July 4, 2016 - INDEPENDENCE DAY

I WANT RASPBERRY CUPCAKES

See, I too can shout things that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand

I'm heading to DC tomorrow to demand my freedom from the federal government tyranny/ thank Obama/look for studio apartments just in case my medical clearance ever gets approved.

Then CU is okay with you than right?   Duly elected representatives by the people [ the senate] that is put those Supreme Court Judges in position of power right?

Privilege, what does it mean?

Oreo's candidate for President:

Donald Trump Posts Anti-Semitic Image on the Day of Elie Wiesel’s Passing

It’s unlikely that Trump or what passes for his communications team is overtly anti-Semitic, but the fact that someone pulled up that image from somewhere that does traffic in it is incredibly disturbing. That neither Trump nor his team immediately caught the fact that it was prejudicial is remarkable and speaks to the ongoing lack of professionalism, intelligence and common sense in the campaign.

Above all it shows what Elie Wiesel tried to remind us always: we must be ever vigilant against prejudice of all kinds, and against tyrants who would use it to do harm. The world must never forget.

UPDATE: As I and many others suspected, it turns out that the image was created by white supremacists. No surprise there. So who on his campaign is reading this offal and pulling material from it? Is it Trump himself? Manafort?

washingtonmonthly.com/2016/07/03/donald-trump-posts-anti-semitic-image-on-the-day-of-elie-wiesels-passing/

What will they put in fck's place?

You tell me genius? And please keep race and color out of your answer.   I'll answer it for you, just what i thought its all about race and color to a liberal democrat.

Who brought up race and color?  Oreo. 

First off, I appreciate you taking the time to actually write legible English.

Now we'll go through the fallacies in your argument
1) The liquor laws have actually far less to do with ensuring that a child has access to liquor than it does in preventing someone from selling liquor - or rather, from profiteering off of breaking the law.  I mean, sure, there's definitely aspects to ensuring kids should not get access to liquor, but last I checked, no kid was ever arrested and sent to jail for possession of alcohol (or fined or....).  Same with cigarettes.
2) The laws are actually extensions of laws permitting companies from denying service to customers who are unworthy of service (though obviously there are restrictions on grounds, liquor laws enshrine age to be one of them).  Photo ID laws exist to protect the seller from prosecution, by giving them greater grounds to ensure that who they are selling to is in fact the person and the age they claim to be.  There is no law that permits a private citizen from disenfranchising another private citizen of their right to vote so protecting people from denying others the right to vote would actually be pointless
3) The establishment which sells you alcohol does not have any master registry of who is allowed to actually drink there.  Therefore, it is a secondary method of providing that verification that you are qualified to buy alcohol.
4) It is acceptable to put a financial prerequisite (such as paying for the beer) to acquire the alcohol.  It is not acceptable to put a financial prerequisite on voting - that's called a poll tax and has been deemed unconstitutional.

But those are all minute details compared to one vital one: it is not the duty of the government to ensure that those who can legally get plastered have sufficient access to alcohol to get plastered.  That's Adam Smith's job and he does a fine job of that.  It IS the government's job to ensure that anyone who can legally vote has a reasonable opportunity to vote so before we dig further into this ridiculous debate, I must, again, stress that it is my opinion that any action by the government that results in millions of people losing the ability to vote because they lack the proper ID because of the actions of literally a handful who are breaking the laws constitutes a fundamental violation of what it means to be a democratic society.  You don't need to agree with me on that, but if you cannot see where I am coming from when I say that, then you do not understand, fundamentally, what democracy is or the principles behind it and there is no further point to our discussions so you absolutely need to understand this.

So now we get to the 18 year old rule.

The law is not to not let people vote until they're 18.  The law in question is actually worded in the exact opposite way: 



So you see, the law is actually worded in such a way as to guarantee the right to vote for people who are older than 18.  It is well within the power of jurisdictions to lower the age of voting even further.  But to be fair, that's kinda pedanticism.

Let's get to the crux of the matter.  As mentioned earlier, it is the bounds of existing Photo ID laws that you must demonstrate not just your identity but that you are of legal age.  You do this against a record that has no information about any of that for you.  As such, the burden of proof is higher.  In the case of voting, your identity as well as some details about you are available and so it is perfectly within your ability to prove your identity without your face being plastered on an ID.  Therefore, would not any reasonable manner of proof of identity be sufficient to demonstrate your identity?  Sure, Photo ID is helpful in doing so, but is it necessary?  Is there really no other way to do this?

It is also worth noting that it is not illegal to lie about your identity to the bartender.  All of the penalties are against the bartender if the patron is found to be lying.  Therefore, from a simple legal perspective, the bartender has the hardest job of demonstrating identity and requires greater evidence of your identity.

It is illegal to lie about your identity to an election official.  All penalties for failure to determine that you are lying go against you, the fake voter.  Therefore, from a simple legal perspective, the election official has very little need to demonstrate your identity.  You can be prosecuted later if it is determined that you were, in fact, lying.

And finally, let's talk about the definition of disenfranchisement:

Disenfranchisement is any action that will deny someone who has the right to vote the ability to vote.  Disenfranchisement is not new to American politics - the lack of same-day registration is prevalent and indisputably the worst form of disenfranchisement in the American system.  The (often illegal) purging of voter roles of legitimate voters is another common variation.  To place upon someone an unreasonable burden is indisputably a disenfranchisement.  To place upon the population a form of ID that many do not have, and in many cases cannot afford to have, constitutes a broad spectrum disenfranchisement of voters - you are preventing them from voting when they have the legitimate grounds to do so.

Now, I'm willing to accept that disenfranchisement can be justified.  I am willing to accept that requiring proof of residency in the county involved is a valid form of disenfranchisement - sure, some people will be unable to provide such evidence, but they are far fewer than the demonstrably higher number of people who stuffed ballot boxes with votes from outside their appropriate polling station.  But, the evidence has to be there that the problem is present and widespread.

Photo ID is missing for some 15% of the population and the hurdles they have to go through to get Photo ID can sometimes be ridiculous.  There is one county which has a total of a single location you can register for your photo ID who will be open a total of 4 days through 2016.  Now explain to me how 15% of the county's population is supposed to address their ID problems when they have those few opportunities to acquire ID.  Can you see how that would inherently ensure that a number of people will be unable to vote?  Ok, so 15% of people are disenfranchised.  I'll even be generous and say that 5% of them can get their ducks in order to be able to vote and say that means 10% can't vote that should be able to.  Alright, let's counter that with the number of cases of voter fraud.  The answer is.... a handful.

So because 4 guys are lying to officials and will certainly face jailtime for it, you want to do measurable harm to 10% of the population?  What is the logic of that.

And while we're at it, it's 11:30, I'm really tired, and I've still somehow put together 4 different threads of arguments so while I appreciate the effort you put into using the English language, perhaps next time you could try by actually countering all 4 of my threads.