As far as voter fraud, I SERIOUSLY doubt that Trump could have organized such a massive scale thing to get himself elected.
I don't think it is being seriously suggested that Trump engineered it himself. The Russians and Chinese both stand to benefit enormously from a Trump presidency.
I'd sooner believe space aliens engineered Trump's victory...
Why are we always blamed for everything that happens on Earth? Pyramids? Aliens... Trump wins? Aliens... *sigh*
As far as voter fraud, I SERIOUSLY doubt that Trump could have organized such a massive scale thing to get himself elected.
I don't think it is being seriously suggested that Trump engineered it himself. The Russians and Chinese both stand to benefit enormously from a Trump presidency.
I'd sooner believe space aliens engineered Trump's victory...
Why are we always blamed for everything that happens on Earth? Pyramids? Aliens... Trump wins? Aliens... *sigh*
@mlnevese That wacky hair of his doubles as a transmitter/receiver to the mothership.
the USA is not looking into it. They should be but they aren't. The USA is too stubborn and will scream about federal overreach into states rights and then complain that it's too expensive and the establishment GOP relies on groups of people being unable to vote so they are not interested in getting more people to vote.
As far as voter fraud, I SERIOUSLY doubt that Trump could have organized such a massive scale thing to get himself elected.
I don't think it is being seriously suggested that Trump engineered it himself. The Russians and Chinese both stand to benefit enormously from a Trump presidency.
I'd sooner believe space aliens engineered Trump's victory...
Why are we always blamed for everything that happens on Earth? Pyramids? Aliens... Trump wins? Aliens... *sigh*
Ya... explain the pyramids on Antarctica for me eh. Who's to blame for those, and don't tell me the weather.
As far as voter fraud, I SERIOUSLY doubt that Trump could have organized such a massive scale thing to get himself elected.
I don't think it is being seriously suggested that Trump engineered it himself. The Russians and Chinese both stand to benefit enormously from a Trump presidency.
I'd sooner believe space aliens engineered Trump's victory...
Why are we always blamed for everything that happens on Earth? Pyramids? Aliens... Trump wins? Aliens... *sigh*
Ya... explain the pyramids on Antarctica for me eh. Who's to blame for those, and don't tell me the weather.
Advanced human Civilization from the past before the last nuclear war?
No one here finds it strange that the mainstream media has been slandering Hillary for the last 20 years...and then suddenly starts calling her things like "saint" and "cool-headed" only in the last 6-12 months?
Also, how the Clinton and Democrat establishment was best buddies with Trump for decades, attending each other's weddings and what not, but the moment he runs as a presidential candidate against the Democratic Party they start yelling how he's literally Hitler.
I cracked up when the white liberal girl says "I feel like they don't have the knowledge of, like, how it works" (regarding Black people going on the Internet)...
if an id card was mandatory, at all times, for all citizens then there would not be voter suppression anymore. it should be a single kind of document, same for everyone, that you have both an obligation and a right to get (...and don't have to pay for, don't need to drive a long distance to the nearest office etc.)
if it's *effectively* easier to vote if you own a car etc. you can suspect that there's a conscious effort to make it that way and keep it that way because it benefits someone. and of course this effort has been proven in many statements in the past...
maybe voter suppression is a wrong term because it sounds so direct, implies some kind of force, but it's something. something unacceptable.
Voter suppression takes more forms than just ID laws but also things like cutting down on polling places do you have to go farther and wait longer which for people making low wages can be really an issue. Reducing hours that the polls are open in minority neighborhoods and reducing polling places.
Yeah you can say common sense Id too but a lot of times people don't have drivers licenses and there's no national id card
@ineth: I work at the homeless shelter and a lot of folks there wouldn't be able to vote if we didn't help them get the IDs they needed.
People who don't drive (or can't afford to buy a car) don't often have a driver's license. Why would they?
People who don't fly (or can't afford a ticket) don't often have passports. Why would they?
People who were born in another state might need to leave town to get their birth certificate in order. Not everybody can afford a lengthy road trip.
And people who are working multiple jobs to feed their kids don't often have time to jump through extra hoops to get an ID they've never needed for anything else in their life.
As for the notion that people are voting illegally because they don't need a photo ID:
1. In order to take somebody's place at the voting booth, you have to know in advance that they haven't voted before you. If they did vote before you, you get caught when you try to vote with their name. You also get caught if the people at the station recognize you coming in twice--they don't need a photo ID to see your face. Who would risk committing an easily detectable felony when 40% of the population doesn't even think legally voting is worth the trouble? 2. Absentee ballots, which are much easier to falsify, do not require any photo ID. 3. For all the people that have expressed concern about voter fraud, nobody has produced any proof that it's widespread, or even mildly common. Studies repeatedly find that in-person voter fraud, the only kind that photo IDs could prevent, is extremely rare. One study found less than 50 examples in a billion votes cast.
Most importantly: If YOU wanted to commit voter fraud, would you do it in person?
I would support having to jump through extra hoops if it made our elections safer. But these laws won't do that. They could only prevent the least common and most easily detectable form of voter fraud: in-person voter fraud. I'll support voter ID laws when ALL eligible voters have the IDs they need to vote legally.
I didn't have to dedicate any extra time or money to exercise my right to vote. Neither should anybody else.
Personally, I think voting is a very serious activity. People treat it as simply an exercise in a freedom, but I think John Stuart Mill correctly defined it as the exercise of power over others.
That being the case, it bothers me that people think voting should be "easy". IDs are required for numerous activities, such as driving, purchasing alcohol, applying for welfare, and simply opening a bank account. This is why I think that fears about "voter suppression" for requiring an ID are completely overblown.
I'm not saying it should be expensive, but people complain about free IDs because it might take up to three hours to complete the process at the DMV. Considering that voting can have somber consequences, I think sparing a couple hours and filling out some paperwork is the least we could ask for to ensure that 1. we recognize the solemnity of the act of voting and 2. ensure free and fair elections.
Voter suppression is the right word. People who use public transit, people who live in nursing homes are much less likely to have a state issued ID like a driver's license; these groups just happen to be a core Democratic constituency. In places like Texas gun licenses are acceptable forms of ID while student IDs are not -- laws clearly designed to favor one demographic group over another.
It's all well and good to say that everyone you know has ID -- but "people you know" isn't the same thing as a good sociological analysis.
And voter fraud is all but non existent in the US -- the penalties are high and the chances of one or two votes deciding an election are infinitesimally small. Fraud is a non issue. Could you imagine what our roads would look like if .00000013 percent of the drivers broke the laws on speeding? Eerie. .00000013 percent is the amount of convictions or confessions for voter fraud from 2002 - 2005.
Leaving U.S. politics aside for the time of a post, I must say i'm not too fond of "the feel in my country". Our technically left wing president has just about zero chances to be reelected and we're even pretty sure we'll be seeing a second "right vs far right" election next year. The first one was 15 years ago and had right wing Jacques Chirac win by a landslide but we're not even there anymore, nationalism has gained such a following in the meantime, we're definitely not seeing an 82% of voters this time around.
And even the right wing candidate (well, the one that's head and shoulders above his opponent in the primaries, but nothing official yet I guess) is speaking of revoking rights given to same sex couples.
I swear we'll end up starting another world war sooner or later, following this trend. Show the whole world that disregard for other people's lives is still Europe's claim to fame.
I was under the impression that most states required you to prove in-state residency with the DMV or local town hall to register to vote. In MA and VT, you have to register at the DMV, using your drivers license or photo ID. Then when you show up, or mail in your absentee ballot, they cross your name off a list. Are you guys telling me that some states don't require you to prove residency in order to register to vote? I'm a little bit confused by this conversation of voter suppression, maybe someone could help me out.
I saw an interesting video on how people are fed up with predatory capitalism. How the laws benefit the corporations and Wall Street. Wall Street gave out like $60B in bonuses (bonuses only not counting salary) and all the minimum wage people in the US combined make $80B.
The few are doing really really well and most people are not doing well at best they have stagnant wages. People realize things have to change and are expressing giving the middle finger to the establishment by supporting things like trump and brexit.
Personally, I think voting is a very serious activity. People treat it as simply an exercise in a freedom, but I think John Stuart Mill correctly defined it as the exercise of power over others.
That being the case, it bothers me that people think voting should be "easy". IDs are required for numerous activities, such as driving, purchasing alcohol, applying for welfare, and simply opening a bank account. This is why I think that fears about "voter suppression" for requiring an ID are completely overblown.
I'm not saying it should be expensive, but people complain about free IDs because it might take up to three hours to complete the process at the DMV. Considering that voting can have somber consequences, I think sparing a couple hours and filling out some paperwork is the least we could ask for to ensure that 1. we recognize the solemnity of the act of voting and 2. ensure free and fair elections.
The cost is immaterial. Unless at least one of the IDs that Republicans are requiring is absolutely free of charge, it is a de facto poll tax.
This thread has exploded since the November 8 election results came in on page 51. I've always been very passionate about politics and it warms my heart that we have a community here where folks can debate anything and everything.
This thread has exploded since the November 8 election results came in on page 51. I've always been very passionate about politics and it warms my heart that we have a community here where folks can debate anything and everything.
It's actually been sort of exhausting, but even the heated moments have eventually tampered down, simply because everyone seems to know when to back away. Don't think we've had any bans, and this sort of stuff can easily resort to that.
Personally, I think voting is a very serious activity. People treat it as simply an exercise in a freedom, but I think John Stuart Mill correctly defined it as the exercise of power over others.
That being the case, it bothers me that people think voting should be "easy". IDs are required for numerous activities, such as driving, purchasing alcohol, applying for welfare, and simply opening a bank account. This is why I think that fears about "voter suppression" for requiring an ID are completely overblown.
I'm not saying it should be expensive, but people complain about free IDs because it might take up to three hours to complete the process at the DMV. Considering that voting can have somber consequences, I think sparing a couple hours and filling out some paperwork is the least we could ask for to ensure that 1. we recognize the solemnity of the act of voting and 2. ensure free and fair elections.
The cost is immaterial. Unless at least one of the IDs that Republicans are requiring is absolutely free of charge, it is a de facto poll tax.
So where is the money going to come from to:
rent the space needed to have these pictures cards taken
employ the staff that makes and distributes these cards
the hardware and software to make the cards (and make them so they can not be easily forged)
how to educate people on where to get these cards and their benefits (read advertising)
The cards shouldn't be free or everyone in the country is going to be paying for them through hidden costs. If their are some groups that think this will supress people from getting the cards, and they should be free, those groups should set up programs that negates those costs per person, and use donations instead.
Personally, I think voting is a very serious activity. People treat it as simply an exercise in a freedom, but I think John Stuart Mill correctly defined it as the exercise of power over others.
That being the case, it bothers me that people think voting should be "easy". IDs are required for numerous activities, such as driving, purchasing alcohol, applying for welfare, and simply opening a bank account. This is why I think that fears about "voter suppression" for requiring an ID are completely overblown.
I'm not saying it should be expensive, but people complain about free IDs because it might take up to three hours to complete the process at the DMV. Considering that voting can have somber consequences, I think sparing a couple hours and filling out some paperwork is the least we could ask for to ensure that 1. we recognize the solemnity of the act of voting and 2. ensure free and fair elections.
The cost is immaterial. Unless at least one of the IDs that Republicans are requiring is absolutely free of charge, it is a de facto poll tax.
rent the space needed to have these pictures cards taken employ the staff that makes and distributes these cards the hardware and software to make the cards (and make them so they can not be easily forged) how to educate people on where to get these cards and their benefits (read advertising)
The cards shouldn't be free or everyone in the country is going to be paying for them through hidden costs. If their are some groups that think this will supress people from getting the cards, and they should be free, those groups should set up programs that negates those costs per person, and use donations instead.
Well yes, that's why we have taxes. And anyone who buys anything pays them in some respect. Here we are talking about an ADDITIONAL fee that is being added, and in nearly EVERY one of the states that is implementing these laws, they are also making them as hard to get as possible by reducing hours, closing the places where it can be done on wknds, and reducing the number of places it can be done STRICTLY in poor and minority neighborhoods, while wealthy, white suburbs have the same number as they always have, if not more.
Personally, I think voting is a very serious activity. People treat it as simply an exercise in a freedom, but I think John Stuart Mill correctly defined it as the exercise of power over others.
That being the case, it bothers me that people think voting should be "easy". IDs are required for numerous activities, such as driving, purchasing alcohol, applying for welfare, and simply opening a bank account. This is why I think that fears about "voter suppression" for requiring an ID are completely overblown.
I'm not saying it should be expensive, but people complain about free IDs because it might take up to three hours to complete the process at the DMV. Considering that voting can have somber consequences, I think sparing a couple hours and filling out some paperwork is the least we could ask for to ensure that 1. we recognize the solemnity of the act of voting and 2. ensure free and fair elections.
The cost is immaterial. Unless at least one of the IDs that Republicans are requiring is absolutely free of charge, it is a de facto poll tax.
rent the space needed to have these pictures cards taken employ the staff that makes and distributes these cards the hardware and software to make the cards (and make them so they can not be easily forged) how to educate people on where to get these cards and their benefits (read advertising)
The cards shouldn't be free or everyone in the country is going to be paying for them through hidden costs. If their are some groups that think this will supress people from getting the cards, and they should be free, those groups should set up programs that negates those costs per person, and use donations instead.
Well yes, that's why we have taxes. And anyone who buys anything pays them in some respect. Here we are talking about an ADDITIONAL fee that is being added, and in nearly EVERY one of the states that is implementing these laws, they are also making them as hard to get as possible by reducing hours, closing the places where it can be done on wknds, and reducing the number of places it can be done STRICTLY in poor and minority neighborhoods, while wealthy, white suburbs have the same number as they always have, if not more.
So you are saying raise taxes for everyone so these cards can be free. That is your proposal? Or are you suggesting to migrate finances from other departments to pay for these services. If so, which ones would you make cuts to, to finance something that is only needed every two years?
And as I said, the reason why their is a reduction in hours and establishments where these cards can be obtained comes down to money.
Personally, I think voting is a very serious activity. People treat it as simply an exercise in a freedom, but I think John Stuart Mill correctly defined it as the exercise of power over others.
That being the case, it bothers me that people think voting should be "easy". IDs are required for numerous activities, such as driving, purchasing alcohol, applying for welfare, and simply opening a bank account. This is why I think that fears about "voter suppression" for requiring an ID are completely overblown.
I'm not saying it should be expensive, but people complain about free IDs because it might take up to three hours to complete the process at the DMV. Considering that voting can have somber consequences, I think sparing a couple hours and filling out some paperwork is the least we could ask for to ensure that 1. we recognize the solemnity of the act of voting and 2. ensure free and fair elections.
The cost is immaterial. Unless at least one of the IDs that Republicans are requiring is absolutely free of charge, it is a de facto poll tax.
rent the space needed to have these pictures cards taken employ the staff that makes and distributes these cards the hardware and software to make the cards (and make them so they can not be easily forged) how to educate people on where to get these cards and their benefits (read advertising)
The cards shouldn't be free or everyone in the country is going to be paying for them through hidden costs. If their are some groups that think this will supress people from getting the cards, and they should be free, those groups should set up programs that negates those costs per person, and use donations instead.
Well yes, that's why we have taxes. And anyone who buys anything pays them in some respect. Here we are talking about an ADDITIONAL fee that is being added, and in nearly EVERY one of the states that is implementing these laws, they are also making them as hard to get as possible by reducing hours, closing the places where it can be done on wknds, and reducing the number of places it can be done STRICTLY in poor and minority neighborhoods, while wealthy, white suburbs have the same number as they always have, if not more.
So you are saying raise taxes for everyone so these cards can be free. That is your proposal? Or are you suggesting to migrate finances from other departments to pay for these services. If so, which ones would you make cuts to, to finance something that is only needed every two years?
And as I said, the reason why their is a reduction in hours and establishments where these cards can be obtained comes down to money.
I'm not for requiring the IDs in the first place. The entire idea is a solution in search of a problem. But they aren't designed to prevent voter fraud, which is statistically non-existent. They are designed to foment voter suppression. If these states are going to implement these laws, then yes, whatever funds are needed to provide people with free ID for voting needs to be implemented. Absolutely.
Democracy is only as good as the names on the ballot paper, and honest people don't go into politics, they do proper jobs.
Public service is a more proper job than most. The widespread cynicism towards politics and consequent search for "saviours" who will "clean up everything" is a historical pattern that ends badly every time.
Democracy is only as good as the names on the ballot paper, and honest people don't go into politics, they do proper jobs.
Public service is a more proper job than most. The widespread cynicism towards politics and consequent search for "saviours" who will "clean up everything" is a historical pattern that ends badly every time.
The American public has been trained for 30 years, since Reagan, to think that government can do nothing right, and, in some cases, is downright evil. The world, our countries, do not run themselves. Even if there is inherent corruption, competency and intelligence, and at least a nominal interest in the public good are essential. The US is going to find this out rather quickly, but then again, we just did this 16 years ago *sigh*.....
Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, wants to go back to German domestic politics to either challenge Angela Merkel, or become her vice chancellor.
I like it, and feel frankly envious of Germans.
Germany has the arguably most morally weighty non-direct power President of our continent: Joachim Gauck. The way I looked up to him as an EU citizen, I understand he wants to regain anonymity: after Charlie Hebdo, I went for Gauck's speech for sense of unity and consolation. I'd hate to be in his shoes!
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, SDP, did not think he could challenge Merkel, albeit being "the most popular politician" in Germany, so he will fill those tall shoes of Gauck. Well enough I hope.
So here we have Schulz - whom obviously could have stuck to EU parliament, as path of least resistence. I cannot imagine it is so easy to make that swoop back, so presumably Schulz really wants to both challenge Merkel, and to maybe become her vice-chancellor to influence her politics.
I am not sure how popular Schulz is still back home, but I think it is brilliant to see this happening this way, from time to time: from EU unto domestic politics.
If you want to effect positive change, a government job is one of the best ways to do so. Contrast it with a corporate job, when your only purpose is to make money (usually, but not always, through honorable means), or a non-profit job, when your only purpose is to serve the goals of the group itself (which are usually, but not always, honorable). It is easier to serve the country when your salary depends on votes rather than profits.
Despite all the problems with our system, and all the things that need to be changed, our government is indeed democratic and legitimate. I don't trust the government completely, but I trust it more than the alternatives. The U.S. government, after all, is the only entity in our nation over which ordinary people like you and I have power.
Our representatives are the only folks in the entire world who let us vote them out if we're not happy with them.
Comments
That wacky hair of his doubles as a transmitter/receiver to the mothership.
Funny related video:
I cracked up when the white liberal girl says "I feel like they don't have the knowledge of, like, how it works" (regarding Black people going on the Internet)...
if it's *effectively* easier to vote if you own a car etc. you can suspect that there's a conscious effort to make it that way and keep it that way because it benefits someone. and of course this effort has been proven in many statements in the past...
maybe voter suppression is a wrong term because it sounds so direct, implies some kind of force, but it's something. something unacceptable.
Yeah you can say common sense Id too but a lot of times people don't have drivers licenses and there's no national id card
People who don't drive (or can't afford to buy a car) don't often have a driver's license. Why would they?
People who don't fly (or can't afford a ticket) don't often have passports. Why would they?
People who were born in another state might need to leave town to get their birth certificate in order. Not everybody can afford a lengthy road trip.
And people who are working multiple jobs to feed their kids don't often have time to jump through extra hoops to get an ID they've never needed for anything else in their life.
As for the notion that people are voting illegally because they don't need a photo ID:
1. In order to take somebody's place at the voting booth, you have to know in advance that they haven't voted before you. If they did vote before you, you get caught when you try to vote with their name. You also get caught if the people at the station recognize you coming in twice--they don't need a photo ID to see your face. Who would risk committing an easily detectable felony when 40% of the population doesn't even think legally voting is worth the trouble?
2. Absentee ballots, which are much easier to falsify, do not require any photo ID.
3. For all the people that have expressed concern about voter fraud, nobody has produced any proof that it's widespread, or even mildly common. Studies repeatedly find that in-person voter fraud, the only kind that photo IDs could prevent, is extremely rare. One study found less than 50 examples in a billion votes cast.
Most importantly: If YOU wanted to commit voter fraud, would you do it in person?
I would support having to jump through extra hoops if it made our elections safer. But these laws won't do that. They could only prevent the least common and most easily detectable form of voter fraud: in-person voter fraud. I'll support voter ID laws when ALL eligible voters have the IDs they need to vote legally.
I didn't have to dedicate any extra time or money to exercise my right to vote. Neither should anybody else.
That being the case, it bothers me that people think voting should be "easy". IDs are required for numerous activities, such as driving, purchasing alcohol, applying for welfare, and simply opening a bank account. This is why I think that fears about "voter suppression" for requiring an ID are completely overblown.
I'm not saying it should be expensive, but people complain about free IDs because it might take up to three hours to complete the process at the DMV. Considering that voting can have somber consequences, I think sparing a couple hours and filling out some paperwork is the least we could ask for to ensure that 1. we recognize the solemnity of the act of voting and 2. ensure free and fair elections.
It's all well and good to say that everyone you know has ID -- but "people you know" isn't the same thing as a good sociological analysis.
And voter fraud is all but non existent in the US -- the penalties are high and the chances of one or two votes deciding an election are infinitesimally small. Fraud is a non issue. Could you imagine what our roads would look like if .00000013 percent of the drivers broke the laws on speeding? Eerie. .00000013 percent is the amount of convictions or confessions for voter fraud from 2002 - 2005.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376
And even the right wing candidate (well, the one that's head and shoulders above his opponent in the primaries, but nothing official yet I guess) is speaking of revoking rights given to same sex couples.
I swear we'll end up starting another world war sooner or later, following this trend. Show the whole world that disregard for other people's lives is still Europe's claim to fame.
Democracy is only as good as the names on the ballot paper, and honest people don't go into politics, they do proper jobs.
In MA and VT, you have to register at the DMV, using your drivers license or photo ID. Then when you show up, or mail in your absentee ballot, they cross your name off a list.
Are you guys telling me that some states don't require you to prove residency in order to register to vote? I'm a little bit confused by this conversation of voter suppression, maybe someone could help me out.
The few are doing really really well and most people are not doing well at best they have stagnant wages. People realize things have to change and are expressing giving the middle finger to the establishment by supporting things like trump and brexit.
I'd like to thank @ineth @bob_veng @jjstraka34 @mashedtaters @Fardragon @booinyoureyes @smeagolheart @ThacoBell @TakisMegas @deltago @Mathsorcerer @FinneousPJ @Shandyr @Flashburn @BillyYank @Ayiekie @Dee @mf2112 and everyone else who has helped keep this thread alive.
Keep spreading the faiths.
It's actually been sort of exhausting, but even the heated moments have eventually tampered down, simply because everyone seems to know when to back away. Don't think we've had any bans, and this sort of stuff can easily resort to that.
And don't think it will change anything if you happen to share my opinions. The Site Rules apply to you, too.
And as I said, the reason why their is a reduction in hours and establishments where these cards can be obtained comes down to money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-coastal-real-estate.html?smid=tw-nytimesscience&smtyp=cur&_r=0
I like it, and feel frankly envious of Germans.
Germany has the arguably most morally weighty non-direct power President of our continent: Joachim Gauck. The way I looked up to him as an EU citizen, I understand he wants to regain anonymity: after Charlie Hebdo, I went for Gauck's speech for sense of unity and consolation. I'd hate to be in his shoes!
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, SDP, did not think he could challenge Merkel, albeit being "the most popular politician" in Germany, so he will fill those tall shoes of Gauck. Well enough I hope.
So here we have Schulz - whom obviously could have stuck to EU parliament, as path of least resistence. I cannot imagine it is so easy to make that swoop back, so presumably Schulz really wants to both challenge Merkel, and to maybe become her vice-chancellor to influence her politics.
I am not sure how popular Schulz is still back home, but I think it is brilliant to see this happening this way, from time to time: from EU unto domestic politics.
Despite all the problems with our system, and all the things that need to be changed, our government is indeed democratic and legitimate. I don't trust the government completely, but I trust it more than the alternatives. The U.S. government, after all, is the only entity in our nation over which ordinary people like you and I have power.
Our representatives are the only folks in the entire world who let us vote them out if we're not happy with them.
No one else gives us that chance.