|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 06 2016 04:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 04:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 04:01 Mohdoo wrote:An hour? That's pretty normal for trendy brunch places here in Portland  You saw that they were only using 2 of 10 voting booths right? This is also before the rush. No I know, I was mostly joking. More so just pointing out that we're used to waiting in long lines around here ._. ...kind of useless post on my part.
Ah well you can get in on calling this suppression now rather than wait for the results if you want for some redemption.
On April 06 2016 04:07 ticklishmusic wrote:As I said before, Clinton sued Wisconsin for this 11 months ago... some parts got dismissed, but to my knowledge it's still in progress though: Show nested quote +MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin’s requirement that voters show photo identification at the polls has survived another legal challenge after a federal judge Thursday dismissed portions of a wide-ranging lawsuit alleging the mandate burdens the right to vote.
One Wisconsin Institute Inc., a liberal group; Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, a voting rights organization; and a half-dozen individual voters filed the lawsuit in June. They argued a number of provisions Republicans have added to state election law since they took over the Legislature in 2011, most prominently the photo ID requirement, violate the federal Voting Rights Act, the First Amendment and the equal protection clause.
U.S. District Judge James Peterson issued an order saying he has granted the state’s motion to dismiss the portion of the lawsuit challenging the voter ID requirements. He said the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already upheld the mandate in a separate case in October 2014. But he added he’s not convinced that the requirement promotes any confidence in the electoral process.
He also rejected another section of the lawsuit alleging that statutory changes impermissibly favor voters who move to Wisconsin from out of state.
The plaintiffs argued that voters who move into the state can vote for national offices immediately even though people who move within the state in the 28 days before an election must vote in their old wards. Peterson said under federal law Wisconsin can’t prohibit someone who moves into the state in the 28 days before an election from voting for president and vice president.
The judge, however, rejected the state’s request to dismiss another section of the lawsuit alleging the state has no basis for excluding technical college, out-of-state and certain expired identification cards from the list of valid photo identification. The plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the decision to exclude certain forms of ID was arbitrary, Peterson said.
He also refused to grant the state’s motion to toss sections of the lawsuit alleging that the statutory changes are intended to suppress Democratic-leaning votes. He said questions about whether the changes have actually burdened Democrats can’t be determined at this stage in the case.
Bobbie Wilson, the attorney representing One Wisconsin Institute, Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund and the voters didn’t immediately respond to an email.
Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, a Republican, issued a statement saying he looks forward to voter ID law going into effect in the 2016 elections, calling it a “common sense” measure. Source
You too, you think what you're seeing in that video is suppression?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
making voting harder helps the candidate with more fanatical and or leisurely supporters.
|
On April 06 2016 04:13 oneofthem wrote:
making voting harder helps the candidate with more fanatical and or leisurely supporters.
Yeah it's almost like I'm calling it out regardless of who it benefits or who's more responsible...
EDIT: But you can hop on the train too about whether you think what you're seeing in the video is voter suppression?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Like I've said this whole time it's obviously not just Republicans. AZ and now WI aren't the only states this has happened. I'd do a temp ban bet that we'll see long lines with lots of empty booths in NY too. I'll take a 3 day just for you 3 taking the bet.
|
On April 06 2016 01:59 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 01:53 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2016 01:49 oneofthem wrote:On April 06 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:I like how he spends more than half of this post justifying himself, well aware of how credible a blog post is as a substantive argument. His criticisms of Bernie's programs are legitimate - these are genuine problems and I agree that the wealthy do essentially what this post says they do - but I really don't see that he has a credible alternative. It seems more that he's saying "Sanders sucks so forget him therefore Hillary." Or maybe Trump or Cruz or some candidate that doesn't matter, but you would be hard-pressed to convince anyone that the two Republican candidates are better than either Democratic candidate on economics. yea the guy seems like a huge blowhard. actual content about halfway down lol Yeah, I read the actual content and it still seems like he is bashing without arguing for what's better and just implicitly says that we should maintain the status quo. Given that he doesn't justify the status quo or whatever his alternative is, I find it hard to take his criticism seriously. Obviously Bernie's policies have problems(whose policies don't?), but what makes them worse than some other candidate's program? in fairness to that poster he would need another post to detail a positive program. there is no status quo justification. as far as sanders tax the two words that really sinks him is payroll tax
payroll taxes are definitely not ideal, probably even plain bad
that guy's blog post though has such myopic foundational assumptions that his protestations about how "rational" and "considered" his responses are strain the reality principle by bringing too much attention to itself
and i just don't get his comparison of bernie's proposals to the "70s"
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
read it like a detailed accounting of what sanders is proposing. i've not seen a line by line breakdown in many places
|
On April 06 2016 04:07 ticklishmusic wrote:As I said before, Clinton sued Wisconsin for this 11 months ago... some parts got dismissed, but to my knowledge it's still in progress though: Show nested quote +MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin’s requirement that voters show photo identification at the polls has survived another legal challenge after a federal judge Thursday dismissed portions of a wide-ranging lawsuit alleging the mandate burdens the right to vote.
One Wisconsin Institute Inc., a liberal group; Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, a voting rights organization; and a half-dozen individual voters filed the lawsuit in June. They argued a number of provisions Republicans have added to state election law since they took over the Legislature in 2011, most prominently the photo ID requirement, violate the federal Voting Rights Act, the First Amendment and the equal protection clause.
U.S. District Judge James Peterson issued an order saying he has granted the state’s motion to dismiss the portion of the lawsuit challenging the voter ID requirements. He said the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already upheld the mandate in a separate case in October 2014. But he added he’s not convinced that the requirement promotes any confidence in the electoral process.
He also rejected another section of the lawsuit alleging that statutory changes impermissibly favor voters who move to Wisconsin from out of state.
The plaintiffs argued that voters who move into the state can vote for national offices immediately even though people who move within the state in the 28 days before an election must vote in their old wards. Peterson said under federal law Wisconsin can’t prohibit someone who moves into the state in the 28 days before an election from voting for president and vice president.
The judge, however, rejected the state’s request to dismiss another section of the lawsuit alleging the state has no basis for excluding technical college, out-of-state and certain expired identification cards from the list of valid photo identification. The plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the decision to exclude certain forms of ID was arbitrary, Peterson said.
He also refused to grant the state’s motion to toss sections of the lawsuit alleging that the statutory changes are intended to suppress Democratic-leaning votes. He said questions about whether the changes have actually burdened Democrats can’t be determined at this stage in the case.
Bobbie Wilson, the attorney representing One Wisconsin Institute, Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund and the voters didn’t immediately respond to an email.
Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, a Republican, issued a statement saying he looks forward to voter ID law going into effect in the 2016 elections, calling it a “common sense” measure. Source
And yet the rest of the world manages to require identification when voting without it causing hours of waiting time.
Tomorrow I am going to vote for a referendum. I will give a person behind the table my voting card (which every eligible voter got send to their registered address, together with my ID. it will take that person about 5 seconds to check if the names match, if my face is like the ID and then to cross my name off the list of voters in front of him/her. Meanwhile another person on the table will give me the ballot and once the first gives the ok I can vote.
Somehow America hasn't managed to get this to work yet...
I'm not going to blame left or right, Democrat or Republican for this and just blame it on general incompetence.
|
I can't see all of that, but please tell me that they only list the office numbers and emails for the delegates?
|
On April 06 2016 04:34 oneofthem wrote:
read it like a detailed accounting of what sanders is proposing. i've not seen a line by line breakdown in many places
anyone who refers to a 45% estate tax on holdings above 3.5M as "confiscatory" is already suspect though
also anyone who uncritically estimates 7-10% returns on employee savings in preparation for retirement going forward. this is 2016 not 1945
|
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant has signed a controversial "religious freedom" bill into law.
The legislation, HB 1523, promises that the state government will not punish people who refuse to provide services to people because of a religious opposition to same-sex marriage, extramarital sex or transgender people.
Supporters say it protects the rights of people who are opposed to homosexuality but who now live in a country where same-sex marriage is a legal right.
Opponents say the law amounts to a state sanction for open discrimination.
In a statement on Twitter, Bryant said he signed the bill into law "to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions ... from discriminatory action by state government."
He said the new law "merely reinforces" existing religious freedom rights, "does not limit any constitutionally protected rights or actions" and does not challenge federal law.
"The legislation is designed in the most targeted manner possible to prevent government interference in the lives of the people from which all power to the state is derived," Bryant said.
The law is not a broad religious-protections law, such as many recent controversial state laws. As we reported last week, the Mississippi legislation protects only three beliefs or convictions: that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sex is "properly reserved to such a marriage," and that words like "male" and "female" are "objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at birth."
The law protects, among other things, state employees who refuse to license marriages, religious organizations who fire or discipline employees and individuals who decline to provide counseling or some medical services based on those oppositions.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 06 2016 04:36 Plansix wrote:I can't see all of that, but please tell me that they only list the office numbers and emails for the delegates?
seems to be everything under the sun. social media, phone, address, political area of expertise.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 06 2016 04:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 04:34 oneofthem wrote:
read it like a detailed accounting of what sanders is proposing. i've not seen a line by line breakdown in many places anyone who refers to a 45% estate tax on holdings above 3.5M as "confiscatory" is already suspect though also anyone who uncritically estimates 7-10% returns on employee savings in preparation for retirement going forward. this is 2016 not 1945
yea the guy is not that solid, but it's an exercise of being exposed to opposition arguments. the basics of what he says, sanders plan is pretty regressive, will hit small businesses relative to big businesses, are true.
|
No one wants to take the bet?
Surely if this is a Republican problem you all should be confident it won't happen in NY and it should be an easy way to get a break from me. Hell you get 3 days just for taking the bet.
You guys afraid I'm a seer, that Democrats will be (and have been) responsible for these same types of issues without even having voter laws to blame, or both?
|
Its a worthless bet, because you will declare victory at the first sign of a long line and we will spend the rest of the time saying it wasn't a big deal. Heaven help us if Bill Clinton is even in the state that day.
|
On April 06 2016 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 04:00 Sermokala wrote:
Its like democrats want to give republicans ammunition for voter ID laws. Granted I'm for a general election reform but this is getting silly this cycle. Nah, Republican policymakers will still just present it as a fix to voter fraud rather than any sort of efficiency increase. They want nothing more than the public to perceive their local government as bureaucratic and inefficient, it feeds into their political narrative that government sucks.
I'm actually an advocate for IDs for both reasons. Voting with an ID is much easier, they scan now, you know, like when you buy booze. No reason to have rolodexs.
The "there is no in-person fraud" line, to me, doesn't make sense. I get that its a dumb way to steal elections as opposed to mailing thousands of absentee ballots based off of inactive voter rolls, but guess what else is dumb? Voting at all. There is almost never a marginal voter who decides the outcome. Why is it less likely for there to be an enterprising fraudster as opposed to the millions of idiot voters?
Also, its a felony, so the only good way to expose how easy it is to commit voter fraud (bringing an undercover camera crew and voting as "Jerry Brown" or some other politician) nets you jailtime. And the FBI doesn't conduct sting operations to see if it actually works (it would, you could vote as anyone in Illinois if you want to).
|
On April 06 2016 04:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 04:07 ticklishmusic wrote:As I said before, Clinton sued Wisconsin for this 11 months ago... some parts got dismissed, but to my knowledge it's still in progress though: MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin’s requirement that voters show photo identification at the polls has survived another legal challenge after a federal judge Thursday dismissed portions of a wide-ranging lawsuit alleging the mandate burdens the right to vote.
One Wisconsin Institute Inc., a liberal group; Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, a voting rights organization; and a half-dozen individual voters filed the lawsuit in June. They argued a number of provisions Republicans have added to state election law since they took over the Legislature in 2011, most prominently the photo ID requirement, violate the federal Voting Rights Act, the First Amendment and the equal protection clause.
U.S. District Judge James Peterson issued an order saying he has granted the state’s motion to dismiss the portion of the lawsuit challenging the voter ID requirements. He said the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already upheld the mandate in a separate case in October 2014. But he added he’s not convinced that the requirement promotes any confidence in the electoral process.
He also rejected another section of the lawsuit alleging that statutory changes impermissibly favor voters who move to Wisconsin from out of state.
The plaintiffs argued that voters who move into the state can vote for national offices immediately even though people who move within the state in the 28 days before an election must vote in their old wards. Peterson said under federal law Wisconsin can’t prohibit someone who moves into the state in the 28 days before an election from voting for president and vice president.
The judge, however, rejected the state’s request to dismiss another section of the lawsuit alleging the state has no basis for excluding technical college, out-of-state and certain expired identification cards from the list of valid photo identification. The plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the decision to exclude certain forms of ID was arbitrary, Peterson said.
He also refused to grant the state’s motion to toss sections of the lawsuit alleging that the statutory changes are intended to suppress Democratic-leaning votes. He said questions about whether the changes have actually burdened Democrats can’t be determined at this stage in the case.
Bobbie Wilson, the attorney representing One Wisconsin Institute, Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund and the voters didn’t immediately respond to an email.
Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, a Republican, issued a statement saying he looks forward to voter ID law going into effect in the 2016 elections, calling it a “common sense” measure. Source And yet the rest of the world manages to require identification when voting without it causing hours of waiting time. Tomorrow I am going to vote for a referendum. I will give a person behind the table my voting card (which every eligible voter got send to their registered address, together with my ID. it will take that person about 5 seconds to check if the names match, if my face is like the ID and then to cross my name off the list of voters in front of him/her. Meanwhile another person on the table will give me the ballot and once the first gives the ok I can vote. Somehow America hasn't managed to get this to work yet... I'm not going to blame left or right, Democrat or Republican for this and just blame it on general incompetence.
When I go to vote in California. I show up without identification, tell me my name, and they check off my name in a list, then give me my ballot. They then ask if I need instructions on how to use it, and they ask if I have any questions, I don,t and move forward.
ID's can only speed up the process. For example--lazy person shows up without ID, heads back, comes back, lines up again.
|
On April 06 2016 04:44 Plansix wrote:
Its a worthless bet, because you will declare victory at the first sign of a long line and we will spend the rest of the time saying it wasn't a big deal. Heaven help us if Bill Clinton is even in the state that day.
The hell are you talking about. I already specifically said "long lines with lots of empty voting booths" We can agree on how long is long enough to call it on it's own if you wanted but that's not even what I was saying.
Also on the Bill Clinton thing, we already covered what he did was illegal whether they got local officials to vouch for them or not. Just stupid to bring it back up (unless this is supposed to be diffusing what would be a repeat of his illegal behavior in MA).
|
Why are you belaboring the obvious about voter suppression? This is 100% voter suppression, but don't pat yourself on the back about how you're particularly enlightened on the issue. It's something you didn't give a single crap about (one might even venture to say you didn't even know about it) about until, what, 4 months ago? I live in the South and I live this shit. Around election time, I volunteer to help disadvantaged voters make sure they had everything they need to vote so they don't have problems (they still do). People who have actually spent time on the issue find your attitude insanely off-putting.
|
On April 06 2016 04:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Why are you belaboring the obvious about voter suppression? This is 100% voter suppression, but don't pat yourself on the back about how you're particularly enlightened on the issue. It's something you didn't give a single crap about (one might even venture to say you didn't even know about it) about until, what, 4 months ago? I live in the South and I live this shit. Around election time, I volunteer to help disadvantaged voters make sure they had everything they need to vote so they don't have problems (they still do). People who have actually spent time on the issue find your attitude insanely off-putting.
gtfo with that bullshit. You know I'm fucking black, if you think this is the first I've cared about voter suppression you're dumber than I was giving you credit for.
You going to man up on NY or bitch out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
