it is, it is!

g

it is one year old, to the month. trump has been president for over a year and a half. i have heard nothing about any dismantling of this poll tax; i'd love to hear about it if i just missed it.

g

I still think it predates Trump. There is mention in the article of some dismantling of the rule for certain crimes but no full removal of it.

@brentan the poll tax has nothing to do with crimes. are you mistaking this for the renewal of ex-felons' voting rights? this isn't that.

g

@genessa The article is about being too poor to vote and the various factors that contribute to that situation.

@brentan there should be no such thing as being too poor to vote. the constitution doesn't guarantee voting rights only to citizens who have a certain amount of money. poll taxes are illegal. making restrictive voter i.d. laws that force people to spend money, or lose money if they have to leave work to go to a distant city to get documentation (which isn't free) to present to get their "free" voter i.d. (when a driver's license, state-issued school i.d., military i.d. or other state-issued i.d. always sufficed before -- and when a gun license is happily accepted because the republicans assume, correctly or not, that gun owners will vote red) or to said distant city even to register because the dmvs have been closed in minority neighborhoods and college towns, is tantamount to making poll taxes.

g

@genessa Yes, that's the point the article was making.

@brentan lol yes i know! i posted it for a reason!

g

@genessa I know you posted it lol. I just wasn't convinced you had read it.

@brentan sometimes when i read an article and i talk about it, i talk about more than just what's in the article. i have background information that might be of interest, whether or not it is stated or referred to in the article. a discussion can be expanded beyond the limits of an article or it can regard only a small portion of the article's concerns. conversation is cool that way. but i didn't know i had to prove anything to anyone.

g

@genessa I got the distinct impression you were limiting your comments to just one factor in the article rather than adding to the many factors in it.

@brentan well, the article is THERE. i don't need to repeat all of it! but seriously, is that why you read this -- so you could play guessing games about my reading skills, and not because the topic and the article were of interest?

g

@genessa I only discussed the content of the article. Discussing anything related to it would have been fine too. I never made any ad hominem comments at all.

@brentan and did someone say you did? i don't get what you're arguing about here.

g

@genessa Check your last post.

@brentan what ARE you talking about? that's rhetorical. i sincerely don't care. i posted this to inform people about the situation, not to have some weird argument about me, personally. i don't need to check my last post. typos apart i know what i'm typing while i'm typing it.

g

@genessa Well now - that's that then!