Does Trump Really Think You Need ID to Buy a Box of Breakfast Cereal?

Also, are people putting on disguises so they can vote more than once?

MEG/Newscom

In an interview today with The Daily Caller, President Donald Trump seemed to suggest that you need ID to buy cereal.

Trump's remarks about cereal came as he continued to emphasize the importance of voter ID laws in order to prevent alleged voter fraud. "If you buy a box of cereal—you have a voter ID," the president said. "They try to shame everybody by calling them racist, or calling them something, anything they can think of, when you say you want voter ID. But voter ID is a very important thing."

So was Trump saying you need an ID to buy cereal? It wouldn't be the first time he's made a head-scratching remark about IDs and groceries. Back in August, Trump said people need to bring photo identification with them to the grocery store. "You know, if you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture," he said.

Later, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders appeared to defend her boss, noting that you do in fact need to "show your ID" to purchase alcohol. Trump, though, had not said anything about alcohol.

Trump was not completely wrong. If you pay for your groceries with a check, you do need to show ID. But just 4 percent of grocery store transactions were carried out with a check in 2017, according to MarketWatch.

As The Washington Post pointed out, Trump's not the only president or presidential candidate who doesn't seem to understand how supermarkets work. In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush seemed "amazed" by a grocery store scanner, according to The New York Times. And in 2007, then-GOP presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani grossly underestimated how much bread and milk cost. In 2008, GOP presidential candidate John McCain admitted he hadn't pumped his own gas in years and couldn't say how much it cost.

Trump also made another questionable claim today in regard to alleged voter fraud. "The Republicans don't win and that's because of potentially illegal votes," he told The Daily Caller. "When people get in line that have absolutely no right to vote and they go around in circles. Sometimes they go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again. Nobody takes anything. It's really a disgrace what's going on."

Trump did not provide any evidence in defense of his assertion that voters are disguising themselves in order to vote more than once.

Correction: This post originally stated that Giuliani made his remarks about bread and milk in 2008. In fact, the comment came in 2007.

Comments

[TuIpa]

I can feel the passion radiating from this stellar act of journalism.

Serious questions need serious answers.

[grb]

Another Trump embarrassment; another moronic statement; another lie. Can anything be more dog-bites-man Journalists might as well cover the sun rising each morning as report the latest lunacy from our president.

[Bronze Khopesh]

Well yeah, I buy Beerios: the Beer-Filled Wheat Puffs Everyone Loves!

[Idle Hands]

This is so dumb. You need an ID to drive, you need an ID to purchase cigarettes/guns/alchohol/lotto tickets, you need an ID to fly,you need an ID if you are questioned by police and you need an ID to rent a place. Everyone has an ID you literally can't go through life without one.

[Idle Hands]

Asking someone for an ID is not some earthshaking proposition.

[Jerryskids]

You need an ID to buy a box of cereal.

[John]

You do if you pay for it with a check or use a credit card that says "check ID" on the back. Indeed, unless you have ID, you can't have a bank account or a credit card at all and can't buy shit unless you have and the place takes cash.

[Agammamon]

1. When was the last time you paid for something with a check? Probably the last time Trump paid for something directly.

2. 'Check ID' is not an obligation. That's a signature box on the card, not a message box. At best 'Check ID' means 'don't accept this ID because the presenter hasn't signed it indicating he accepts the terms and conditions of use'.

3. You can absolutely get a credit card without ID. They're freaking mailed to you in bulk. Just open the envelope, sign, and spend.

4. Nobody has to have a bank account. Tons of people don't. Personally I find it a stupid way to go through life, but I'm not for forcing people to do it.

[Doug Heffernan]

The grocers don't check it carefully. I was carded for the purchase of a family size box of Froot Loops. Then I put on a hat and a fake mustache and was able to go right back in and buy a box of Frankenberry and they didn't even ask for ID.

[John]

If there are millions of people out there who don't have an ID, then they should be able to come up with more examples of them than they do. Also, since as you point out, not having a valid ID makes life much harder, maybe they should go out and help these people get IDs. That would not only allow them to vote, it would make it easier for them to do a lot of other things.

Yet, their solution is always to just refuse to require an ID. It is almost as if they are lying when they claim to be concerned about those without IDs or something.

[Bubba Jones]

Texas litigated this.

http://www.texastribune.org/20.....ing-texas/

If you're confused about what ID to bring to the polls for the 2018 election, you're probably not alone. The legal wrangling over the state's requirements has turned rather complicated. Here are the seven types of photo ID currently accepted at the polls (though this may change by the end of the legislative session):

A state driver's license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
A Texas election identification certificate (issued by DPS)
A Texas personal identification card (issued by DPS)
A Texas license to carry a handgun (issued by DPS)
A U.S. military ID card that includes a personal photo
A U.S. citizenship certificate that includes a personal photo
A U.S. passport
Voters who do not have any of these documents and cannot "reasonably obtain" them can still cast a vote if they sign a form in which they swear that they have a "reasonable impediment" from obtaining appropriate identification. Those voters must also present one of the following types of ID:

Valid voter registration certificate, which county clerks mail to voters within 30 days of registration
An original birth certificate
Copy or original of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other document that shows the voter's name and physical address (any government document that contains a voter's photo must be an original)

[Tony]

For the love of all that is holy, at least among libertarians, don't you think that there should be an absolutely demonstrated practical need before a new layer of bureaucracy is erected around a citizen's basic right? Hello? Is this thing on?

Maybe later we can get to how your homespun common sense is actually vile propaganda in service of a political party whose only aim is to get fewer people to vote. But I expect you know that.

[John]

Your vote only belongs to you. Requiring you to show that you are who you say you are is not oppressive. Moreover, to vote you have to be a citizen and have a place of residence. You can't vote in a place without showing you live there. Even you are not dumb enough to believe that someone could have a residence and be a citizen without having some form of legal ID. Just be honest and admit you think even non citizens should vote. 100% sufferage is a stupid position but at least it is an honest one as opposed to claiming that requiring an ID is some kind of burden. That is just an absurd and dishonest position that no one sincerely holds.

[Tony]

You already had to show who you were. You signed your name to a little list. The problem an ID solves is people coming to sign their name to the wrong line, a problem not demonstrated to even exist. You want bigger government to solve a problem that doesn't exist. All I'm doing is arguing from a libertarian point of view.

[John]

The problem an ID solves is people coming to vote in place of people who will not be voting. And voter rolls are almost never current and virtually impossible to keep current. And this is made even more so by Democrats forever fighting to ensure that there are never any efforts to purge and update them.

[Tony]

As I said, this is not a problem that is demonstrated to exist in any numbers remotely large enough to justify a new layer of government imposition between people and their rights.

Even if the problem did exist, if you were a fair-minded person you'd have to ask whether the prevented fraudulent in-person votes outnumber the disenfranchised.

But your entire point is to make fewer poor people and college students vote, yes?

[John]

As I said, this is not a problem that is demonstrated to exist in any numbers remotely large enough to justify a new layer of government imposition between people and their rights.

Without checking IDs there is no way to tell how big or small this problem is. All you know is who showed up to vote and who they claimed to be. If no one checked their ID, then there is no way to tell how many of the people who voted were who they claimed to be.

You could do a detailed check and see if people who were dead or had moved away voted and find out the answer to that to some degree. But no such deetailed check has ever been done. Nor would the Democratic party ever allow such a check.

So the lack of evidence is a result of a lack of knowledge not proof that it isn't happening.

[Tony]

Why do you insist on things that are easily refuted, like your claim that there's no evidence to consult?

[John]

Because I can read and understand what the word "evidence" means. That link doesn't go to anything like the analysis I am talking about. That "study" is nothing but an exercise in tautology where they claim that since voter fraud isn't documented, it must not exist.

It is nothing but boob bait for boobs like you who will believe anything that supports their politics.

[Tony]

And my original point is that without evidence of voter fraud, why spend the resources and increase disenfranchisement? You are seriously, without any question, in plain English, arguing for extra government bureaucracy to solve a problem that you have no evidence even exists.

[sarcasmic]

I'm agreeing with Tony twice in one day. That's it. I'm going to the doctor.

[John]

And my original point is that without evidence of voter fraud, why spend the resources and increase disenfranchisement?

And my response is that they only reason there is no "evidence" is that there is no way to obtain such evidence without requiring an ID or doing some serious analysis that the Democratic party would never allow.

And there is no disenfranchisement by requiring an ID. That is just a bullshit talking point. You have to have an ID to exercise any number of constitutional rights and to do all kinds of protected activities. Voting is no different.

You are just dumb as a fucking post Tony. You can't make a rational argument.

[Tony]

If there's no way to obtain evidence, then there is no fucking evidence is there?

[sarcasmic]

since voter fraud isn't documented, it must not exist

If it was a big enough deal to influence elections, you'd think there would be some evidence.

[John]

I don't know why that would be the case. You don't know it exists until you look. And if you are not looking, there is no way that you can say that it doesn't exist in large enough amounts to influence national elections. You haven't looked, so you don't know. There is nothing about it being common that necessarily means it will be obvious such that you don't have to look for it.

Beyond that, it doesn't have to change the Presidential election to be signficant. Plenty of House and Senate races are well within any margin of fraud. And changing House and Senate seats from one party to another is very significant.

[Ogre]

I present exhibit A: The State of Florida.

[sarcasmic]

I present exhibit A: The State of Florida. Sour Grapes

ftfy

I'll believe voter fraud is a problem when I am shown some evidence. Until then it's just Republicans whining.

Jesus. I'm agreeing with Tony.. I really need to get my head checked.

[Paloma]

Mostly Democrats object to the idea of a voter ID as an excuse that they would have had more votes than they did because Democrat voters were turned away at the polls in droves because they lacked an ID.

The reality is the demographic that favors Democrats may make a lot of noise, but they are pretty unenthusiastic about actually voting unless it's someone they really like.

If all the people who got out and voted for Obama would have got out and voted for Hillary, she'd have beaten Trump.

[Agammamon]

You don't need an ID to drive (illegally - its not like a car requires one to start or that the cops run license checkpoints). You don't even need one to purchase a car. You don't need an ID if questioned by the police - in most states you don't even need to give them a name. You don't need an ID to rent a place.

And that you literally can't go through life without an ID is not an excuse for them.

[John]

Trump did not provide any evidence in defense of his assertion that voters are disguising themselves in order to vote more than once.

Maybe you should do some journalism and look and see if it is true. I guess it would have been nice if he had given a long list of examples, but his not doing so doesn't mean it isn't true or prevent you from investigating and finding out if it is. It is not like his assertion is completely unreasonable or fantastic. Yet, you assume that it is untrue such that there is no reason to even investigate to see if it is true.

As far as needing an ID to buy cereal, it is called hyperbole and sarcasm. Either be honest enough to admit that or admit you are too dim to really know what is going on. But whatever you do, stop taking something literally that was clearly never meant to be taken that way.

[sarcasmic]

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. You should know that.

[John]

So if the person doesn't provide proof that means you can just assume the opposite? And there is no reason to look for yourself?

Considering your level of knowlege of things, it really shouldn't surprise me you think that.

[sarcasmic]

You sure have become a dick lately. TDS has infected your brain. You need to see a doctor or something.

[John]

You have been a total dick. You are forever talking shit to anything I say. I never start anything with you. If you don't like my responding, stop starting it.

[sarcasmic]

I talk shit to anyone who says something stupid. You're not special. And since Trump has been elected there's been a whole lot of stupid shit said in his defense.

Take this for example:

I guess it would have been nice if he had given a long list of examples, but his not doing so doesn't mean it isn't true or prevent you from investigating and finding out if it is. It is not like his assertion is completely unreasonable or fantastic.

Really? You don't think it's unreasonable to say that there are people out there who vote, go home to put on a disguise, and then go vote again? That's pretty darn outrageous, not reasonable. Jesus fucking H on a skateboard.

[John]

talk shit to anyone who says something stupid. You're not special. And since Trump has been elected there's been a whole lot of stupid shit said in his defense.?

Talk all the shit you want. I don't care. Just understand you are going to get it back and then some. You are the one whinning and crying about it. Not me. I am happy to kick you around and make you feel stupid. If you don't like that, don't come and screw with me.

Really? You don't think it's unreasonable to say that there are people out there who vote, go home to put on a disguise, and then go vote again? T

That is not what anyone is saying. That is a strawman. What people are saying is not requiring an ID allows groups to send voters to vote in the place of people who are dead or have moved or for whatever reason are not going to vote. The need to prevent that kind of fraud is much greater than any danger of someone being deprived of voting because they somehow don't have an ID.

If you want to argue the point, fine. But argue the point made not the strawman you dream up in your head about people disguising themselves.

[sarcasmic]

You don't make me feel stupid. You make me laugh actually, getting all worked up like this.

That is not what anyone is saying. That is a strawman.

Really? This little spat of ours started when you defended the claim that people put on disguises to vote more than once, claimed it was reasonable, and then demanded that anyone who thinks otherwise should do some investigation.

Do you even know what your write?

*shakes head*

[sarcasmic]

John|11.14.18 @ 3:59PM|#

Trump did not provide any evidence in defense of his assertion that voters are disguising themselves in order to vote more than once.

Maybe you should do some journalism and look and see if it is true. I guess it would have been nice if he had given a long list of examples, but his not doing so doesn't mean it isn't true or prevent you from investigating and finding out if it is. It is not like his assertion is completely unreasonable or fantastic. Yet, you assume that it is untrue such that there is no reason to even investigate to see if it is true.

Seems like a pretty vehement defense of the assertion that voters are disguising themselves, and a demand that those who disagree better come up with some proof.

If you mean something else, say something else. Use your words...

[John]

If you don't have a response to the point, move on. Fraud is a real danger and people voting in the place of others is a danger. If you don't think it is, then explain why. I don't know how to make it any more clear than that.

[sarcasmic]

Ohhhhhh. That's what you meant. I personally don't have a problem with people coughing up some ID to vote. I don't think it's a matter for the federal government to dictate though. Perhaps on the state or local level. However I have yet to see any evidence that voter fraud is a real problem. I see people talk about it a lot. Especially when Republicans lose an election. But I haven't seen any real proof.

[John]

Then we don't disagree.

[TuIpa]

Concurrently, you've become kind of a nitwit. It's possible you two are feeding off of each other.

[Idle Hands]

Trump is either bullshitting all the time with zero knowledge about anything or every-word is carefully and beautifully selected by this by this master wordsmith. Can't be both they need to pick a narrative and stick with it.

[Jerryskids]

Babe Ruth was a great athlete - in !927 he won the Boston Marathon, the Tour de France and the Kentucky Derby, becoming only the second person since Mary Todd Lincoln to accomplish the feat of winning all three in the same year.

Are you going to argue that Babe Ruth was not a great athlete?

[John]

Yeah Jerry, your example is totally just like my saying

What the fuck do you mean it is hard to have an ID, You need an ID to buy cerial in this country.

The sarcasm in both statements is exactly the same. Are you Autistic? Do you just not understand sublte language or social cues?

[I can't even]

It's just a coincidence that votes found after the election have resulted in 34 Democrat and 0 Republican wins. No "alleged" voter fraud to be seen here.

[sarcasmic]

But just 4 percent of grocery store transactions were carried out with a check in 2017, according to MarketWatch.

And it's always an old woman who shows great enjoyment in having the power to hold up the line for at least five minutes.

[Jerryskids]

Well it sure as hell isn't Donald Trump holding up the line - Trump hasn't bought his own groceries since about the same time Hillary did her own laundry. What the hell would he know about buying cereal, by check or otherwise?

[TuIpa]

The problem is... he forgot credit card transactions, which are not uncommon at all.

If you're going to fisk something Joe, do it properly.

[sarcasmic]

When was the last time you handed your card over to someone? You swipe it or stick it in the card reader. Cashiers don't do that anymore. Where the heck do you shop?

[TuIpa]

At a place that has a policy of checking ID for non PIN transactions in order to prevent fraud. It is actually quite common from what I understand.

I realize it hurts for you to admit it, but your reaponse was clearly you looking for some way to dismiss an argument you hadn't considered, and now you look stupid AND petulant.

[sarcasmic]

Maybe things are different in Kentucky. Up north here nobody checks ID except for tobacco and booze. Nobody.

[sarcasmic]

They don't even check ID when you write a check. Honestly I haven't had to whip out my license since I quit drinking. Not once.

[TuIpa]

Cool story bro. Meanwhile, my experience is what it is.

Make no mistake, I'm not saying it is particularly common, only that it is common enough that excluding it was not a minor oversight.

[Nardz]

And I'm sure no ID is required to get a debit or credit card...

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Why would you need a disguise to vote more than once? You non-New Jerseyans crack me up.

[I can't even]

This. The name and address of a dead person or non-voter is all that's needed.

[John]

Or the name and address of a person that thanks to social media mining, you know is out of town or doesn't plan to vote. Give me a few volunteers and a list of names and addresses of dead people or people we know are not going to vote for some reason and I could drive around town and cast a pretty significant number of illegal votes.

This shit isn't hard. Yet somehow that very real possibility is dimissed and the completely absurd possibility that someone out there might both be a citizen and have a legal residence and want to vote but somehow not have an ID is treated as a absolute certain harm of enormous consiquence.

[Wizard4169]

There is absolutely no evidence that in-person voter fraud is anything other than vanishingly rare. Fine, I can't absolutely prove that it isn't going on all the time and going undetected. Likewise, you can't prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage. But if I claimed there were, you'd probably be skeptical and demand some proof. When I see some evidence of this alleged massive voter fraud, then I just might believe in it.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Or a living one - when I first registered to vote, I ended up on the voting rolls twice (my mistake, long story). I have no doubt I could have voted twice and nobody would have stopped me.

[Paloma]

Do you really think this happens often enough and in numbers great enough to sway an election?

I think Democrat politicians like to use it as an excuse why they lost. At the margin, Republicans tend to be conscientious and dutiful and therefore show up to vote. Democrats not so much. And if they don't even want to show up once, it seems unlikely that they'd go through the trouble of showing up several times in different disguises.

[Ken Hagler]

As a libertarian, I'd like to point out that if you actually did have to show an ID to buy groceries, that would be an oppressive requirement that should be gotten rid of, not an excuse to add more oppression elsewhere.

[John]

How is proving who you are to exercise a right that belongs only to you, oppressive? No one is saying you can't vote. Only that we have to know it is you that is voting. Anyone can buy groceries. Therefore, assuming you are not buying it on credit, who you are is irrelevent. But only you have the right to cast your vote. So, the government has an obligation to make certain it is you who is doing it by asking for an ID.

[Tony]

Nobody here thinks you hold this opinion because you believe in anything but increasing the power of the Republican party. Why the fuck even bother?

[John]

No one here except you cares why anyone holds an opinion. What matters is the validity of the logic and facts behind that opinion. So you saying "you only say that because..." is not an argument. It is just an ad hominem fallacy. But, I guess if you understood that, you probably would be a lot smarter than you are and not be a progressive.

[Tony]

To be fair, you probably don't go that deep. You probably support voter ID because the right-wing idiotsphere told you to believe that way. I'm here to tell you that in-person voter fraud is a lie made up by Republicans to justify voter ID laws to suppress the vote to help them win elections against the democratic will of Americans. And it is absolutely nothing else. You're welcome.

[John]

Tony, you have never had a fully formed and thoughtful opinion in your life. For you to try and lecture me about having a deep opinion is high comedy even by your admittedly high standards.

Sometimes you really do make me laugh.

[Tony]

Thank you?

[Unicorn Abattoir]

I don't think you're the real Tony. Do you have any ID? A bundle of straw, perhaps?

[Tony]

There is no real Tony. There is only the interdimensional echo of a concept of a person called Tony.

[Here for the outrage]

Sometimes Tony thinks and makes decent arguments, to the point that even if I disagree I appreciate.

Other times they let the interns troll so right leaning people keep clicking

[mad.casual]

As a libertarian, I'd like to point out that if you actually did have to show an ID to buy groceries, that would be an oppressive requirement that should be gotten rid of, not an excuse to add more oppression elsewhere.

Strongly disagree. For the ancap libertarians the act of voting is intrinsically a sham. For the minarchists, protection of property rights, including defense against voting fraud, isn't entirely out of bounds.

If you accept voting as a valid means of deciding who wins, then you can't get pissy when people start establishing rules around "your" preferred voting methodology/practice.

[Juice]

If there is to be regulation, it needs to be of the government and its agents. An individual casting a vote, in my mind, is an act whereby that individual is attempting to impose his will on others indirectly through the government. That's why it needs to be strictly regulated. If it's not, then it becomes all too easy for the process to be commandeered by political parties, which is even worse than the act itself.

[John]

Isn't an individual casting an illegal vote or a vote that belongs to someone else, attempting to impose his will on others? Your vote doesn't count if it is canceled out because I voted twice or someone else voted illegally.

Your statement assumes that every individual vote is both valid and an assertion of only that person's will. And that is just not a valid assumption. There is just as much of a need to restrain people who intend to cheat the system as there is to restrain the government agents who run the system.

[Juice]

Read slower.

[John]

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying the opposite of what you meant. My mistake.

[Here for the outrage]

This seems so reasonable to me.

The only valid counter argument I see is the anarchist argument that we don't need IDs at all. If that's someone's cup of tea fine, but to have ID for all kinds of nonsense, then complain about needing it to vote, is just intellectually lazy.

[TuIpa]

Sometimes if you squint hard enough, you can sort of see the shape of what Trump is talking about when he seems incomprehensible.

This is not one of those times. This is just him being utterly incomprehensible.

[John]

I don't think so. I think this is him being sarcastic and dismissive. It is very easy to see his point that you need an ID to do virtually anything in this society and therefore requiring one to vote is not unreasonable. I really don't understand what is hard about this or why anyone would get wrapped around the axel about whether you literally need an ID to buy cereal.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

Your constant battles are getting to be a bore
So go somewhere else and continue your cream puff war

- Jerry (not his best work but on point)

[Dillinger]

maybe try tennis?

[MattXIV]

The Bush/supermarket story was Fake News before Fake News was cool.

link

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

Disregarding the dumb point about cereal, all libertarians should oppose voter ID laws. The fact of the matter is that in a white supremacist country like the US, black and brown people are disproportionately unable to obtain valid forms of identification. Therefore any requirement to show an ID when voting would inevitably disenfranchise voters of color, which would be an obvious civil rights violation.

#LibertariansAgainstVoterID
#NotEveryoneNeedsADriversLicense

[Here for the outrage]

Pretty good.

I wish you would have added more examples, or pointed toward white supremacy, as the reason that liberals have such low expectations of black and brown people.

Like black women are too busy raising kids on their own... Love that one

[Fist of Etiquette]

But just 4 percent of grocery store transactions were carried out with a check in 2017...

And I was standing in the checkout line behind each of them.

[John]

You and me both.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So, Trump says something dumb. But we're not allowed to say that he said something dumb. That would be TDS, you see. So we are supposed to parse his dumb words to try to reveal its alleged hidden true meaning. I mean, it's too much to expect the president to speak in a manner that clearly communicates his intended meaning. You have to lower the bar for this president. You have to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't take him too literally, you see. Of course no one else in a similar position is ever held to such a low standard. Only Trump. Because, Trump. And if you disagree, you are just an irrational Trump h8r.

[John]

Why is it dumb? I see it as sarcasm and hyperbole. If you don't see it that way, fine. But, does it ever occur to you that maybe reasonable people can disagree with you? You really are the king of assuming an answer and then calling everyone else irrational because they don't buy into your assumption.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Saying that you need an ID to go to the grocery store is dumb. I can't remember the last time I had to show an ID at the grocery store. I can't remember the last time I stood in line while the cashier checked the ID of someone in front of me in line at the grocery store.

Trump says stupid shit all the time. Observing that he said something stupid is not the same thing as being in favor of going full Communist. Hell, it's not even the same thing as saying you disagree with the point he's trying to make.

[John]

Saying that you need an ID to go to the grocery store is dumb.

Only if you mean it literally, which I do not think he did. Whether he meant it literally or sarcasitclly is the entire debate. You of course right here assume he meant it literally and say it is dumb. You are once again assuming the answer to the question in despute and then proceeding to call everyone else irrational.

It is really remarkable that you can engage in exactly the kind of behavior I am accusing you of in the response to my accusation. Do you not understand what you are doing or is it some kind of compulsion such that you just can't help yourself?

[bevis the lumberjack]

"You know, if you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID."

Please describe for us the non-literal meaning of that statement. You can't - it's a statement that is categorically false, and isn't a metaphor for anything.

You're the one that compulsively defends Trumps dumbshittery while ripping the other side for theirs. I rip dumbshits no matter their politics. Which of us has a compulsion?

[John]

Please describe for us the non-literal meaning of that statement. You can't -

Yes I can.

It means that you need ID to do all kinds of minor shit in this country and therefore requiring it to vote is not a burden. Using groceries is being sarcastic. It is saying "you need ID to buy groceries in this country", it is meant to be an exageration to prove the point.

Unless you are autistic and just can't see complex social cues, it is very easy to give the non literal meaning to that phrase.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You know, he could have simply used an actual example of something trivial that you need ID for, because as you accurately say, there is a lot of trivial shit that requires an ID. Doing that would have been the opposite of making a stupid statement. Instead, he made a stupid statement by using as an example something that contradicts his point.

[John]

He could have been less sarcastic and more literal. But he wasn't. That doens't change anything.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Trump trolls people all the time. He's always busting someone's balls. It's what he does. He does that more than he does any other thing. Yet, when someone busts him back his supporters are quick to yell "TDS" and shit like that. If he's going to dish it out, he needs to take it. That's the rules of bullying.

And the point he's trying to make is a decent one, but he fucked it up. Doing so allows his opponents to dismiss the point without actually engaging it. He could have said "you need an ID to get on a plane" or "you need an ID to buy wine" or "to drive" or any number of other things that would have made his opponents engage in debate.

So he's legitimately dumb, or at least it sure appears that way, and it's magnified by the fact that he himself probably hasn't been in a grocery store since JFK was president. If ever.

[Nardz]

Do you drive to the grocery store?
Do you pay via anything other than cash?
Do you rent or own a place to live?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes, yes, and yes. Did I pass?

[Square = Circle]

This is why he is the perfect president for partisan media - he could be saying anything, really, and the interpretive rules we've established mean that you can freely read him as a God or a worthless douche and no one will be able to prove you wrong.

[John]

There is a lot of truth to that. And the bigger issue is that the partisan media endless obsesses about minutia and whether a candidate committed a "gaffe" at the expense of any examination or reporting about the larger point the politician was making. And this is not specific or new to Trump.

If the media had any common sense, they would consider the larger point of whether requiring an ID to vote is an undue burden and not really care about whether Trump literally thinks that you need an ID to buy groceries. But since they have no common sense, they forget the larger and more important point and endlessly argue about whether Trump committed a "gaffe" or not as if the answer to that question has anything to do with the issue of voter ID.

[colorblindkid]

This reminds me when silly conservatives fact checked Obama's "It's easier to get a gun than a book in Chicago" comment, and all the sycophantic assholes we call journalists defended Obama and kept on defending his statement as literally true.

[mad.casual]

Except it's the bizarro opposite. Voting is an active right while owning a gun is a passive right. The government is required to provide candidates, votes, polling places, etc. Explicit in the Constitution is an uninfringed right to bear arms while voting wasn't even secret or anonymous until about 1890 or so.

Extending it further to the quotes, whether Obama was stating a fact or not was irrelevant as he was asserting authority the government doesn't or shouldn't have while Trump is pointing out that the government has the authority to ID people for relatively mundane services that it doesn't directly provide but, when it comes to voting, it mysteriously and even idiotically, doesn't have that ability.

[John]

Voting is only as good as the system is honest. My ability to have a vote is contingent upon the system being honest enough to count my vote and not let people vote twice or allow people who can't vote to do so.

That is as you point out, totally different than gun ownership. Gun ownership is a passive right that does not depend on the actions of anyone but me. My owning a gun or not owning a gun in no way affects your right to own one.

[Echospinner]

If they don't require ID for a box of Capt'n Crunch they should.

Can't have just anyone obtain access to secret decoder rings.

[mad.casual]

In an interview today with The Daily Caller, President Donald Trump seemed to suggest that you need ID to buy cereal.

Didn't we cover this non-news story just 6 months ago?

You know you're running a brutally oppressive dictatorial regime of a Presidency when the media tries to impugn you for not knowing you don't need a driver's license to buy cereal. TWICE.

[Fist of Etiquette]

That's what we get for not electing a Man of the People this time around.

[Ken Shultz]

"So was Trump saying you need an ID to buy cereal? It wouldn't be the first time he's made a head-scratching remark about IDs and groceries."

Again, Gillespie hit the nail on the head. Paraphrasing from memory:

"Trump's critics take him literally without taking him seriously. Trump's supporters take him seriously without taking him literally".

The point is that we have to show IDs for lesser things. That's a serious point.

Do you imagine that point is beaten by the observation that most people don't use checks to buy groceries?

Because most people don't use checks to buy groceries, you shouldn't need to show ID to vote--is that what you're trying to say? If not, then why belabor the point?

[Fist of Etiquette]

You're not baiting me into clicking any of your articles with write-ups like that. Boooooring.

[Ken Shultz]

Okay, how 'bout: "Trump wants Californians to Starve to Death by Making them Write Checks to Buy Groceries".

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

That would be a more accurate statement, that is if you've ever stood in line between Grandma Moses asking what the date is while she slowly makes her check out after they ring all her stuff up.

[Nardz]

That's not original to fucking Gillespie.
You keep giving him credit for no reason, and its lazy.
I think Newt was the first to say it.

[Ken Shultz]

"I think Newt was the first to say it."

Because you don't know who said it first, does that make you lazy, or does that rule only apply to me?

[Nardz]

Maybe?
Point is, you keep explicitly crediting Gillespie as if he came up with the rather pithy statement. Instead, he repeated (and deserves credit for recognizing the value and picking it up himself) an observation made by someone else.
You're giving him undue credit - every single time you mention the saying - because, I assume, you first encountered it in an article he wrote.
I have pointed out before that he did not come up with it. You continue to credit Gillespie (as in, "Gillespie's statement").
That's bullshit.
It is not Gillespie's observation - it is something he picked up on from others.

[Idle Hands]

your move reason:Marijuana infused cereal.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

"If you buy a box of cereal?you have a voter ID," the president said.

I have a thing where I don't like to listen to sitting presidents speak, so I'm not going to listen to the interview.

I'm going to guess this is Trump's legendary clumsy way of saying, "To do a lot of mundane shit in society, shit requires ID". IF that's what he meant, he'd be 100% correct.

Later, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders appeared to defend her boss, noting that you do in fact need to "show your ID" to purchase alcohol. Trump, though, had not said anything about alcohol.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush seemed "amazed" by a grocery store scanner, according to The New York Times.

Which was funny because if you do the math on that date, it would have been the first time Bush had been in a grocery store since ~1980.

To be fair, everyone knows that Hillary, a woman of the People, does her own shopping.

In 2008, GOP presidential candidate John McCain admitted he hadn't pumped his own gas in years

Neither has anyone in the state of Oregon.

[Tony]

You sure do a lot of ridiculous excuse-making for presidents for a person who has a policy of treating them like they don't exist.

[mad.casual]

Again, I recall at one point, Pres. Obama, Champion of Science, as saying "Did you know aluminum isn't magnetic? I learned something today.

What kind of out-of-touch space alien lived on Earth for the last 60 yrs. without fridge magnets and coke cans?

[SchillMcGuffin]

New Jersey similarly protects the jobs of its highly skilled professional gas-pumpers.

[creech]

A well-educated man told me this morning that Trump lies almost all the time. It is mangled crap like this Trump statement that has many people feeling this way. The president isn't Billy Bob arguing at the corner taproom with Leroy. One had hoped he'd do better, but after two years it is obvious that this is the way Trump is and that his fans need to keep making excuses for him. It becomes harder to say, "let's look at the policy being proposed", when the conversation revolves around "he's lying again" or "well, he's half right

[sarcasmic]

Who would want to commit voter fraud? Voting once is pain in the ass enough.

[Tony]

Someone willing to risk prison in order to accomplish nothing. (You know, the illegals.)

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Like Russian bots?

[John]

Russian trolls on facebook fixed the election for Trump. But Broward country finding thousands of ballots days after the election is just something that happens and anyone who objects is just a racist.

This is what Tony actually believes Paul

[Tony]

How do you even function? Evidence, John.

[John]

Isn't that what you think? If not then tell us what you do. Did Russian trolls on facebook not rob Hillary of the election? Is Broward County's finidng thousands of ballots days after the election totally legit?

You seem to believe those things with a religious ferver.

[Tony]

Russian trolls were all the fuck over Facebook, and it's certainly possible, and I would say probable, that their propaganda campaign actually succeeded at, you know, being propaganda. They didn't pay them for nothing. There's no one thing to point to as far as affecting the outcome. There was also Comey. And yes the fact that Hillary has high unfavorability. Hopefully the ongoing investigation will get more specific as to the effect of the Russians. Nonetheless, there's plenty of evidence for their interference in the election.

Evidence for the Florida bullshit you're regurgitating from some rightwing shitpit (or the president's mouth, same difference)? None, of course.

[John]

So yes Tony, you do believe both of those things. Your stupidity speaks for itself.

[Tony]

You believe a fat orange buffoon who thinks you need an ID to buy produce is a good president.

[David Nolan]

Here's a fucking psycho, almost as bad as his base of goobers.
Obedient robots.

[John]

Shut up Hihn.

[Here for the outrage]

But you insist they pay taxes

[SchillMcGuffin]

Regardless of whether showing ID to vote is burdensome (and I don't happen to believe it is, though I can understand the sensitivity), I don't believe voter impersonation is involved in a significant amount of fraud -- it's much too labor and resource intensive. I'm pretty sure that such voting fraud as goes on is perpetrated in wards where one major party or the other has overwhelming registration, and effective control of the poll workers. Said party can then effectively vote whoever they want just after the polls close, before closing up and doing the counts (I've heard anecdotally from an ex-New York City cop who worked poll security of New York area poll workers doing just that). While there are appointed poll-watchers and generally at least one cross-party representative among the poll workers, in a lopsided district those controls can be pretty easily subverted or intimidated away.

At a national level, this would tend to favor fraud by Democrats, whose lopsided control of urban polling places would be more lucrative than control of rural areas would be, but Republican organizations could work similar hijinks in county-level races, and possibly affect state-level ones in the aggregate (though that would require geographically broader coordinated fraud to accomplish than it would for Democrats). Of course, as we're seeing now in Florida, absentee and provisional written ballots can offer different avenues for shenanigans, but those also wouldn't be remedied by Voter ID.

[Bubba Jones]

This. It's absentee ballots and complicit poll workers.

[David Nolan]

When you get old enough to vote, you'll learn that polling places are manned by equal numbers from both parties, especially where your registration is confirmed. That's not to deny that Obama was born in Kenya, though.

[David Nolan]

Regardless of whether showing ID to vote is burdensome (and I don't happen to believe it is, though I can understand the sensitivity), I don't believe voter impersonation is involved in a significant amount of fraud

On one study there were 33 out of 200 million votes. Trump goes crazy excuses when he loses, and he lost big on November 6th, so it must be fraud! (lol)

At a national level, this would tend to favor fraud by Democrats, whose lopsided control of urban polling places

When you get old enough to vote, you'll learn that polling places are manned by equal numbers from both parties, especially where your registration is confirmed.
That's not to deny that Obama was born in Kenya, though.

[SchillMcGuffin]

I wasn't alleging anything about whether fraud was decisive in the elections of 2016 or 2018, or any other particular one. I'm merely looking at it abstractly. I'm sure fraud occurs, though (and well beyond a scale of 33 out of 200 million, wherever *that* might have come from, specifically because it can, and the stakes are high enough to justify it. I would question the implication that Trump lost especially "big" on November 6 in comparison to other mid-term elections, but again, that's not relevant to my point.

I happen to be a poll worker in suburban Philadelphia. I can state confidently that there's no Pennsylvania requirement for "equal numbers from both parties" to be poll workers -- rather there's an elected Judge of Election and Majority Inspector, a Minority inspector (the runner-up in voting to the Majority Inspector), and a Clerk and Machine Operator (appointed by the Minority Inspector). In practice, the respective elected positions are frequently vacant, or simply allocated to whoever volunteers, and there can easily be only one representative of a party among the workers. I'm sure that said "solo" representatives are at some risk of either being intimidated into looking the other way, or bought off.

[John Galt is back]

I'm merely looking at it abstractly

And running away from Nolan's call out.

I'm sure fraud occurs, though (and well beyond a scale of 33 out of 200 million, wherever *that* might have come from,

He was wrong on that.
It was 31 known cases, out of over a billion.
Or were you being abstract? (lol)
Now you confess your lies ...

especifically because it can, and the stakes are high enough to justify it

1) Cowardly evasion,
2) Says, "I don't need no steenkeeng evidence."

I would question the implication that Trump lost especially "big" on November 6 in comparison to other mid-term elections, but again, that's not relevant to my point.

It was the biggest GOP rejection since Watergate.
And "your" point is voter fraud.

[Bubba Jones]

Voting requirements should be the same as a concealed carry permit.

Start with that premise and I am sure a compromise can be reached.

[David Nolan]

The "premise" is insane ... bubba.

[Echospinner]

The grocery is something everyone here shares in common. We could talk about it all day.

When Trump or any of the other grand poohbas we elect say something dumb like this or make some lame attempt to look like a regular shmoe it is just embarrassing.

Remember Obama bowling?

[David Nolan]

He seems to have gone totally unhinged, since getting crushed in this year's election. Obama's candidates were more successful than his! And he used the same wacky excuse for nearly 10 million voting against him in 2016.
This is like watching Nixon's meltdown. But his cult still swallows everything he bellows. He did say they'd lie to defend him of even murder, in broad daylight, so don't be surprised by their subservience..

Remember the Republican Party? It's getting more difficult, with so many gutless cowards. There are now more Democrats, because principled Republicans are now independents.

[Bronze Khopesh]

The indelible ink thing on the finger seems to work in other places. Why not do that here?

[lap83]

I can think of one important exception to Trump's generalization: food stamps users don't have to show ID. And we all know that is never prone to fraud!

[Drumgroove (Bob)]

Is President Trump being sarcastic? Along the lines of it being to easy to qualify to vote; Did he mean to say something like "find your voter registration on the back of a cereal box"... Nah! However, (going back more than twenty years) there are bus loads at every election in the Trenton area picked up off the street and delivered...

[Wizard4169]

Could we please knock it off with the story about Bush I being "amazed" at a grocery scanner? The scanner he was shown wasn't a standard grocery store fixture. It was a new and improved model that could do things such as scan damaged labels. By the standards of the time, it was legitimately impressive.