And still no one can point out how requiring an ID to vote is in any way the same as a protest group advising participants to bring, among other things, an ID. Would they too not be allowed to participate in the protest if they didn't bring their ID? No, they wouldn't be barred from participation. For if they were, then we would have irony. I think that this Right-wing blog is really reaching if their own readers can't explain how this is irony. But I guess the threshold of intelligence is pretty low for their audience. The only real irony is that your right to vote is being blocked by Republicans while the right to protest is being mocked by the same Republicans. Irony? Oh yeah. Try again.
The government requiring that you have an ID to exercise your right to vote is nothing like a grassroots community organization suggesting that you bring several things including an ID to a protest march. You can read the tweet that uses the word "require" as easily as I can. This is a stretch at best. I'm glad that you and your ilk can manufacture "irony" out of this situation. I guess if this is the only way you can feel good about trying to take away people's right to vote, you have to go with it.
You DO know that on more than one occasion, high level Right-wing elected officials have admitted that the voter ID laws they love so much are pretty much just an effort to reduce voter participation? How many people will it take before you realize what the rest of us already know? Voter fraud is nearly non-existent but the GOP's solution to a problem that doesn't exist is to disenfranchise 100's of thousands of people with voter ID laws. Why do you hate Democracy? Case in point.... In a strongly worded decision, a state judge on Friday struck down Pennsylvania’s 2012 law requiring voters to produce a state-approved photo ID at the polls, setting up a potential Supreme Court confrontation that could have implications for other such laws across the country. The judge, Bernard L. McGinley of Commonwealth Court, ruled that the law hampered the ability of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians to cast their ballots, with the burden falling most heavily on elderly, disabled and low-income residents, and that the state’s reason for the law — that it was needed to combat voter fraud — was not supported by the facts.
But I seem to remember another court ruling that voter ID's were allow in some other states. Texas and Indiana come to mind. Would you care to tell me which court that might be?
