rest of the problem with the facts you're attempting to assume into existence - the list of things that one needs photo ID for creates a logical AND condition.
For you claim to be true, tens of millions of people
-would never fly
AND
-would never see a doctor
AND
-would never get welfare
AND
-would never buy a firearm
AND
-never buy cold medicine
AND
-never buy alcohol
AND
(insert about 50 other things here)
...which is why your claim is bad. In reality people do in fact do some of those things and for every bunch of people who do EVEN ONE of those things your list tens of millions, I tell you! gets smaller. Much smaller.
Right on down to the ramsfanray example of the guy born in a log cabin in 1860 who's miraculously still alive and has voted for every President since Grover Cleveland's first term. And even though the guy served in the Spanish-American War and was with Commodore Dewey himself on the USS Olympia's flag bridge in Manilla Bay he can't get ID because the War Department (as it was called back then) lost all his papers and the courthouse in Bumf#ck County, Tennessee was burned to the ground by moonshiners protesting Prohibition in 1925.
To that I say: let's grant this 166 year old veteran a waiver. How many of him can there be?
Because even though progressives keep trying to get these ID's made available for folks who need them, these bills involve the federal government to spend money to help mostly poor, older, and often lower-education-level folks out. Which traditionally haven't been very popular among conservatives.
Huh. Seems like there's an opportunity for a caring, well-intentioned group of politicians - democrats, allegedly - to do some horse trading and get this in the SAVE act. Do the whole win-win thing where one side gets something (conservatives get ballot security) and the other side gets something (liberals who theoretically care about people not having ID can solve that problem).
Or not.
Did you really not know that progressives have been trying to have a National Conversation about this for many years, and it's just been shut down? If we're being cynical, I might intimate that it's because conservatives don't want especially care much about securing elections from fraudulent in-person voting (which is so unbelievably infrequent that no one's ever been able to provide proof of it happening often enough to matter), but that they actually want the impact of having a lot of people no longer being able to vote.
liberals claim X and liberals claim Y. Doesn't make either thing true. Usually the opposite.
