In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 01 2016 08:04 cLutZ wrote: Its ironic, because its lax registration and polling rules that make the actual polling such a shitshow. If they made everyone pre-register, and bring photo ID (all are scannable in the states now) it would take 15 seconds to get a ballot.
They encourage pre-registration and require ZERO ID's in California and its still a shit show.
The problem is as much the voters as it is the "system." The system is merely a reflection of what the voters allow it to be.
Take campaign finance. Most of that money is used on TV Ads and lawn signs. Do you know what easily counteracts all that money special interest has? Showing up to vote. If everyone just shows up to vote then NO amount of money will get people to vote differently from their own self interest.
Not requiring IDs makes waits worse. Its like buying groceries with a Check vs. a Credit card. With IDs you scan>Person's face and address pops up on screen, Green means registered, Red means not. If green you get your ballot (here its a card that lets you use the machine). If red, you hand them an absentee ballot and they leave. The ballot comes with instructions to include a copy of 2 ids, one photo, and 2 envelopes of mail you have received.
The more strict the requirements, the more quickly the actual lines will proceed.
what would having to pre-register be?
It's like this for me: I show up, I show them my ID, they look at the pic, look at me, they look at my name and look up my name in some kind of list. But I don't have to register ahead of time... I feel like that'd be a massive flaw you 100% want to avoid no matter what and you really need to have everyone being allowed to vote automatically. And like people said... that usually takes like 5 minutes tops to vote, maybe 30minutes if you go there when it's really full.
But then again no idea if this issue is just something for the primary process or for the general election as well.
On April 01 2016 08:04 cLutZ wrote: Its ironic, because its lax registration and polling rules that make the actual polling such a shitshow. If they made everyone pre-register, and bring photo ID (all are scannable in the states now) it would take 15 seconds to get a ballot.
They encourage pre-registration and require ZERO ID's in California and its still a shit show.
The problem is as much the voters as it is the "system." The system is merely a reflection of what the voters allow it to be.
Take campaign finance. Most of that money is used on TV Ads and lawn signs. Do you know what easily counteracts all that money special interest has? Showing up to vote. If everyone just shows up to vote then NO amount of money will get people to vote differently from their own self interest.
Not requiring IDs makes waits worse. Its like buying groceries with a Check vs. a Credit card. With IDs you scan>Person's face and address pops up on screen, Green means registered, Red means not. If green you get your ballot (here its a card that lets you use the machine). If red, you hand them an absentee ballot and they leave. The ballot comes with instructions to include a copy of 2 ids, one photo, and 2 envelopes of mail you have received.
The more strict the requirements, the more quickly the actual lines will proceed.
We have voter ID bullshit in NC. When I voted a few weeks ago (first time ID required) we had to go up and say our name and address. Then the person took my ID and verified and gave me a sticker to bring to the ballot table. Then I got my ballot and went off to vote.
Now maybe this is just a horrible anecdote and the person doing the check in was just slow, but it wasn't any more streamlined than when we didn't have to show ID.
On April 01 2016 08:04 cLutZ wrote: Its ironic, because its lax registration and polling rules that make the actual polling such a shitshow. If they made everyone pre-register, and bring photo ID (all are scannable in the states now) it would take 15 seconds to get a ballot.
They encourage pre-registration and require ZERO ID's in California and its still a shit show.
The problem is as much the voters as it is the "system." The system is merely a reflection of what the voters allow it to be.
Take campaign finance. Most of that money is used on TV Ads and lawn signs. Do you know what easily counteracts all that money special interest has? Showing up to vote. If everyone just shows up to vote then NO amount of money will get people to vote differently from their own self interest.
Not requiring IDs makes waits worse. Its like buying groceries with a Check vs. a Credit card. With IDs you scan>Person's face and address pops up on screen, Green means registered, Red means not. If green you get your ballot (here its a card that lets you use the machine). If red, you hand them an absentee ballot and they leave. The ballot comes with instructions to include a copy of 2 ids, one photo, and 2 envelopes of mail you have received.
The more strict the requirements, the more quickly the actual lines will proceed.
what would having to pre-register be?
It's like this for me: I show up, I show them my ID, they look at the pic, look at me, they look at my name and look up my name in some kind of list. But I don't have to register ahead of time... I feel like that'd be a massive flaw you 100% want to avoid no matter what and you really need to have everyone being allowed to vote automatically. And like people said... that usually takes like 5 minutes tops to vote, maybe 30minutes if you go there when it's really full.
But then again no idea if this issue is just something for the primary process or for the general election as well.
well in germany you register as a resident at your city/town/place of residency, i think that is not the case in most of the US?
On April 01 2016 08:04 cLutZ wrote: Its ironic, because its lax registration and polling rules that make the actual polling such a shitshow. If they made everyone pre-register, and bring photo ID (all are scannable in the states now) it would take 15 seconds to get a ballot.
They encourage pre-registration and require ZERO ID's in California and its still a shit show.
The problem is as much the voters as it is the "system." The system is merely a reflection of what the voters allow it to be.
Take campaign finance. Most of that money is used on TV Ads and lawn signs. Do you know what easily counteracts all that money special interest has? Showing up to vote. If everyone just shows up to vote then NO amount of money will get people to vote differently from their own self interest.
Not requiring IDs makes waits worse. Its like buying groceries with a Check vs. a Credit card. With IDs you scan>Person's face and address pops up on screen, Green means registered, Red means not. If green you get your ballot (here its a card that lets you use the machine). If red, you hand them an absentee ballot and they leave. The ballot comes with instructions to include a copy of 2 ids, one photo, and 2 envelopes of mail you have received.
The more strict the requirements, the more quickly the actual lines will proceed.
what would having to pre-register be?
It's like this for me: I show up, I show them my ID, they look at the pic, look at me, they look at my name and look up my name in some kind of list. But I don't have to register ahead of time... I feel like that'd be a massive flaw you 100% want to avoid no matter what and you really need to have everyone being allowed to vote automatically. And like people said... that usually takes like 5 minutes tops to vote, maybe 30minutes if you go there when it's really full.
But then again no idea if this issue is just something for the primary process or for the general election as well.
well in germany you register as a resident at your city/town/place of residency, i think that is not the case in most of the US?
You register to vote and tell them your address. They keep you there until you register somewhere else. In California you simply show up and tell them your name. That's literally the entire process. That is the process being complained about as being too complicated.
Hence #ImSoSick. FYI she IS getting money from both the O&G workers directly (but so is everyone) and from investors that are heavily invested in it through her PACs (that's just her, Cruz, and maybe Kasich).
We would also have to presume the $10's of millions given to her foundation and other non-profits she helped start were purely philanthropic. That all of the favorable decisions from the American political system toward donors is purely coincidence.
We would also have to ignore the fossil fuel lobbyists raising money for her.
Next are the fossil fuel lobbyists, many of whom have also bundled contributions. These donations also flow to Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee. Greenpeace has tracked $1,259,280 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry.
if the Marquette poll is dead accurate, the delegate count from Wisconsin will likely break down something like Cruz 33 to 39, Trump 0 to 6 and Kasich 3. If the rest of the states after Wisconsin went as our expert panel predicted,2 Trump would end up with, at best, 1,185 delegates after the last primaries on June 7. He could still get to 1,237 on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention by securing 52 additional delegates among the more than 100 currently unbound or uncommitted delegates, but it would be a steeper hill to climb than we originally thought.
Don't normally post about tweets, but this one is kinda relevant and amusing.
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Thursday touted his second-place standing in a new Wisconsin poll.
Trump, who frequently brings up polls that show him doing well, tweeted an image highlighting a poll released Thursday by left-leaning Public Policy Polling that showed him winning the support of 37 percent of likely GOP voters in the state. In much smaller text near the bottom, the image shows rival Ted Cruz is at 38 percent.
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Thursday touted his second-place standing in a new Wisconsin poll.
Trump, who frequently brings up polls that show him doing well, tweeted an image highlighting a poll released Thursday by left-leaning Public Policy Polling that showed him winning the support of 37 percent of likely GOP voters in the state. In much smaller text near the bottom, the image shows rival Ted Cruz is at 38 percent.
On April 01 2016 10:31 Slaughter wrote: Wisconsin to Cruz? That doesn't seem to be a state that would be in his roundhouse.
Yeah, it's an odd upset that I think proves how big the anti-Trump movement is. Although - just like every poll is showing him losing Wisconsin, pretty much - he's also winning NY by 50+ which should be enough to get him towards that magic number unless everything goes wrong.
Also, Sanders handily winning Wisconsin polling now. A 5-6 point win still isn't what he wants from the state, but considering his history of outperforming polls he should hit his benchmark pretty nicely.
Kasich and Cruz should just drop out. There's literally no way in hell NY and CA will vote for them. Kasich's a sleeze ball for even staying in this long. And Cruz is a mess. This entire brokered convention attempt is despicable.
On April 01 2016 10:54 SK.Testie wrote: Kasich and Cruz should just drop out. There's literally no way in hell NY and CA will vote for them. Kasich's a sleeze ball for even staying in this long. And Cruz is a mess. This entire brokered convention attempt is despicable.
NY is a lock, sure, but it's Trump's home state by any measure- California's not a lock, unfortunately. Last poll from there (and only poll in the past couple weeks) shows him and Cruz within one point.
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are the other two states being polled and both are wide open for Cruz/Kasich as well.
On April 01 2016 10:54 SK.Testie wrote: Kasich and Cruz should just drop out. There's literally no way in hell NY and CA will vote for them. Kasich's a sleeze ball for even staying in this long. And Cruz is a mess. This entire brokered convention attempt is despicable.
Yes, how dare those nasty politicians try to prevent the candidate with 38% of the popular vote and ~45-50% of those exit polled being unhappy with him being nominated from obtaining the majority of the delegates. Gosh darn them.
On April 01 2016 10:31 Slaughter wrote: Wisconsin to Cruz? That doesn't seem to be a state that would be in his roundhouse.
Walker loathes Trump and Republicans in Wisconsin apparently still like Walker, and the demographics of the state break down such that there are very few districts where Kasich and Cruz are competing with one another (the ideal anti-Trump state really). The main hope for Trump there is that it's an open primary.
On April 01 2016 10:59 TheTenthDoc wrote: Yes, how dare those nasty politicians try to prevent the candidate with 38% of the popular vote and ~45-50% of those exit polled being unhappy with him being nominated from obtaining the majority of the delegates. Gosh darn them.
On April 01 2016 10:31 Slaughter wrote: Wisconsin to Cruz? That doesn't seem to be a state that would be in his roundhouse.
Walker loathes Trump and Republicans in Wisconsin apparently still like Walker, and the demographics of the state break down such that there are very few districts where Kasich and Cruz are competing with one another (the ideal anti-Trump state really). The main hope for Trump there is that it's an open primary.
If Cruz wasn't in the race Trump would have a ton more votes. Trump and Cruz are very similar so voters are torn between them.
They're very, very different. Cruz is not even representing his real positions in this campaign, if he has any.
Cruz is copying Trump for votes and in some cases attempting to outdo him. i.e. patrolling Muslim neighbourhoods. But he's really not remotely like Trump. He's pretending to be like Trump because he's seen how well it's worked. But he's far behind him in both votes and delegates.
Trump is the most misrepresented man in America right now. The media literally does not care about facts right now with regard to Trump. The headlines that CNN chooses on what stays up for X amount of time and what doesn't get reported (even if it's a bigger story) is downright absurd at this point. They simply have a mission, destroy this man. A shame they never show all the great things he's done, does, and instead misrepresent and blow anything he's ever said out of proportion. Twitter censored both the TedCruz sex scandal & the #stopislam hashtags recently. Zuckerberg working with Merkel.
If CNN, the NYT, etc weren't buried so far up Hillary's ass the coverage would look a lot different. It's funny how Bernie supporters have realized this and their anger is everywhere about it all over the internet. All of a sudden Bernie's supporters are the #1 proponents of looking into Hillary's e-mails & they don't notice the hilarity of themselves basically being the Republicans on the Benghazi committee.
But seriously, Cruz should leave a slime trail when he walks. I think Eri misrepresents Trump when he calls him a sociopath. I really doubt he's a sociopath. Cruz? Yes. Trump? No. His motto is clear, if someone's trying to take you down, they are fair game to get dragged into a fight that they probably weren't expecting.
One of the countless examples of even CNN going with outright lies. The 15 year old who was "sexually assaulted" & pepper sprayed at Trump rally. + Show Spoiler +
I'm genuinely concerned that the "regressive left" thinks the media not even caring about facts anymore is a bad thing. So long as the end justifies the means. This is not even close to honest journalism anymore.
EPT
