US Politics - The old thread is dead, long live the old thread

[all swedes are racist]

Voting should be easy and in this day and age and it isn't hard to get an ID that is required to vote. I have proved my point by how easy it is for illegal people in the USA to get one.

Why is it so hard for women and minorities who are American citizens to get one when it is so easy for an illegal person to get one?

You know what I mean by illegal right? Someone who came into the country illegally (in other words people who shouldn't be here) can easily get the proper ID but women and minorities for some strange reason can't figure it out.

But you guys seem to love law breakers who happen to not be white males. You all prove this over and over again.

I'm sorry, but you haven't proven how easy it is at all. According to the video you posted, the news station found roughly 100 people in Naples and Fort Meyers, the two communities prominently focused on in the video, voted, or were on the election rolls, illegally. These two cities have a combined population of around 84,000 people.... Less than 1/8th of a percent of the population. (Not to mention the fact that it is significantly easier, in terms of time spent and accessibility, to obtain an ID in more densely populated cities/large towns).

This suggests that up to 10% (going up to 25% if you look at minority populations) of citizens may not have "valid voting" IDs.

So, being a pessimist, I'll double the number of fraudulent/mistaken voters, and halve the never of potentially disenfranchised voters. That's still 0.0025 percent of "illegal" votes compared to up to 0.1250 "honest" citizens resisted or dissuaded from voting. That's 50 times the number.

Is that really the kind of democracy you believe in?

For the record, I'm not trying to call you stupid, or racist, or whatever you may think the typical liberal/left attack meme you feel is being lobbed at you. No snark or vitriol at all, just open discourse.

Edit: some spelling

[Madfunkymonkey]

I'm sorry, but you haven't proven how easy it is at all. According to the video you posted, the news station found roughly 100 people in Naples and Fort Meyers, the two communities prominently focused on in the video, voted, or were on the election rolls, illegally. These two cities have a combined population of around 84,000 people.... Less than 1/8th of a percent of the population. (Not to mention the fact that it is significantly easier, in terms of time spent and accessibility, to obtain an ID in more densely populated cities/large towns).

This suggests that up to 10% (going up to 25% if you look at minority populations) of citizens may not have "valid voting" IDs.

So, being a pessimist, I'll double the number of fraudulent/mistaken voters, and halve the never of potentially disenfranchised voters. That's still 0.0025 percent of "illegal" votes compared to up to 0.1250 "honest" citizens resisted or dissuaded from voting. That's 50 times the number.

Is that really the kind of democracy you believe in?

For the record, I'm not trying to call you stupid, or racist, or whatever you may think the typical liberal/left attack meme you feel is being lobbed at you. No snark or vitriol at all, just open discourse.

Edit: some spelling

Actually, you are one of the few I respect when it comes to a political debate. You neither call my views "silly" nor declared to be "better" or "smarter" than me just based on a different political view.

But the point is that the news station did indeed find voter fraud, which is dismissed by other people who post here.

To say voter fraud doesn't happen is ignorant because it does happen.

My stance on voter ID laws is to prevent voter fraud and nothing else.

I have stated many times that it isn't hard (and shown how easy it is for a person who should not be voting) to get an ID to vote but the others here claim my point in bullshit.

It does make one wonder why Grumdin asked if it was ok for a conservative to post here.

And the only response was that his views would be considered "silly".

Since the 90% of the people who post here are against the conservative view, what is the point in trying to debate?

Especially when your point of view is going to be dismissed as "silly" or "wrong" when at least half the people in the USA seem to flow back and forth between the views of the left and the right.

After all President Obama only won 53% of the popular vote. That isn't a huge win at all.

[The Marquis de Leech]

After all President Obama only won 53% of the popular vote. That isn't a huge win at all.

Comfortable enough in the context of Presidential elections, and a healthy margin in the Electoral College.

(For comparison, since 1940, only Roosevelt in 1940 and 1944, Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, and Bush Senior in 1988 got a higher vote share than Obama's victories).

[grumdin]

Fair to some extent. Sure, most people are not completely consistent if it's boiled down to something like "Is government good or bad?" or what have you. Left-leaning people tend to support social security and Medicare and FEMA (provided it does its job) and highways and the National Institutes of Health, etc. NeoCons support an enormous military and NSA system. Teahadis claim to be against government but also love Medicare and SS. But that ought not really be the question. It's not binary. There is complexity. ThinkerX's point isn't all that strong about inconsistency because it is not a simple dichotomy and cannot be.

It gets back to Hobbes and the social contract. To have some government does require giving up some freedoms if you're comparing it to living in the wild. But it's worth it. Or at least most think that it is. But even for those that think it is worth it, there will be setback and a drawbacks and abuses.

And remember, always remember, that a large swathe of this anti-government movement will calm down provided that they just have a Republican in the White House. Not everyone, but plenty. So much tribalism.

Obama has done some things which are good, or rather he hasn't done things. He hasn't involved the US in any new land wars in Asia, big props to him for that. He has however massively expanded the security/suveillance state and continued the ongoing efforts to militarize LEOs, not so good. He has attempted to broaden health care coverage, which is a good thing, he's done this through giving a massive subsidy to monopolistic health insurance companies and failed to tackle the problem of cost push inflation in health care which means the ACA will fail. As you say it's complicated, and I do wish conservatives would stop calling him a Marxist which is just silly.

[grumdin]

Obviously I do not have a date on this Friday night!

Not a bad post, but can I ask a few questions?

Plenty to be said about the ACA in all kinds of directions, but I'm not sure I've heard the accusation before that insurance companies are monopolies. There is a different environment in every state, and there are usually only a handful of insurers, so I guess I can sort of understand where that idea could come form, but it is not the case that there are monopolies. Oligopolies perhaps.

And pardon my ignorance, but what are LEO's? Something, something, organizations?

Yes cartel would probably be a better description than monopoly. Obama could/should have ended the exemptions from competition laws that the health insurance and health providers enjoy, that alone would have massively decreased the rise in cost push inflation and given the ACA half a chance to work, but again to be fair he didn't have the numbers in Congress or perhaps he just didn't want to upset the health lobby?

LEO, law enforcement officers.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Comfortable enough in the context of Presidential elections, and a healthy margin in the Electoral College.

(For comparison, since 1940, only Roosevelt in 1940 and 1944, Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, and Bush Senior in 1988 got a higher vote share than Obama's victories).

It was a comfortable and healthy win, but Madfunkymonkey said it wasn't "huge" which I think is fair. Especially taken in context of his larger point, which was that Republicans/conservatives aren't some tiny minority fringe. They're popular enough to control the House and may well take the Senate soon

Knee Slayer - How many times would it need to be explained to you why people are so disrespectful of you before you understood the reason. Is there no amount? Have you not noticed that, to pick one example, Ramsay gets treated with respect while you do not even though you're both in the conservative camp?

Appreciate the respect, and I know it's not relevant to the point you were making, but FYI I identify as libertarian rather than conservative (and I did well before Obama's election, so it's not just an attempt at "rebranding"). We all get grouped into "the Right", but there are important differences. As I'm sure you know

And remember, always remember, that a large swathe of this anti-government movement will calm down provided that they just have a Republican in the White House. Not everyone, but plenty. So much tribalism.

Oh I agree about the rampant partisan tribal hypocrisy. Just remember it cuts both ways

[Phaing]

Seriously debating you all is just like this :bang: because you are so imbedded in your beliefs you can't even consider that a different point of view just might be better.

If its that bad, put the ones you dislike on ignore.

It works, and makes it a lot less boring.

Ooh, the "you're rubber and I'm glue" defense. Excellent.

You gotta admit, with posts like that, your asking to be ignored by almost everyone..

Fair to some extent. Sure, most people are not completely consistent if it's boiled down to something like "Is government good or bad?" or what have you.

How about this- Govt is not some majestic enterprise that exists in and of itself... but rather, simply a group of typically flawed human beings.

No better than any of us, here, today.

And if we are talking about flip-flopping loyalties, I feel the need to remind you; there was a time when Obama wasn't the President, and that time is coming again. Will the next innaguration Day reverse the Liberals attitude towards the Govt?

For myself, I plan to stay my own course no matter what figurehead they have up front.

[Shryke]

I'm sorry, but you haven't proven how easy it is at all. According to the video you posted, the news station found roughly 100 people in Naples and Fort Meyers, the two communities prominently focused on in the video, voted, or were on the election rolls, illegally. These two cities have a combined population of around 84,000 people.... Less than 1/8th of a percent of the population. (Not to mention the fact that it is significantly easier, in terms of time spent and accessibility, to obtain an ID in more densely populated cities/large towns).

This suggests that up to 10% (going up to 25% if you look at minority populations) of citizens may not have "valid voting" IDs.

So, being a pessimist, I'll double the number of fraudulent/mistaken voters, and halve the never of potentially disenfranchised voters. That's still 0.0025 percent of "illegal" votes compared to up to 0.1250 "honest" citizens resisted or dissuaded from voting. That's 50 times the number.

Is that really the kind of democracy you believe in?

For the record, I'm not trying to call you stupid, or racist, or whatever you may think the typical liberal/left attack meme you feel is being lobbed at you. No snark or vitriol at all, just open discourse.

Edit: some spelling

The interesting thing is that, from what they've reported, the problem is that the people are falsely registered as voters. Which means voter ID wouldn't do shit because, of course, their ID would match their name on the voter registration list.

The thing about voter fraud is that it's usually very small and almost universally involves either issues with the registration database or people running the election itself rigging something. None of which are issues Voter ID laws do anything about.

[lokisnow]

And when poll taxes were a thing those who really wanted to vote could have just payed the poll tax.

At the Good Friday Service tonight I was reminded of another thing. When Mary and Joseph were counted for the census, they had to travel to his place of birth. Awesome.

That means if we want to be more right with the bible--afterall we are a Christian nation--we should require people to return to their place of birth to get IDs, be counted for a census, Vote, get married, get divorced, buy property, etc. You can live where you want, but if you must demonstrate your civic affection by making a little bit of effort.

If we just go back to the good old days the way things should be it'd be so much better, anything less is anti-Jesus and anti-christian, like Obama.

Obviously this would mean we'd have to end absentee voting. Importantly, it would also mean no more polling places in nursing homes, retirement villages, assisted living facilities etc. If the elderly really want to vote, they'll have to get their frail asses out of that cushy life-style of theirs and migrate to the DMV of their place of birth.

It's doubtful many of them would bother, they're just lazy by nature, those people. Why I even heard that for people over eighty, most of them bucks didn't even finish eighth grade and can't even read! just goes to show, probably can't trust them, they probably shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

It's a sad price we'd have to pay if the elderly mostly stopped voting simply because it was inconvenient that the government no longer stocked every single nursing home in the country with a free polling station.

Also, it hasn't really been mentioned that the multi-hour lines at polling stations are deliberately caused by republicans. oh they will happily supply a polling booth for every 10 nursing home residents, but they'll only supply one polling booth for a black or poor precinct with 20,000 voters. The deliberate distortions to try to prevent poor and minorities from voting while simultaneously oversupplying the elderly with easy voting is truly repugnant and downright evil in the way it distorts elections. Republicans deliberately refuse to supply the needed amount of equipment to equally serve all the citizenry.

We invest a tremendous amount of money into making it incredibly easy for senior citizens in assisted living situations to vote, we really ought to be equally invested in making sure it is equally easy to vote for everyone, even if you're not living in a nursing home. Their ease should be shared by all. We can pay for free and fair elections with a tax on capital gains. :)

Also, we need to switch to weekend voting. Tuesday voting is absurd, we're not all puritan farmers anymore. Or at least make election day a mandatory paid holiday for all employees, from mcdonalds to goldman sachs.

[Lord Mord]

grumdin,

Quite. They are misrepresenting Bundy's position. He was paying fees for the Fed Gov to maintain and improve the land he had the right to use. The Fed Gov refused to keep their end of the bargain and instead charged him many, many times more for a service they refused to perform in a deliberate bid to drive him off the land.

And of course you're right, we on the one hand have a pay per use government where corruption is rampant and laws are passed to suit the elites and on the other we are told we must obey every stricture issued from DC or risk being shot on sight for our rampant criminality. WTF??

Having not read the contract Bundy entered into, or federal or Nevada State law on the subject of grazing, easements and so on, and not being a legal scholar myself, can you please point me to the place where it says the government has to improve the property, and on what schedule, in order for his fees to be valid charges and he required to pay them? Of course, everybody should act in good faith, but even if the government did not, it's not automatically clear to me that withholding fees is a valid response, unless there is a clear breach of contract. And since, again, I haven't seen it, I thought perhaps you might know the specific article that was breached.

[Lord Mord]

Also -- why am I unable to edit my posts? This feature hasn't been disabled across the board?

[Shryke]

I can still edit mine.

Also grumdin is, predictably, wrong on his assessment. Nothing I've seen indicates the Federal government had specifically stated that money from permits had to go to land improvement nor was there anything stating that the government couldn't change the nature of the permits it handed out from year to year.

[The Iceman of the North]

Obama has done some things which are good, or rather he hasn't done things. He hasn't involved the US in any new land wars in Asia, big props to him for that. He has however massively expanded the security/suveillance state and continued the ongoing efforts to militarize LEOs, not so good. He has attempted to broaden health care coverage, which is a good thing, he's done this through giving a massive subsidy to monopolistic health insurance companies and failed to tackle the problem of cost push inflation in health care which means the ACA will fail. As you say it's complicated, and I do wish conservatives would stop calling him a Marxist which is just silly.

Isn't the 'militarization of LEOs' something that's going on on the local level with no input from the federal government? Seems to me that the 'militarization of federal LEOs' goes back to the very founding of each organiztion, and I haven't seen any sign that the FBI or ATF, or what have you, have become more militarized under Obama.

What I have seen is an increase in militarization of local law enforcements. I fail to see how you can blame Obama for the action of for instance Maricopa Sheriff Arpaio.

Not being a Democrat, or even an American, nevertheless I've yet to see anyone among the so-called 'liberals' on this board defending this trend, this seems more like the stance of 'law & order' conservatives.

ETA: As a Europan Social Democrat, I'm not happy about a lot of the policies of the current Obama administration, whether the cause of the policy is the actual political ideology of the current administration, or due to the pragmatic need to cooperate with the Republicans. Still, I recognize that the alternative would be much worse.