Show me evidence. You have none.
Just because you disagree with something - even when the facts clearly support the statement that you disagree with - doesn't mean that you are entitled to discard it as "bullshit".
Correct. However, the facts in fact do not support your view, but mine, and I explained clearly how.
No. I have been looking at state numbers, and looking for the total number of allegations of fraud. Many of the states that have been pushing for voter id laws haven't had even an allegation of fraud or irregularities since the 70s at the most recent.
Show me. That you haven't linked to it is telling. But I will reiterate my argument, since you ignored it: most such fraud will never be detected if you don't check for ID. If I vote for my cousin who says he doesn't want to vote because he doesn't care, how will anyone ever know? How will there ever be an allegation of fraud? The data of specific allegations, because of the nature of the fraud, is necessarily going to be a small portion of the actual cases.
In order for your claim to make sense getting the additional voter ID card - which the states want to have examined by another bureaucracy - would need to be an automatic feat that requires no additional time from the voter.
False. You're lying. You said it is "far more difficult" for people who "make less money working longer hours." I said it's not. For my claim to be true, it can still be slightly more difficult for a small number of people who make less money working longer hours. Given the fact that most of those people already have government-issued photo IDs, you have already lost the defense of your claim before we get into any more specifics.
Being as many states don't even have their DMV offices open on Saturdays any more, a voter id would nearly without exception require people to take time off of work.
Yes. And this does not justify your claim that it is "far more difficult" for those people. This only justifies a claim of being slightly more difficult for a small number of those people, as most of them have a day off they can take here and there over the months and years of lead time they have. Yes, some people cannot get time off, or it would be an unbearable economic burden to do so. But that is a tiny number of people, and you said it was far more difficult for all people who work longer hours and make less money.
And -- again -- most of them already have photo IDs. (And funny that we don't say it's racism when we require people go into the DMV to get a driver's license. ...)
It doesn't matter if it is free or not.
False. If there were a cost, you'd complain it. Please stop lying.
I have not seen a single voter id movement that had that provision in it
In fact, every single state has the provisional ballot requirement. You just don't know what you're talking about. It's part of federal law.
as it is counter to the goal of prohibiting (nearly inexistent) fraud.
No, it's not. You don't understand provisional ballots at all. It is perfectly in line with the goal. All it means is you fill out a ballot, and it is set aside and later checked for validity. So the jurisdiction would accept the ballot and then validate your identity at a later time, and it would not be counted until they could validate it. It doesn't mean your vote will count, it means you have additional opportunity to validate your identity, which is the whole point of the fraud prevention.
False. You lied, and it was a big whopper of a lie. And it is very clear that it was a lie. You said this law made it "far more difficult" to vote for people who work longer hours for less money. But most of the people you said it is "far more difficult" for are completely unaffected by the law. You lied. I can't find the stat right now, but a bit less than half of people in the lowest quintile had a driver's license, and more than half of the next quintile. Over half of the groups combined. And even if it is less than half, it is still a very large percentage that are completely unaffacted by the law.
At that point there is no right to strike.
The strike has no purpose if it cannot get the attention of the employer and encourage them to negotiate.
So? You still have the right to do it. Stop lying.
You're lying. The free market has never caused any harm or death, ever. We know this, because we know it is not even capable of doing so.
You're simply full of shit there. There have been millions of cases of people who have purchased goods on the free market which resulted in their deaths, which could have been prevented had there been even the most basic of safety concerns from the manufacturer.
So you admit I am right, and you're wrong. The only "evidence" that you provide is not of the market causing death at all. Your argument is like saying that breathing causes death.