On September 22 2012 13:38 Souma wrote: I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
I am supporting a third party for one, and I am volunteering with their campaign and trying to get representatives in office that represent me(cause right now there are basically zero that share my beliefs/values), I feel if more and more of the country supports third/fourth/fifth parties or whatever, then we might see some amount of change, or at least the illusion of change lol. But yes I do fear the strike down .
Whats sad though, is I would have a really freaking tough decision if I was in a swing state. I would be between a rock and a hard place really. Vote to keep Romney out of office, and continue to leave third parties behind ? Or vote for a cause I actually believe in?
Such a choice ultimately comes down to the subjective, internal battle of the ideologue and political realist which faces every practicer of civic engagement. I consider myself a very liberal Democrat, and there are many things about Obama and his first four years that do not sit well with me, most notably his relatively quiet continuation of the War on Drugs and the casual extension of hawkish bullshit anti-terrorism measures. That being said, I understand that a president on his first four years must be cautious with his major political decisions (not to mention the inherent difficulty in getting things done alongside the least liked congress in history), and I truly believe the passing of the PPACA, the repeal of DADT, and the decisive application of the ARRA in 2009 are evidence enough for me that a reelection of Obama is the most providential outcome of the coming decision on November 6th. I would never fault someone for voting third party, as they are simply picking a different battle, one with a great deal of merit on the side of those who want more than only two real choices on a presidential ballot. Vote with your heart yo.
Edit: I forgot the DREAM act, I admire that as well.
On September 22 2012 13:38 Souma wrote: I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
I am supporting a third party for one, and I am volunteering with their campaign and trying to get representatives in office that represent me(cause right now there are basically zero that share my beliefs/values), I feel if more and more of the country supports third/fourth/fifth parties or whatever, then we might see some amount of change, or at least the illusion of change lol. But yes I do fear the strike down .
Whats sad though, is I would have a really freaking tough decision if I was in a swing state. I would be between a rock and a hard place really. Vote to keep Romney out of office, and continue to leave third parties behind ? Or vote for a cause I actually believe in?
Such a choice ultimately comes down to the subjective, internal battle of the ideologue and political realist
On September 22 2012 13:38 Souma wrote: I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
I am supporting a third party for one, and I am volunteering with their campaign and trying to get representatives in office that represent me(cause right now there are basically zero that share my beliefs/values), I feel if more and more of the country supports third/fourth/fifth parties or whatever, then we might see some amount of change, or at least the illusion of change lol. But yes I do fear the strike down .
Whats sad though, is I would have a really freaking tough decision if I was in a swing state. I would be between a rock and a hard place really. Vote to keep Romney out of office, and continue to leave third parties behind ? Or vote for a cause I actually believe in?
Such a choice ultimately comes down to the subjective, internal battle of the ideologue and political realist
As if "political realism" were not an ideology...
I merely included "political" as a means of guiding the thought, I'll clarify that I mean, in essence, the particularities of an acknowledgement of or lack of a concept of "realism" and its effect on notions of duty or personal efficacy through engagement with ones environment. Or, to be more specific by being less, whatever one posits as the opposing force to the pull of a desire to enact or act on a concept or idea, no matter the relativity nor possibility.
On September 22 2012 13:38 Souma wrote: I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
I am supporting a third party for one, and I am volunteering with their campaign and trying to get representatives in office that represent me(cause right now there are basically zero that share my beliefs/values), I feel if more and more of the country supports third/fourth/fifth parties or whatever, then we might see some amount of change, or at least the illusion of change lol. But yes I do fear the strike down .
Whats sad though, is I would have a really freaking tough decision if I was in a swing state. I would be between a rock and a hard place really. Vote to keep Romney out of office, and continue to leave third parties behind ? Or vote for a cause I actually believe in?
Such a choice ultimately comes down to the subjective, internal battle of the ideologue and political realist
As if "political realism" were not an ideology...
I merely included "political" as a means of guiding the thought, I'll clarify that I mean, in essence, the particularities of an acknowledgement of or lack of a concept of "realism" and its effect on notions of duty or personal efficacy through engagement with ones environment. Or, to be more specific by being less, whatever one posits as the opposing force to the pull of a desire to enact or act on a concept or idea, no matter the relativity nor possibility.
haha well said, I concur
(edit: which is to say, of course, but nevertheless to be ineluctably elaborated, "run along with you")
On September 22 2012 13:38 Souma wrote: I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
I am supporting a third party for one, and I am volunteering with their campaign and trying to get representatives in office that represent me(cause right now there are basically zero that share my beliefs/values), I feel if more and more of the country supports third/fourth/fifth parties or whatever, then we might see some amount of change, or at least the illusion of change lol. But yes I do fear the strike down .
Whats sad though, is I would have a really freaking tough decision if I was in a swing state. I would be between a rock and a hard place really. Vote to keep Romney out of office, and continue to leave third parties behind ? Or vote for a cause I actually believe in?
Such a choice ultimately comes down to the subjective, internal battle of the ideologue and political realist
As if "political realism" were not an ideology...
I merely included "political" as a means of guiding the thought, I'll clarify that I mean, in essence, the particularities of an acknowledgement of or lack of a concept of "realism" and its effect on notions of duty or personal efficacy through engagement with ones environment. Or, to be more specific by being less, whatever one posits as the opposing force to the pull of a desire to enact or act on a concept or idea, no matter the relativity nor possibility.
Had no clue what you just said but it sounded really smart <.<
On September 22 2012 13:38 Souma wrote: I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
I am supporting a third party for one, and I am volunteering with their campaign and trying to get representatives in office that represent me(cause right now there are basically zero that share my beliefs/values), I feel if more and more of the country supports third/fourth/fifth parties or whatever, then we might see some amount of change, or at least the illusion of change lol. But yes I do fear the strike down .
Whats sad though, is I would have a really freaking tough decision if I was in a swing state. I would be between a rock and a hard place really. Vote to keep Romney out of office, and continue to leave third parties behind ? Or vote for a cause I actually believe in?
Such a choice ultimately comes down to the subjective, internal battle of the ideologue and political realist
As if "political realism" were not an ideology...
I merely included "political" as a means of guiding the thought, I'll clarify that I mean, in essence, the particularities of an acknowledgement of or lack of a concept of "realism" and its effect on notions of duty or personal efficacy through engagement with ones environment. Or, to be more specific by being less, whatever one posits as the opposing force to the pull of a desire to enact or act on a concept or idea, no matter the relativity nor possibility.
Had no clue what you just said but it sounded really smart <.<
"Do I vote with my head, or my heart?"
"Do I vote for what I most truly believe in, or do I opt for the choice most likely to have a net positive effect on myself and/or others?"
"Do I vote? Why?"
"I refuse to acknowledge the imposition of an unwelcome collective influence on my daily life."
On September 22 2012 13:38 Souma wrote: I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
I am supporting a third party for one, and I am volunteering with their campaign and trying to get representatives in office that represent me(cause right now there are basically zero that share my beliefs/values), I feel if more and more of the country supports third/fourth/fifth parties or whatever, then we might see some amount of change, or at least the illusion of change lol. But yes I do fear the strike down .
Whats sad though, is I would have a really freaking tough decision if I was in a swing state. I would be between a rock and a hard place really. Vote to keep Romney out of office, and continue to leave third parties behind ? Or vote for a cause I actually believe in?
Such a choice ultimately comes down to the subjective, internal battle of the ideologue and political realist
As if "political realism" were not an ideology...
I merely included "political" as a means of guiding the thought, I'll clarify that I mean, in essence, the particularities of an acknowledgement of or lack of a concept of "realism" and its effect on notions of duty or personal efficacy through engagement with ones environment. Or, to be more specific by being less, whatever one posits as the opposing force to the pull of a desire to enact or act on a concept or idea, no matter the relativity nor possibility.
One of the things that recently caught my eyes were talks about how the different pollsters were sampling "likely voters." I mean, I went into this election season thinking ... with what Obama's done, why isn't Romney basking in a 10-15 point lead? Not by means of explaining this, but as a discussion topic, what how will voter turnout be like 2008 or different from it? A bit of background:
All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin. In English, this means that when you do a poll you ask people if they are likely to vote. But any telephone survey always has too few blacks, Latinos, and young people and too many elderly in its sample. That’s because some don’t have landlines or are rarely at home or don’t speak English well enough to be interviewed or don’t have time to talk. Elderly are overstated because they tend to be home and to have time. So you need to increase the weight given to interviews with young people, blacks and Latinos and count those with seniors a bit less. Normally, this task is not difficult. Over the years, the black, Latino, young, and elderly proportion of the electorate has been fairly constant from election to election, except for a gradual increase in the Hispanic vote. You just need to look back at the last election to weight your polling numbers for this one.
But 2008 was no ordinary election. Blacks, for example, usually cast only 11% of the vote, but, in 2008, they made up 14% of the vote. Latinos increased their share of the vote by 1.5% and college kids almost doubled their vote share. Almost all pollsters are using the 2008 turnout models in weighting their samples. Rasmussen, more accurately, uses a mixture of 2008 and 2004 turnouts in determining his sample. That’s why his data usually is better for Romney.
But polling indicates a widespread lack of enthusiasm among Obama’s core demographic support due to high unemployment, disappointment with his policies and performance, and the lack of novelty in voting for a black candidate now that he has already served as president.
If you adjust virtually any of the published polls to reflect the 2004 vote, not the 2008 vote, they show the race either tied or Romney ahead, a view much closer to reality.
I agree with this angle in the sense that Democratic voter turnout will be dulled by Obama's issues with not withdrawing troops fully from abroad (2008 campaign promise), Fast and Furious scandal, Middle East flubbing/Israel diss, and the economy (Not to mention stimulus and PPACA). There was a lot of enthusiasm behind Obama with the newness of a black president, as Biden would say, a clean and articulate one that will necessarily go missing. So I'm wondering if the true voter sentiment is as different as Romney by 2 points or more with future sight into 2012 voter turnout. Food for thought in the sub-50 days of daily presidential opinion polls
On September 22 2012 10:32 Defacer wrote: Hey Americans,
Just a reminder to get your firearm permit or driver's licence before the election!
(You should watch the video, it's pretty funny.)
Just got my concealed handgun permit yesterday. I'm locked and loaded.
Dumb video. Why wouldn't you need a picture I.D. with your name and a photo of you on it? That would make it so easy to vote as someone else (or someone who is dead, which has happened in the past)
Voter fraud of the sort these I.D. laws are supposedly meant to combat is actually very, very rare.
Why not prevent it?
Enforcing the voter ID is expensive. States are expected to cover the costs of IDs. It will cost Missouri $6 million for the first year of implementation and $4 million every subsequent year.
So you it's worth questioning the motives of states that would commit so many resources to prevent a marginal crime with little benefit that has only occurred ten times the past ten years. It's like having a photo ID and an age requirement for going to the supermarket because occasionally, people die from peanut allergies.
Basically, any law that discriminates against a large population of people while providing little public benefit or addressing a very narrow problem is a bad law. Voter IDs only serve to prevent the least effective form of poll/vote rigging. It embodies the kind of regulations that most libertarians and conservatives typically deplore.
The fact that more conservatives on this board aren't admonishing is pretty sad.
At least one person has died and 20 others injured after demonstrators in Benghazi attempted to stom the headquarters of militias based in the eastern Libyan city.
Protesters seized the headquarters of the Ansar al-Sharia militia and evicted its fighters from its bases on Friday night.
The confrontation appeared to be part of a co-ordinated sweep of militia headquarters buildings by police, government troops and activists following a mass public demonstration against armed groups earlier in the day.
Ansar al-Sharia has been linked to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi last week in which J Christopher Stevens, US ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans died amid demonstrations over a YouTube video deemed insulting to Prophet Muhammad.
The group denies any involvement in the killing of Stevens.
Chanting "Libya, Libya," hundreds of demonstrators entered the compound, pulling down militia flags and torching a vehicle inside the headquarters, Ansar al-Sharia's main base in Benghazi - once an internal security base under former leader Muammar Gaddafi.
People in the crowd waved swords and even a meat cleaver, shouting "No more al-Qaeda!" and "The blood we shed for freedom shall not go in vain!"
They tore down the banner of group while chanting “no no to the brigades”.
Second brigade targeted
After storming the Ansar al-Sharia compound, protesters made their way to the headquarters of Rafallah Sehati, an official brigade of the Libyan defence ministry.
The confrontation left one person dead and 20 others wounded.
It was not immediately clear who had started the shooting.
Ismail Salabi, leader of the Rafallah Sehati brigade, which is credited with securing the nation for parliamentary elections, told Al Jazeera's correspondent in Benghazi, Hoda Abdel-Hamid, that his vehicle was shot at about 4km from the base.
Salabi described the attack as an "assassination attempt".
The Libyan military chief of staff and defence minister both alluded to "Gaddafi loyalists" as being responsible for the raid.
The wounded, however, dismissed such allegations, saying instead that the government and its brigades responded in a violent manner reminiscent of the days of Gaddafi.
'Like the Bastille'
In addition to the attack on the US consulate, Ansar al-Sharia is also believed to be behind several attacks in recent months.
"After what happened at the American consulate, the people of Benghazi had enough of the extremists," Hassan Ahmed, a demonstrator, said.
"They did not give allegiance to the army. So the people broke in and they fled.
"This place is like the Bastille. This is where Gaddafi controlled Libya from, and then Ansar al-Sharia took it over. This is a turning point for the people of Benghazi."
Adusalam al-Tarhouni, a government worker who arrived with the first wave of protesters, said several pickup vehicles with Ansar al-Sharia fighters had initially confronted the protesters and opened fire.
Two protesters were shot in the leg, he said.
"After that [the fighters] got into their trucks and drove away," he said. "When we got in, we found four prisoners in the compound and set them free."
Our correspondent said: "We went there to hear their slogans and basically what they are saying is that they reject insults to the prophet but they also refuse terrorism in their city.
"They have also called for the disbanding of the militias, chanting: 'What are you waiting for?' They're asking the government how long it will take before they do that."
Groups like Ansar al-Sharia, which are said to have played a role in helping to topple the Gaddafi regime, have been accused of kidnappings and killings.
Protests against video
Friday night's raids followed protests earlier in the day when around 30,000 protesters from the Save Benghazi group marched through the city's al-Kish Square, which was a key battleground in the uprising that overthrew Gaddafi.
At the same time, about 3,000 supporters of Ansar al-Sharia group gathered in the same area.
Waving black Islamic flags, they chanted against the anti-Islam video as also cartoons of Prophet Muhammad published by a French satirical weekly.
"Our demonstration is in support of the messenger of God, and to condemn the abuse of Islam and Muslims carried out by any given country, chief among them France and the US," an Ansar al-Sharia member told the AFP news agency.
"It wasn't enough for them to produce a film denigrating the prophet in America, off goes France insisting on publishing cartoons in its newspaper that are offensive to our prophet. We will never tolerate that."
I mean, it's not exactly the Disney ending we're hoping for, but it is indicative of how the perception of terrorism and extremist is changing in the Middle East. Baby steps.
Just got my concealed handgun permit yesterday. I'm locked and loaded.
Dumb video. Why wouldn't you need a picture I.D. with your name and a photo of you on it? That would make it so easy to vote as someone else (or someone who is dead, which has happened in the past)
Voter fraud of the sort these I.D. laws are supposedly meant to combat is actually very, very rare.
Why not prevent it?
Enforcing the voter ID is expensive. States are expected to cover the costs of IDs. It will cost Missouri $6 million for the first year of implementation and $4 million every subsequent year.
So you it's worth questioning the motives of states that would commit so many resources to prevent a marginal crime with little benefit that has only occurred ten times the past ten years. It's like having a photo ID and a legal age for going to the supermarket because occasionally, people die from peanut allergies.
Basically, any law that discriminates against a large population of people while providing little public benefit or addressing a very narrow problem is a bad law. Voter IDs only serve to prevent the least effective form of poll/vote rigging. It embodies the kind of regulations that most libertarians and conservatives typically deplore.
The fact that more conservatives on this board aren't admonishing is pretty sad.
That does seem pretty expensive. From the doc it looks like the majority of the costs are things most voters wouldn't think of. For example you can't just let people get their ID's at the DMV - there aren't enough of them and they don't cover enough hours. So you'd need a lot more manpower (and payroll!) to pull it off. I imagine when voter ID laws were first introduced it was a lot cheaper - but the courts struck them down so now they cost a lot.
If cheaper alternatives to voter ID exist they'd certainly be worth exploring.
Just got my concealed handgun permit yesterday. I'm locked and loaded.
Dumb video. Why wouldn't you need a picture I.D. with your name and a photo of you on it? That would make it so easy to vote as someone else (or someone who is dead, which has happened in the past)
Voter fraud of the sort these I.D. laws are supposedly meant to combat is actually very, very rare.
Why not prevent it?
Enforcing the voter ID is expensive. States are expected to cover the costs of IDs. It will cost Missouri $6 million for the first year of implementation and $4 million every subsequent year.
So you it's worth questioning the motives of states that would commit so many resources to prevent a marginal crime with little benefit that has only occurred ten times the past ten years. It's like having a photo ID and a legal age for going to the supermarket because occasionally, people die from peanut allergies.
Basically, any law that discriminates against a large population of people while providing little public benefit or addressing a very narrow problem is a bad law. Voter IDs only serve to prevent the least effective form of poll/vote rigging. It embodies the kind of regulations that most libertarians and conservatives typically deplore.
The fact that more conservatives on this board aren't admonishing is pretty sad.
That does seem pretty expensive. From the doc it looks like the majority of the costs are things most voters wouldn't think of. For example you can't just let people get their ID's at the DMV - there aren't enough of them and they don't cover enough hours. So you'd need a lot more manpower (and payroll!) to pull it off. I imagine when voter ID laws were first introduced it was a lot cheaper - but the courts struck them down so now they cost a lot.
If cheaper alternatives to voter ID exist they'd certainly be worth exploring.
This is the craziness of the partisan mind. The alternative is to have common sense and pass no law at all. It is incredibly obvious to anybody who gives it more than a second of thought that the voter ID laws, if passed nationally, would cost us hundreds of millions per election cycle to prevent a crime that is so ineffective at its goal and happens so infrequently that it is a joke. The reason it will never be looked at rationally is that the emotional impact of stopping cheaters overwhelms the logistical reality. It is just really sad that political strategy has gone back to making it illegal for American citizens to vote and now we are even paying a huge maintenance cost for it.
You know, I heard of some study that said that our country is even more partisan now than it was during the Civil War. I wonder if Obama gets re-elected if some Texans are gonna take up their guns.
I really don't understand this preoccupation with "popularity" abroad. Who gives a rat's ass about whether foreigners love the US unless the US is actually getting something out of it? The Middle East and Russia are two perfect examples of Obama trying to curry favor and love. It hasn't exactly gone well. Like I mentioned previously, respect and, in some cases, fear are what we need.
Yep
Seriously, xDaunt? You don't show Authority by fear. That's ridiculous. That's how you undermine your authority and look like a bully. What you want is deliberate, controlled, effective action. You want restraint. That's how you get other people to actually listen to you without wanting to stab you in the eye. It's like a father who beats his child. You aren't showing authority. You're showing that you're pathetic and insecure.
Maybe increasingly violent Muslim rioters and Jihadists will change you mind in time. The nature of a benevolent "Oh we're popular, so they'll like it" works on kids playing with their toys. The nations of the middle east are little kids. They're grown ups. Their driving force and aims come in direct contrast to stability in the region, the well-being of our diplomats, and peace for Israel, our ally. I want our next president to be less popular to folks like Ahmadinejad. He might enjoy a popularity guy like Chamberlain was in a past era.
Doesn't even matter if Obama had 100% control of every democrat in Washington, he wouldn't get anything done. Simply because the Republicans own enough votes and their goal is to vote the opposite on w/e Obama does so he doesn't get anything done. Then blame him for getting nothing done and use that as their motto and evidence that hes a bad president.
As you may or may not know, he was elected with Democrat majorities in both house and senate in the first two years of his presidency. The stimulus was passed in this time. The affordable care act was passed in this time. Every single house republican voted against it and it passed the House. In the Senate, they passed it with enough votes to preclude a philibuster. So yeah ... saying Obama was impotent to get things passed basically ignores his first 2 years. It rings pretty hollow. Don't believe me? Here's a Univision co-host Jorge Ramos,
"At the beginning of your government, you had control of both chambers of Congress, and yet you did not introduce immigration reform. And before I continue, I want for you to acknowledge that you did not keep your promise."
Obama was there. He was stuck. He answered that he was too busy, not pretending for an instant that he didn't have the Democrats in both houses of Congress to back him up. It rings hollow, man. Empty promises all around, and I suggest that it will suppress Democratic turnout on election night and push some independents into the Republican court.
Another foreign policy victory for the Obama Administration?
The US says it has lifted a ban on visits by New Zealand warships to US defence and coast guard bases around the world, further thawing relations after a 26-year stand-off on nuclear issues.
Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, made the announcement in Auckland during a visit to the country on Friday.
The visit - a first by a Pentagon chief in 30 years - signals a new era of US-New Zealand defence links breached in the mid-1980s, when Wellington declared itself nuclear-free and barred its ports to nuclear warships.
For the first time since the suspension of the ANZUS Treaty in 1986, the US will allow individual visits by Royal New Zealand Navy ships to US defence department or coast-guard facilities in the US and around the world, Panetta said.
"These changes make it easier for our militaries to engage in discussions on security issues and to hold co-operative engagements that increase our capacity to tackle common challenges," he said.
Panetta said the US would lift restrictions on military exercises and facilitate more talks with New Zealand even though the country maintained its long-held nuclear-free stance.
He said the US and New Zealand would work together despite lingering "differences of opinion in some limited areas".
'Very, very good' ties
While both countries acknowledged the improvement in relations and defence ties, Jonathan Coleman, New Zealand's defence minister, said his country had an independent foreign policy and that its anti-nuclear ban was not negotiable.
"I don't think that we should get too hung up about trying to turn the clock back to pre-1986 because the reality is that the relationship is very, very good," Coleman said following their meeting.
New Zealand has a small contingent of troops fighting with US and NATO troops in Afghanistan.
During his visit Panetta was scheduled to meet other senior leaders to explore deeper US military engagement with New Zealand as the US rebalances its forces to the Asia-Pacific as part of a new military strategy.
In July, the US and New Zealand agreed to hold regular high-level talks and to co-operate on maritime security, counter-terrorism, and peacekeeping operations.
Members of the US Marine Corps trained in New Zealand earlier this year, and New Zealand's navy took part in the multi-nation Rimpac maritime exercise ships in July.
As far as Voter ID, you have to understand that there are millions of people without a photo ID for whatever reason. Even if you hand them out for free, you have a logistical problem on your hands. It still takes significant effort for these people to get to where they need to go to get an ID. After all, if you can drive, then you already have an ID.
If voter fraud is considered a big issue, which it's not, then states should enact some sort of 5-year program to get everyone in their State photo IDs, and then require photo IDs. But that's not what they're doing. What they're doing is doing this before an election with the hope of disenfranchising voters.
In Pennsylvania, for instance, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania signed a stipulation (here) that attested that voter fraud is essentially not an issue. The number of people possibly disenfranchised from such a law could be up to one million. I'm sorry, but this is brazen voter suppression, and I'm shocked that people actually defend it.
Just got my concealed handgun permit yesterday. I'm locked and loaded.
Dumb video. Why wouldn't you need a picture I.D. with your name and a photo of you on it? That would make it so easy to vote as someone else (or someone who is dead, which has happened in the past)
Just got my concealed handgun permit yesterday. I'm locked and loaded.
Dumb video. Why wouldn't you need a picture I.D. with your name and a photo of you on it? That would make it so easy to vote as someone else (or someone who is dead, which has happened in the past)
Voter fraud of the sort these I.D. laws are supposedly meant to combat is actually very, very rare.
Why not prevent it?
Because in the process, you'll do more harm than good by enacting an effective poll tax on the millions of citizens who do not have some form of photo ID.
How hard is it to get an ID? If you are a citizen you should have a birth certificate and a social security card, last time I checked those are the only things you need to get one. If you lost those, you can get new ones, also not very hard to do.
it costs money, and is therefore a poll tax
edit: make it free, make the place to get it well-staffed and open evenings and weekends, and you get no complaint from me
Actually, from what I've seen, the States that have passed these voter I.D. laws offer such IDs free.
'From what you've seen.' Oh wow, that's great. Source?
On September 22 2012 11:37 kmillz wrote: How hard is it to get an ID? If you are a citizen you should have a birth certificate and a social security card, last time I checked those are the only things you need to get one.
And usually $15 to $25, a communte and a wait at the DMV during the work day. I wonder what kind of people would that affect the most...?
On September 22 2012 21:48 DoubleReed wrote: As far as Voter ID, you have to understand that there are millions of people without a photo ID for whatever reason. Even if you hand them out for free, you have a logistical problem on your hands. It still takes significant effort for these people to get to where they need to go to get an ID. After all, if you can drive, then you already have an ID.
If voter fraud is considered a big issue, which it's not, then states should enact some sort of 5-year program to get everyone in their State photo IDs, and then require photo IDs. But that's not what they're doing. What they're doing is doing this before an election with the hope of disenfranchising voters.
In Pennsylvania, for instance, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania signed a stipulation (here) that attested that voter fraud is essentially not an issue. The number of people possibly disenfranchised from such a law could be up to one million. I'm sorry, but this is brazen voter suppression, and I'm shocked that people actually defend it.
I can't believe the same party that shat on an embassy for not defending free speech while trying to tweet their way out of a crisis is the same party that is suppressing voters with remarkably bad laws.
The US says it has lifted a ban on visits by New Zealand warships to US defence and coast guard bases around the world, further thawing relations after a 26-year stand-off on nuclear issues.
Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, made the announcement in Auckland during a visit to the country on Friday.
The visit - a first by a Pentagon chief in 30 years - signals a new era of US-New Zealand defence links breached in the mid-1980s, when Wellington declared itself nuclear-free and barred its ports to nuclear warships.
For the first time since the suspension of the ANZUS Treaty in 1986, the US will allow individual visits by Royal New Zealand Navy ships to US defence department or coast-guard facilities in the US and around the world, Panetta said.
"These changes make it easier for our militaries to engage in discussions on security issues and to hold co-operative engagements that increase our capacity to tackle common challenges," he said.
Panetta said the US would lift restrictions on military exercises and facilitate more talks with New Zealand even though the country maintained its long-held nuclear-free stance.
He said the US and New Zealand would work together despite lingering "differences of opinion in some limited areas".
'Very, very good' ties
While both countries acknowledged the improvement in relations and defence ties, Jonathan Coleman, New Zealand's defence minister, said his country had an independent foreign policy and that its anti-nuclear ban was not negotiable.
"I don't think that we should get too hung up about trying to turn the clock back to pre-1986 because the reality is that the relationship is very, very good," Coleman said following their meeting.
New Zealand has a small contingent of troops fighting with US and NATO troops in Afghanistan.
During his visit Panetta was scheduled to meet other senior leaders to explore deeper US military engagement with New Zealand as the US rebalances its forces to the Asia-Pacific as part of a new military strategy.
In July, the US and New Zealand agreed to hold regular high-level talks and to co-operate on maritime security, counter-terrorism, and peacekeeping operations.
Members of the US Marine Corps trained in New Zealand earlier this year, and New Zealand's navy took part in the multi-nation Rimpac maritime exercise ships in July.
I never even knew we had frosty relations with New Zealand. Of all places, New Zealand!
The stories of the pro-American Libyan riots is very good to hear - and it's heartwarming to see the signs "Ambassador Chris was our friend". Apparently he was VERY well loved, and his death really polarized quite a bit of the population.
On September 22 2012 21:48 DoubleReed wrote: As far as Voter ID, you have to understand that there are millions of people without a photo ID for whatever reason. Even if you hand them out for free, you have a logistical problem on your hands. It still takes significant effort for these people to get to where they need to go to get an ID. After all, if you can drive, then you already have an ID.
If voter fraud is considered a big issue, which it's not, then states should enact some sort of 5-year program to get everyone in their State photo IDs, and then require photo IDs. But that's not what they're doing. What they're doing is doing this before an election with the hope of disenfranchising voters.
In Pennsylvania, for instance, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania signed a stipulation (here) that attested that voter fraud is essentially not an issue. The number of people possibly disenfranchised from such a law could be up to one million. I'm sorry, but this is brazen voter suppression, and I'm shocked that people actually defend it.
What sort of id is required now? Because prioritizing photo id is all well and good, but I think it's always good to have a few alternatives just to catch everyone. For instance, instead of photo id, there's a list of other approved documents you could bring in as long as you have your name on it and at least one has your address. And then to really catch everyone, allow a properly id person to vouch for them or a family member, or person of authority.
Does the current id system have similar alternatives and these are now considered inadequate? Or is the issue that no id is required whatsoever in certain states? Because between alternate documentation or vouching I'm pretty sure you can cover everyone without too much trouble in addition to limiting voter fraud.
I definitely agree that changing requirement in an election year is just dumb.
EPT
.
