Here's my solution to ending the "Voter ID" controversy

I'm sure you've heard about the ongoing controversy regarding voter ID.

Republicans support requiring voters to show ID before being able to vote, as a security measure to prevent both double voting and fictitious registrations.

Democrats are against voter ID, claiming that it disenfranchises the poor and elderly, who may not have ID and can't get it easily.

Despite all the moral posturing, both sides are being self-serving with their positions. Republicans know that those without ID are more likely to vote Democrat, so they don't exactly want to solve the problem of these people not being able to vote. Democrats know the same thing, so they're willing to accept an absurdly low level of election security in order to gain these few extra votes. Were it reversed (people without ID being more likely to vote Republican instead of Democrat), you'd probably see the sides reversed on this one.

Anyway, the reality is that we can't toss election security out the window just to accommodate the small percentage of people with no ID. The way it stands, anyone can register any name to vote, and there's no check if that person exists. Then anyone can show up without ID (in states without an ID requirement) and claim to be that fictitious person.

In California, I could register my dog to vote, and then show up, say I'm my dog, and vote as him. Not joking. This would be incredibly easy to do, and I would never get caught.

If you think the above is acceptable, then you're a fool who doesn't give a shit about the legitimacy of our elections.

I've heard the dumb argument from Democrats of, "Studies have shown that there is very little fraud of this type", but that's a ridiculous counter. If an election is expected to be close, this could easily be exploited. It is insane to intentionally leave such a gaping hole in election security, regardless of what any "studies" say. It's like leaving your door wide open with $100,000 cash sitting on your kitchen table, because studies show that your neighborhood has a low crime rate.

On the other side, Repubilcans don't have the greatest answer, either. They basically say "tough luck" when it comes to the fact that people without ID -- and without easy access to their birth certificates to acquire ID -- are shut out from voting in ID-required models. There needs to be a better solution than simply shrugging your shoulders and leaving such a hurdle for these people to vote.

Anyway, I have an idea on how to solve all of this, using modern technology, and I'll post it in the next message....

The only real solution to this is a national ID system, even if such a system is only used for voting purposes.

But how could we issue such IDs to people without existing state IDs or birth certificates?

Very simple.

Fingerprints.

This would ensure that each person only gets one vote. Here's how it would work:

1) Federal government sets up National ID centers all over the country.

2) In order to get a National ID, you come in and show your state ID, birth certificate, or passport. Then you get fingerprinted, and they issue you a National ID with your picture on it.

3) If you do not have a state ID, birth certificate, or passport, you state your name, and they will fingerprint you, print your National ID with your picture on it, and give it to you.

4) If you lose your National ID, you just come back down to the center and they will print you a new one, based upon your fingerprints in the system.

5) All services would be free of charge to everyone. This sounds expensive, but in reality would be just a drop in the bucket compared to the yearly federal budget.

6) You must show this National ID in order to vote. At this point, there is zero excuse not to have one (it's free, doesn't require prior ID, and is replaceable if lost.) People without National ID cannot vote, and their registration must match the name shown on their ID.


Done.

The fingerprint element would prevent people from getting more than one National ID, thus limiting every person to one vote.

I would support this 100%, regardless of which party it helps.

However, I have a feeling that Democrats still wouldn't support such a thing, because they would fear that the current ID-less voters simply wouldn't feel like expending the effort to get this, and again they'd claim disenfranchisement. However, this would take away any kind of reasonable excuse as to why these people can't get the ID (aside from apathy or laziness).

What do you guys think?

For me there are only two options:

1) No Voter ID
2) Mandatory ID for every single citizen

If you made it so the National ID was something every single person HAD to do, then fine. But otherwise you're just gonna disenfranchise people.

Only white men who are 35 or older and own land should be able to vote.

Problems solved.

Please cite me one instance since 1960 where voter fraud has influenced the outcome of an American election (crickets chirping). The only reason for Druff’s “solution”” to an nonexistent problem is to discourage voter participation. Understandable position for the Republicans, whose voters are dying off. Eliminating voting by mail would be the first step, but absentee ballots are overwhelmingly conservative, so that will never happen.

Love it. I am strongly in favor of fingerprinting all Americans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPIT this

Love it. I am strongly in favor of fingerprinting all Americans

---

Fingerprints? Why not our DNA?

retina scans sfo

You want to fingerprint the entire voting populace to address a non-existent issue that your party already exploits to its benefit?

Bigger threats to election security:

Hackable voting machines
Lack of verification
Foreign influence/troll farms
Dark money
Partisan hacks being in charge of elections, even elections in which they themselves are running

Druff, I'm guessing Republicans will like your idea less than Democrats. Sounds a little deep statish.

Jesus fucking christ Druff.

You've jumped the shark here fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Fingerprints?

A lot of dumb responses in this thread.

First off, it's very difficult to tell if there has been a "problem" with voter fraud of this type. Given that there is no verification of legitimacy of registration, and no ID taken in most states, it is incredibly easy to commit voter fraud while going undetected. It is impossible for any "study" to determine the scope of such fraud.

Second, some people here don't seem to understand how security works. Security is preventative. You close all known holes in advance. If you give even two shits about security, you do NOT leave a gaping hole wide open just because "studies show it hasn't been exploited yet". That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Holecards on livestreams weren't known to have been exploited until Mike Postle was caught doing it. Should livestreams have had no security prior to that?

Yahoo's e-mail wasn't known to have been hacked on a mass scale until 2013. Should they have had no security prior to that?

I could go on and on.

I could, right now, go register 10 fictitious people to vote -- one at each of the 10 closest voting precincts to me -- and complete it in about an hour. Then I could vote as all 10 people with zero point zero chance of getting caught.

Even if I were a convicted felon, supposedly with no voting rights, I could do this.

How can anyone say this isn't a huge security hole? Why do we have a voter registration process at all, if it's this easy to cheat?

It's laughable seeing people on the left advocating a zero-security voting system just to ensure that a tiny percentage of the population who can't get ID (ones who probably won't vote anyway) can vote. Note that I said CAN'T get ID, not WON'T get ID. Most people without ID simply choose not to have it. Almost everyone can get ID with a minimal amount of effort.

Also LOL at the panic regarding the government collecting fingerprints.

Um, news flash: There's a good chance you already voluntarily gave your fingerprints to the government. Many states, including California, require fingerprinting in order to get a driver's license or ID.

This is a non-issue because there's really not anything that can be done with your fingerprints, aside from using them to identify you if you commit a crime and leave them on something. That's why there's very little controversy about DMVs collecting fingerprints, to the point where many of you don't even realize that many states collect them.

So Druff, what percentage of the voting population do you believe is willing to commit a felony to get some numbnut elected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

So Druff, what percentage of the voting population do you believe is willing to commit a felony to get some numbnut elected?

---

A much higher percentage than the people who really want to vote but can't get ID without a tremendous amount of effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

Please cite me one instance since 1960 where voter fraud has influenced the outcome of an American election (crickets chirping). The only reason for Druff’s “solution”” to an nonexistent problem is to discourage voter participation. Understandable position for the Republicans, whose voters are dying off. Eliminating voting by mail would be the first step, but absentee ballots are overwhelmingly conservative, so that will never happen.

---

Also interesting you start with 1960, because there was huge voter fraud in that election. Which only came out because it was incredibly close. It's actually reasonable to believe that JFK shouldn't have been the winner. (Different subject for a different time, though.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Many states, including California, require fingerprinting in order to get a driver's license or ID.

---

Many states? Show me a link to that. I've been looking. I can only see 4 states. Far from "many".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Many states, including California, require fingerprinting in order to get a driver's license or ID.

---

Many states? Show me a link to that. I've been looking. I can only see 4 states. Far from "many".

---

The link showing four states was from 2001. I saw that same link when looking for it myself.

Here's a forum discussion from 2010 where a bunch of people chime in about whether their individual states require fingerprints: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.ph...prints.498126/

You'll see a mixture of "yes" and "no" for various states, including those not on the original list of four you saw.

I have to imagine that even more are requiring it in 2019, given that the number seems to have vastly increased from 2001 to 2010. It's possible that terrorist concerns after 2001 had something to do with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Many states? Show me a link to that. I've been looking. I can only see 4 states. Far from "many".

---

The link showing four states was from 2001. I saw that same link when looking for it myself.

Here's a forum discussion from 2010 where a bunch of people chime in about whether their individual states require fingerprints: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.ph...prints.498126/

You'll see a mixture of "yes" and "no" for various states, including those not on the original list of four you saw.

I have to imagine that even more are requiring it in 2019, given that the number seems to have vastly increased from 2001 to 2010. It's possible that terrorist concerns after 2001 had something to do with this.

---

Read the first sentence in the link....it says "Is there a state that doesn't require fingerprints in order to get a concealed carry license".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Read the first sentence in the link....it says "Is there a state that doesn't require fingerprints in order to get a concealed carry license".

---

I've stumbled across this enlightening flowchart for how to deal with this situation, Muck.



That should clear it up for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

The link showing four states was from 2001. I saw that same link when looking for it myself.

Here's a forum discussion from 2010 where a bunch of people chime in about whether their individual states require fingerprints: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.ph...prints.498126/

You'll see a mixture of "yes" and "no" for various states, including those not on the original list of four you saw.

I have to imagine that even more are requiring it in 2019, given that the number seems to have vastly increased from 2001 to 2010. It's possible that terrorist concerns after 2001 had something to do with this.

---

Read the first sentence in the link....it says "Is there a state that doesn't require fingerprints in order to get a concealed carry license".

---

Whoops. Misread that shit on my phone. But it is still true that the article you saw is from 2001, so I really want to see current info on that.

California also has like 1/9 of the country's population, so that's already a healthy chunk of the country with fingerprints on file by itself. Honestly it's no big deal. I normally hate any privacy intrusion shit, but fingerprinting doesn't matter unless you're planning upon committing major crimes.

An alternate solution could involve using your existing ID *or* getting fingerprinted for a voter ID. In fact, that would make more sense and be a lot easier/cheaper to implement.

Still LOL at anyone who advocates continuing the current honors system voting we have.

So I gotta go to the DMV again before I can vote?

I just heard from my local Congressman. He agrees with Druff and is going to take this thread to the floor to vote on. Great job solving this very delicate national issue Todd. God bless America.

While I don't doubt that Druff's motives for this proposal are completely honorable, I am completely sure that the motives of the Republican Party for their myriad of proposals that add obstacles to voting are completely dishonorable.

Once Republicans realized that demographic changes in the electorate would gradually hinder them in future elections, they had only two options:
1) Reverse many of their policies that were successfully designed to take away the South from the Democrats and basically began with the Goldwater presidential candidacy in 1964 and try to win a reasonable number of minority votes with these policy reversals.
or
2) Create roadblocks to minority voting. This is exactly what they chose to do.

The U.S. has survived and prospered with presidential elections that are generally conducted with voluntary compliance. I see no need for Druff's more Orwellian plan.

If you want to make presidential elections less susceptible to manipulation by small numbers of illegal voters, abolish the electoral college. I don't think that we need to do this, but it sounds better than mass fingerprinting.

"Mass fingerprinting" has gone on in California for decades with zero issue. Think of how many privacy-obsessed civil liberties groups are based in California, yet I have never heard of any of them raising an objection.

That shows what a non-issue this is.

Regardless of whether or not you support the fingerprinting, you're kidding yourself if you think an election system with zero security isn't vulnerable to tampering.

Remember the 2000 Presidential election, which was ultimately decided by 500 or so votes? How about the 1960 Presidential election which clearly had ballot box stuffing and bogus registrations, which likely awarded the victory to the wrong candidate?

That's 2 Presidential elections out of the past 15 where bogus votes could have been (or were) a big issue. Is that not enough for you?

How many people do you think are truly disenfranchised -- people who CAN'T get ID without a tremendous amount of hassle or expense? That number has to be miniscule. It's a non-problem. You don't toss away the security of an election for this tiny, tiny minority.

I don't believe Democrats want this reformed, no matter what the solution.. They know a certain percentage of their constituency simply will not go get an ID, even if it's easy and free. They don't want to lose those votes. That's the bottom line. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise, just as you'd be fooling yourself if you think that Republicans aren't happy that people without ID are staying home.

It's also absolutely impossible to know the scope of this type of voter fraud, since there is no accurate way to study this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPIT this

So I gotta go to the DMV again before I can vote?

---

You don't have a license?

Sad!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wrenchjockey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Read the first sentence in the link....it says "Is there a state that doesn't require fingerprints in order to get a concealed carry license".

---

I've stumbled across this enlightening flowchart for how to deal with this situation, Muck.



That should clear it up for everyone.

---

Thank you very much!!!

Its extremely valuable to have Druff available to us; as the flowchart shows, he is right about everything all the time

Druff, you are only proposing fingerprints because you know it will cause a lot of democratic voters to not show up out of fear of being arrested.

This is genius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

A lot of dumb responses in this thread.
.

---

well you have been posting a lot of dumb shit lately

"How many people do you think are truly disenfranchised -- people who CAN'T get ID without a tremendous amount of hassle or expense? That number has to be miniscule. It's a non-problem. You don't toss away the security of an election for this tiny, tiny minority."

By definition, any drastic change to voting laws will change the composition of the electorate and artificially alter election results.

I think that you may be underestimating how difficult it might be for some rural elderly voters to comply with ID laws, especially for the number of poor black voters in the South that were born at home because of either expense or lack of access to segregated healthcare facilities. Is this number huge? No, but neither is the number of illegal voters.

I think that voter fraud vs voter disenfranchisement is basically a "wash" involving small numbers. We have laws to prosecute voter fraud and the number of prosecutions are minuscule in spite of the diligence of organizations like "True the Vote" to monitor voting in minority areas. They should rename their organization to "True the Black and Brown Vote".

It's so sad to see the Party of Lincoln and Eisenhower move in the direction of actively discouraging voting. Voting used to be thought of as a patriotic act that was encouraged by both parties. Many black veterans came back from risking their lives in WWII and lived in places where they couldn't vote. That was a real issue, not this non-problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnCommode

"How many people do you think are truly disenfranchised -- people who CAN'T get ID without a tremendous amount of hassle or expense? That number has to be miniscule. It's a non-problem. You don't toss away the security of an election for this tiny, tiny minority."

By definition, any drastic change to voting laws will change the composition of the electorate and artificially alter election results.

I think that you may be underestimating how difficult it might be for some rural elderly voters to comply with ID laws, especially for the number of poor black voters in the South that were born at home because of either expense or lack of access to segregated healthcare facilities. Is this number huge? No, but neither is the number of illegal voters.

I think that voter fraud vs voter disenfranchisement is basically a "wash" involving small numbers. We have laws to prosecute voter fraud and the number of prosecutions are minuscule in spite of the diligence of organizations like "True the Vote" to monitor voting in minority areas. They should rename their organization to "True the Black and Brown Vote".

It's so sad to see the Party of Lincoln and Eisenhower move in the direction of actively discouraging voting. Voting used to be thought of as a patriotic act that was encouraged by both parties. Many black veterans came back from risking their lives in WWII and lived in places where they couldn't vote. That was a real issue, not this non-problem.

---

Unfortunately you are falling right into the trap talking points set by the left regarding this issue. Whenever logical-minded people start talking about closing the outrageous gaping security hole in our elections (where I could register a dog to vote in 5 minutes, and then easily vote as him), we immediately hear two quick leftist talking points:

1) Fake registration voter fraud isn't a problem, and "studies" show this. (Even though such "studies" are impossible to be anywhere near accurate, since this is almost impossible to detect when it occurs.)

2) Voter ID is racist and will disenfranchise poor people, especially black poor people.

Point #1 is easy to refute, though that doesn't stop the left from repeatedly trotting it out, since their claim about "studies show..." tends to shut down most morons who can't think critically.

However, point #2 is much more complicated. Indeed, there are some Americans who simply can't get ID easily because of the lack of a birth certificate or other ID, or extreme difficulty in obtaining such certificates.

I agree that these people need a vote, and you can't just dismiss the issue with, "Tough luck, solve it for yourself". However, the left is not interested in reforms which would allow these people to vote. There are various ways to do this, yet the left isn't interested. They are simply against Voter ID, period. You don't hear the left talking about reforms to get ID for these people, or reforms to Voter ID laws allowing them a path to vote. The left doesn't want any of that, because this isn't really about disenfranchisement. In reality, Democrats know that they will lose votes with Voter ID laws, because most people without ID simply don't want ID, or are too lazy to bother getting ID. So even if the "can't get ID" people are taken care of, Democrats still lose votes under a Voter ID system, and they hate that.

I am wiling to admit that the right mainly wants Voter ID laws because it benefits them.

Why can't you guys admit that the left's motives in fighting Voter ID laws isn't pure, and that they mainly want to avoid losing votes from people who are too lazy to get ID?

It is still insane to me that many of you are supporting a voting system with zero security, which is what non-ID systems really are. If I could take 5 minutes to register my dog and successfully vote in his name, you know the system is a disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnCommode

"How many people do you think are truly disenfranchised -- people who CAN'T get ID without a tremendous amount of hassle or expense? That number has to be miniscule. It's a non-problem. You don't toss away the security of an election for this tiny, tiny minority."

By definition, any drastic change to voting laws will change the composition of the electorate and artificially alter election results.

I think that you may be underestimating how difficult it might be for some rural elderly voters to comply with ID laws, especially for the number of poor black voters in the South that were born at home because of either expense or lack of access to segregated healthcare facilities. Is this number huge? No, but neither is the number of illegal voters.

I think that voter fraud vs voter disenfranchisement is basically a "wash" involving small numbers. We have laws to prosecute voter fraud and the number of prosecutions are minuscule in spite of the diligence of organizations like "True the Vote" to monitor voting in minority areas. They should rename their organization to "True the Black and Brown Vote".

It's so sad to see the Party of Lincoln and Eisenhower move in the direction of actively discouraging voting. Voting used to be thought of as a patriotic act that was encouraged by both parties. Many black veterans came back from risking their lives in WWII and lived in places where they couldn't vote. That was a real issue, not this non-problem.

---

Unfortunately you are falling right into the trap talking points set by the left regarding this issue. Whenever logical-minded people start talking about closing the outrageous gaping security hole in our elections (where I could register a dog to vote in 5 minutes, and then easily vote as him), we immediately hear two quick leftist talking points:

1) Fake registration voter fraud isn't a problem, and "studies" show this. (Even though such "studies" are impossible to be anywhere near accurate, since this is almost impossible to detect when it occurs.)

2) Voter ID is racist and will disenfranchise poor people, especially black poor people.

Point #1 is easy to refute, though that doesn't stop the left from repeatedly trotting it out, since their claim about "studies show..." tends to shut down most morons who can't think critically.

However, point #2 is much more complicated. Indeed, there are some Americans who simply can't get ID easily because of the lack of a birth certificate or other ID, or extreme difficulty in obtaining such certificates.

I agree that these people need a vote, and you can't just dismiss the issue with, "Tough luck, solve it for yourself". However, the left is not interested in reforms which would allow these people to vote. There are various ways to do this, yet the left isn't interested. They are simply against Voter ID, period. You don't hear the left talking about reforms to get ID for these people, or reforms to Voter ID laws allowing them a path to vote. The left doesn't want any of that, because this isn't really about disenfranchisement. In reality, Democrats know that they will lose votes with Voter ID laws, because most people without ID simply don't want ID, or are too lazy to bother getting ID. So even if the "can't get ID" people are taken care of, Democrats still lose votes under a Voter ID system, and they hate that.

I am wiling to admit that the right mainly wants Voter ID laws because it benefits them.

Why can't you guys admit that the left's motives in fighting Voter ID laws isn't pure, and that they mainly want to avoid losing votes from people who are too lazy to get ID?

It is still insane to me that many of you are supporting a voting system with zero security, which is what non-ID systems really are. If I could take 5 minutes to register my dog and successfully vote in his name, you know the system is a disaster.

---

Druff....If it's so easy to register your dog, and vote on his behalf. Do it! What are you so afraid of? You won't get caught.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPIT this

So I gotta go to the DMV again before I can vote?

---

You don't have a license?

Sad!

---

Uhh.. no I have a license. I gotta go to the DMV to pick up my new "national ID".

Quote:

---

2) In order to get a National ID, you come in and show your state ID, birth certificate, or passport. Then you get fingerprinted, and they issue you a National ID with your picture on it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Unfortunately you are falling right into the trap talking points set by the left regarding this issue. Whenever logical-minded people start talking about closing the outrageous gaping security hole in our elections (where I could register a dog to vote in 5 minutes, and then easily vote as him), we immediately hear two quick leftist talking points:

1) Fake registration voter fraud isn't a problem, and "studies" show this. (Even though such "studies" are impossible to be anywhere near accurate, since this is almost impossible to detect when it occurs.)

2) Voter ID is racist and will disenfranchise poor people, especially black poor people.

Point #1 is easy to refute, though that doesn't stop the left from repeatedly trotting it out, since their claim about "studies show..." tends to shut down most morons who can't think critically.

However, point #2 is much more complicated. Indeed, there are some Americans who simply can't get ID easily because of the lack of a birth certificate or other ID, or extreme difficulty in obtaining such certificates.

I agree that these people need a vote, and you can't just dismiss the issue with, "Tough luck, solve it for yourself". However, the left is not interested in reforms which would allow these people to vote. There are various ways to do this, yet the left isn't interested. They are simply against Voter ID, period. You don't hear the left talking about reforms to get ID for these people, or reforms to Voter ID laws allowing them a path to vote. The left doesn't want any of that, because this isn't really about disenfranchisement. In reality, Democrats know that they will lose votes with Voter ID laws, because most people without ID simply don't want ID, or are too lazy to bother getting ID. So even if the "can't get ID" people are taken care of, Democrats still lose votes under a Voter ID system, and they hate that.

I am wiling to admit that the right mainly wants Voter ID laws because it benefits them.

Why can't you guys admit that the left's motives in fighting Voter ID laws isn't pure, and that they mainly want to avoid losing votes from people who are too lazy to get ID?

It is still insane to me that many of you are supporting a voting system with zero security, which is what non-ID systems really are. If I could take 5 minutes to register my dog and successfully vote in his name, you know the system is a disaster.

---

Druff....If it's so easy to register your dog, and vote on his behalf. Do it! What are you so afraid of? You won't get caught.

---

Because I'm not a cheater and don't want to vote twice in an election where it's not my right to do so.

Same reason I wouldn't walk into a person's home and steal their shit if they went on vacation with their door unlocked, while at the same time telling them that they're idiots to leave their house so vulnerable.

For the record, 0.0% of the community agrees with you. I get it, we’re all idiots. Look at the “stupid” responses. Thanks for trying to correct our thinking, but we’re too dense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPIT this

So I gotta go to the DMV again before I can vote?

---

You don't have a license?

Sad!

---

Oh no, your driver's license doesn't count, you need to obtain a REAL ID in order to vote, board a plane or enter a federal building.

Only 27% of people have obtained a REAL ID so far and less than half of people may bother to obtain one.

REAL ID is just another failure from the U.S. government.

These fucking Mexicans need to stop entering the country to vote for the Democrats. Now if Mexicans were illegally entering the country to vote Republican, then Druff would be all for it.


http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net...d-1000x831.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheXFactor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

You don't have a license?

Sad!

---

Oh no, your driver's license doesn't count, you need to obtain a REAL ID in order to vote, board a plane or enter a federal building.

Only 27% of people have obtained a REAL ID so far and less than half of people may bother to obtain one.

REAL ID is just another failure from the U.S. government.

These fucking Mexicans need to stop entering the country to vote for the Democrats. Now if Mexicans were illegally entering the country to vote Republican, then Druff would be all for it.


http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net...d-1000x831.png

---

Yep, a lot of people don't realize this. DMV's and airports are going to be a shitshow in like 11 months. Even though most states have real IDs for drivers license, they don't just automatically issue you a real ID. They still give a non-real ID license to most people.

My guess is they're going to delay (again) the Real ID requirement, or just cancel it altogether. But if not, it's going to be a disaster. Has Trump taken a stance on this?

In order for me to get a REAL ID I had to give the DMV my insurance paperwork + a copy of my bank statement. I don't think most people will be willing to do this. It is easier to obtain a U.S. passport even though it costs more and takes longer.


https://4brf13430svm3bnu053zbxvg-wpe...ded-Points.png

https://4brf13430svm3bnu053zbxvg-wpe...-a-REAL-ID.png

You need a SSN# to register to vote in CA at the DMV website.

I think the bigger question is why do you hate minorities so much Druff????

In Russia there's a mandatory internal passport which all Russians MUST have at age 14.

Why not have a mandatory ID?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPIT this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheXFactor

Oh no, your driver's license doesn't count, you need to obtain a REAL ID in order to vote, board a plane or enter a federal building.

Only 27% of people have obtained a REAL ID so far and less than half of people may bother to obtain one.

REAL ID is just another failure from the U.S. government.

These fucking Mexicans need to stop entering the country to vote for the Democrats. Now if Mexicans were illegally entering the country to vote Republican, then Druff would be all for it.


http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net...d-1000x831.png

---

Yep, a lot of people don't realize this. DMV's and airports are going to be a shitshow in like 11 months. Even though most states have real IDs for drivers license, they don't just automatically issue you a real ID. They still give a non-real ID license to most people.

My guess is they're going to delay (again) the Real ID requirement, or just cancel it altogether. But if not, it's going to be a disaster. Has Trump taken a stance on this?

---

Yup. Oregon still hasn't implemented real id yet, they say they'll be ready by July. Dmvs here are already a shitshow, I can only imagine when everyone without a passport but flies domestically has to get a new id in a 3 month time span.

I'm sure it will all work great.