Republicans, can you explain this to me?

[Alan V]

The split between the parties in the U.S. is so wide, they can't even agree on the facts anymore.

I for one will never vote for a Republican as long as they generally deny climate change.  That one difference between the parties is more than enough for me.

It doesn't matter what facts they agree on.

They both serve the same masters. Appealing to the liberal or conservative ideologies/populations is only done out of necessity. I vote Democrat, too, but it doesn't do as much good as I'd like.

I'm not saying our votes are worthless. I'm just saying that actually addressing climate change is more important than electing people who agree with a fact that pretty much any educated person acknowledges is true. How low are we setting the bar here?

The Republicans aren't the source of the problem. They're just opportunists. And they wouldn't have an opportunity to sell their climate denial schtick in a country with a robust and accessible education system.

I find your views on politics far too cynical.  Both parties attempt to serve the American people, and both do this for economic reasons by listening to moneyed interests to greater or lesser extents, since they are the forces that employ people.  Democrats have been thwarted in their agendas by Republicans, and visa versa.  It really depends on we what Americans want as our priorities.  Is the economy the paramount and overriding issue, or are other issues equally important?

[Lek]

Is this the latest way for democrats to argue history?  The republicans who voted yes were actually democrats and the democrats who voted no were actually republicans?  That's hilarious!  But the real question is this.  Is anybody really trying to suppress the vote?  If you're talking about voter ID laws, are we discriminating by requiring an ID to drive, cash a check, buy alcoholic beverages and a myriad of other things?  How do we identify whether or not a person is authorized to vote without an ID check?

[vulcanlogician]

Is this the latest way for democrats to argue history?  The republicans who voted yes were actually democrats and the democrats who voted no were actually republicans?  That's hilarious! 

No it's actually the Republicans who are bringing up this argument. (See the OP.) And the issue is this (I'll quote Aegon because I think he put it best):

As for the OP - lol. Imagine living in 2019 and debating which party did what over half a century ago. It doesn't matter who's right. It's asinine. Things have changed so radically you don't even know where to begin to explain all the differences. It's beyond ridiculous.

[GODZILLA]

It just proves that our education system has failed lots of people

[vulcanlogician]

I find your views on politics far too cynical.  Both parties attempt to serve the American people, and both do this for economic reasons by listening to moneyed interests to greater or lesser extents, since they are the forces that employ people.  Democrats have been thwarted in their agendas by Republicans, and visa versa.  It really depends on we what Americans want as our priorities.  Is the economy the paramount and overriding issue, or are other issues equally important?

Yeah. You're probably right. I used to be very involved in (and passionate about) politics, but I've become quite bitter and disillusioned as time has gone by.

We agree on one thing though: "It really depends on what we Americans want as our priorities."

Apparently, "we Americans" really suck at prioritization. And it's something of a feedback loop at this point. The more grave our problems become, the more we suck at prioritization.

After Trump won in 2016, I kind of "dropped out." I quit watching the news or keeping up with politics at all. I think I needed a break from it all. But you're right. I'm way cynical about things. But this isn't my natural disposition. I've become this way.

It is what it is...

[Amarok]

Is this the latest way for democrats to argue history?

No this is Republicans rewriting history to try and say “nuh huh your the real racists !!!” Same as this bullshit that the Nazi's were leftists (spoilers the Nazi's were neither left or right they were there own weird category )

  The republicans who voted yes were actually democrats and the democrats who voted no were actually republicans? 

Sigh nope it's arguing that at one time the Democrats were more conservatives while the Republicans were more progressive. This changed the Progressives moved to the Democratic party and the Republicans became more Conservative ,And to confuse things both parties once had a Conservative and Progressive wings The Conservatives are all but gone and Progressive Republicans are definitely gone.

That's hilarious!  But the real question is this

Yes your sides denial of history is very funny

If you're talking about voter ID laws, are we discriminating by requiring an ID to drive, cash a check, buy alcoholic beverages and a myriad of other thing

It is when it's being disproportionally enforced in neighborhoods with minority populations and it is when it's not needed as voter fraud in the US is near nonexistent and voter ID hasn't even proven effective at stopping the few cases it's happened .On the other hand it hurts the poor and minorities .

How do we identify whether or not a person is authorized to vote without an ID check? ]

If voter fraud were common and proven effective you might have a case . Too bad you don't .

[The Valkyrie]

It just proves that our education system has failed lots of people

Since we're an atheist forum, can you change your name to "Goshzilla"?

[Lek]

If voter fraud were common and proven effective you might have a case . Too bad you don't .

How do you know if voter fraud is uncommon or not if we haven't been checking voters' IDs?  It just makes sense to verify that all voters are authorized.

[Amarok]

How do you know if voter fraud is uncommon or not if we haven't been checking voters' IDs?  It just makes sense to verify that all voters are authorized.

We have been my point was that in the very few  known fraud cases Voter ID didn't stop it , And it only makes sense if it works and doesn't create hassle for people are authorized to vote but can't get the ID they need which overwhelmingly poor or colored .And again voter fraud is rare to a point which renders this redundant .

[Lek]

How do you know if voter fraud is uncommon or not if we haven't been checking voters' IDs?  It just makes sense to verify that all voters are authorized.

We have been my point was that in the very few  known fraud cases Voter ID didn't stop it , And it only makes sense if it works and doesn't create hassle for people are authorized to vote but can't get the ID they need which overwhelmingly poor or colored  .And again voter fraud is rare to a point which renders this redundant .

It seems you're right, but you forgot to mention that it doesn't seem to suppress voter turnout, even when viewed by race.  It also does prevent some voter impersonation, but the numbers seem to be small.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...y-research