US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1379

On October 30 2014 07:25 oneofthem wrote:
obvious general direction here would be to have an independent, non politically chosen body do these things. politicians will not relent control of their game though

On October 30 2014 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:


So best case scenario they do nothing, worst case they disenfranchise millions. Seems pretty obvious that they should be abandoned unless the sole objectives are the motives I mentioned.

On October 30 2014 06:10 Yoav wrote:


Right, which is insane. US tax code, for reference, is 5 times the length of the Bible.

On October 30 2014 07:32 oneofthem wrote:
there's the administrative technocrat side of things, with academic input on design of these systems.

the idea that certain actors are completely binded to those that choose them is far too crude. institutional integrity can be a thing, especially very public ones that are conscious of their public and sensitive role. there is a certain body of technical knowledge, be it legal or administrative, that can take on a life of its own and power respective institutions.

Washington (CNN) -- Don't say Sen. Ted Cruz doesn't have a plan.

The Texas Republican took it upon himself to lay out the vision of what he thinks a Republican-led Congress should do in 2015 if they retake the Senate after the midterms, outlining a 10-point agenda in a USA Today op-ed published Sunday.
With plans to abolish the IRS and repeal Obamacare, Cruz acknowledged that Republicans would likely face vetoes from President Barack Obama and filibusters from Senate Democrats. But the potential 2016 presidential candidate appeared to look further than next month's election, saying obstruction from Democrats would drive Republican success in 2016.

"We should lead boldly. No Washington games," Cruz said. "We will either pass a serious agenda to address the real priorities of the American people ... or the Democrats will filibuster or veto these bills. And, if they do so, we will have transparency and accountability for the very next election."

Cruz's Op-ed marks a shift in the 2014 elections, which Republicans have sought to define as a referendum on Obama. Now, Republicans are being pressed to say what taking back the Senate would be -- rather than focusing on what it wouldn't be -- and Cruz is offering that vision.

The junior senator said the top priority of a Republican Congress in 2015 would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs with a focus on American energy. Republicans would authorize the controversial Keystone pipeline and cut down on environmental regulations that hamper fracking, have cracked down on coal and stymied the growth of natural gas, Cruz said.

And Republican talk about repealing Obamacare is anything but hot air. Cruz, who is a tea party favorite, said his party would "pursue all means possible to repeal Obamacare" -- repealing the act "and then pass bill after bill to mitigate the harms of Obamacare."

On October 30 2014 07:44 Introvert wrote:


No. Best case it prevents any fraud that would otherwise occur, worst, it doesn't. And just like you can argue that fraud doesn't disenfranchise enough legitimate voters to require laws, I could say that not enough are disenfranchised by the laws to make them objectionable on that basis.

You pulled the millions from thin air. Or from the Al Jazeera panic piece. The study found that in those two states turnout was down 3% tops? And I saw no mention of why- it didn't affect Asians or Hispanics- only blacks and young people. In only two states, with their own laws. (Edit: and the downtrend was across all voters, just some more than others. Given that earlier in the peice it mentions that ID ownership is similar between blacks and whites, it doesn't seem like the ID part of it is the issue.) It seems more of a quirk or anomoly than a systemic problem. In other places it increased. You are going to oppose laws everywhere because in a few states there is some sort of blip? I'll just say thst I obviously would oppose laws that would be discrinatory, but having an ID is not one of them.

Don't the EU countries require some ID? How does it work over there?

I'll be content so long as we can agree that this isn't an effort at voter suppression. If you think we don't need voter ID, fine. That's perfectly reasonable.

“The [voter ID] law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt,” Yelton said

Now we are to have Sunday voting at South DeKalb Mall just prior to the election. Per Jim Galloway of the AJC, this location is dominated by African American shoppers and it is near several large African American mega churches such as New Birth Missionary Baptist. Galloway also points out the Democratic Party thinks this is a wonderful idea – what a surprise. I’m sure Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter are delighted with this blatantly partisan move in DeKalb.
Is it possible church buses will be used to transport people directly to the mall since the poll will open when the mall opens? If this happens, so much for the accepted principle of separation of church and state

On October 30 2014 08:41 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well you won't get any contentment here. I don't know why you keep trying to pretend it isn't what it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8



Source


People waiting for HOURS in line to vote so Republicans want to cut times and days... We all know Sunday is when all the fraudsters vote too!



Source

On October 30 2014 11:10 Introvert wrote:
You can argue ID laws are not needed, but I still contend that you can't cry "suppression!"

On October 30 2014 11:10 Introvert wrote:

A random side question, are expensive gun licenses an intentional suppression of citizens trying to exercise their second amendment rights? That must also disproportionately hurt minorities!

On October 30 2014 11:27 Gorsameth wrote:

Except they keep being used for that. You don't see these laws going into effect just after an election so there is the maximum amount of time to get one and inform people, its always as close as they can get without it being to blatant.

Said it before and will say it again as a European its very weird that there is no ID law already but if you implement it you have to do it properly and not like the last dozen times we have seen it come up.

ps.
I would talk about the different between a gun and a vote but we've had that dance before and the nuance appears to be lost on you.

On October 30 2014 11:29 Yoav wrote:


You laugh, but I've seen NRA activists make this very argument with a straight face.

On October 30 2014 12:07 IgnE wrote:
If anything we should get rid of voting before guns.