|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 18 2020 18:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 17:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 18 2020 16:22 Wegandi wrote:On May 18 2020 11:19 iamthedave wrote:On May 18 2020 10:01 pmh wrote:
the argument that voter suppression is not a thing because european countries require a passport / ID card to vote doesn't really make sense.
Voter supression is not a thing imo because how hard can it be to get an ID card?
The argument that its to expensive makes little sense to me,its like 20$-30$ and it does last for years.
You need an ID to open a bank account,to do any sort of serious transaction.
Like if you want to register with a doctors practice,a library or even a gym,when you sign a rental contract,to prove your age when you go into a bar and what not. If people have trouble getting an idea the council can help you with it.
In usa i believe people get their voting ballots by mail so they must have an official adress at least. How is it difficult to get an id if you have an official adress,i honestly dont see it.
Apparently it's quite difficult for many African Americans, to the point its widely considered to have been put into place specifically to disenfranchise them. No, apparently it's assumed to be so, but no one has ever provided data on this point. To me, it's as racist or more racist assuming blacks can't get IDs because....why? (I don't want to put words into folks mouths here) I lived in the South for most of my life and my anecdotal experiences on this matter is that black folks aren't kind to this view of them. They're not too dumb or too poor to get an ID considering ID's are practically required in modern life to do basically anything. People should be able to apply for a government grant for an ID if they can prove they can't afford it. I'm against national ID schemes on principal but I guess in modern life you do kinda need ID anyway. I also hate national ID schemes, but I doubt there is anyone besides the homeless who can't afford 20-25$ every 8-10 years for a state ID. We have EBT, SCHIP, SSDI, and a host of other various welfare schemes for the poor. The argument that this is precluding someone from voting is not really persuasive, especially when you need IDs for vices (alchohol, tobacco, etc. which is very popular primarily in lower socio-economic rungs), banking, getting a job, traveling by plane, etc. If we really want to talk about voter disenfranchisement allowing felons to vote should be number one priority. Like, it's not even close, but instead of fighting for this most of the effort is on voter ID stuff which is a losing proposition. In the mind of the average person (outside of progressive circles they'll think you a moron because basically everyone has an ID now-a-days) this will get you laughed out of the room.
I dunno man.
I have no ID, and because I'm on disability I get about £200/month to live on and i spend all of that on food and bills (I had to quit smoking because I couldn't afford it) and I don't even have a family to support. I can imagine having kids and having to choose between feeding them and having ID, I know which I would choose.
I'm not having a go at you here, but I think people who aren't poor don't really understand what its like to not have enough money for stuff like this. Its only $25 is a good argument if that $25 is in someone's pocket instead of being a weeks food for their family.
|
On May 18 2020 18:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 18:07 Wegandi wrote:On May 18 2020 17:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 18 2020 16:22 Wegandi wrote:On May 18 2020 11:19 iamthedave wrote:On May 18 2020 10:01 pmh wrote:
the argument that voter suppression is not a thing because european countries require a passport / ID card to vote doesn't really make sense.
Voter supression is not a thing imo because how hard can it be to get an ID card?
The argument that its to expensive makes little sense to me,its like 20$-30$ and it does last for years.
You need an ID to open a bank account,to do any sort of serious transaction.
Like if you want to register with a doctors practice,a library or even a gym,when you sign a rental contract,to prove your age when you go into a bar and what not. If people have trouble getting an idea the council can help you with it.
In usa i believe people get their voting ballots by mail so they must have an official adress at least. How is it difficult to get an id if you have an official adress,i honestly dont see it.
Apparently it's quite difficult for many African Americans, to the point its widely considered to have been put into place specifically to disenfranchise them. No, apparently it's assumed to be so, but no one has ever provided data on this point. To me, it's as racist or more racist assuming blacks can't get IDs because....why? (I don't want to put words into folks mouths here) I lived in the South for most of my life and my anecdotal experiences on this matter is that black folks aren't kind to this view of them. They're not too dumb or too poor to get an ID considering ID's are practically required in modern life to do basically anything. People should be able to apply for a government grant for an ID if they can prove they can't afford it. I'm against national ID schemes on principal but I guess in modern life you do kinda need ID anyway. I also hate national ID schemes, but I doubt there is anyone besides the homeless who can't afford 20-25$ every 8-10 years for a state ID. We have EBT, SCHIP, SSDI, and a host of other various welfare schemes for the poor. The argument that this is precluding someone from voting is not really persuasive, especially when you need IDs for vices (alchohol, tobacco, etc. which is very popular primarily in lower socio-economic rungs), banking, getting a job, traveling by plane, etc. If we really want to talk about voter disenfranchisement allowing felons to vote should be number one priority. Like, it's not even close, but instead of fighting for this most of the effort is on voter ID stuff which is a losing proposition. In the mind of the average person (outside of progressive circles they'll think you a moron because basically everyone has an ID now-a-days) this will get you laughed out of the room. I dunno man. I have no ID, and because I'm on disability I get about £200/month to live on and i spend all of that on food and bills (I had to quit smoking because I couldn't afford it) and I don't even have a family to support. I can imagine having kids and having to choose between feeding them and having ID, I know which I would choose. I'm not having a go at you here, but I think people who aren't poor don't really understand what its like to not have enough money for stuff like this. Its only $25 is a good argument if that $25 is in someone's pocket instead of being a weeks food for their family.
You live in the UK, why are you using your country as a proxy for America? We have EBT (food stamps) for folks who are that poor. Trust me, no one in America outside the homeless can legitimately claim that 20-25$ every decade is too much a burden for something so important in today's world.
|
On May 18 2020 18:34 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 18:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 18 2020 18:07 Wegandi wrote:On May 18 2020 17:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 18 2020 16:22 Wegandi wrote:On May 18 2020 11:19 iamthedave wrote:On May 18 2020 10:01 pmh wrote:
the argument that voter suppression is not a thing because european countries require a passport / ID card to vote doesn't really make sense.
Voter supression is not a thing imo because how hard can it be to get an ID card?
The argument that its to expensive makes little sense to me,its like 20$-30$ and it does last for years.
You need an ID to open a bank account,to do any sort of serious transaction.
Like if you want to register with a doctors practice,a library or even a gym,when you sign a rental contract,to prove your age when you go into a bar and what not. If people have trouble getting an idea the council can help you with it.
In usa i believe people get their voting ballots by mail so they must have an official adress at least. How is it difficult to get an id if you have an official adress,i honestly dont see it.
Apparently it's quite difficult for many African Americans, to the point its widely considered to have been put into place specifically to disenfranchise them. No, apparently it's assumed to be so, but no one has ever provided data on this point. To me, it's as racist or more racist assuming blacks can't get IDs because....why? (I don't want to put words into folks mouths here) I lived in the South for most of my life and my anecdotal experiences on this matter is that black folks aren't kind to this view of them. They're not too dumb or too poor to get an ID considering ID's are practically required in modern life to do basically anything. People should be able to apply for a government grant for an ID if they can prove they can't afford it. I'm against national ID schemes on principal but I guess in modern life you do kinda need ID anyway. I also hate national ID schemes, but I doubt there is anyone besides the homeless who can't afford 20-25$ every 8-10 years for a state ID. We have EBT, SCHIP, SSDI, and a host of other various welfare schemes for the poor. The argument that this is precluding someone from voting is not really persuasive, especially when you need IDs for vices (alchohol, tobacco, etc. which is very popular primarily in lower socio-economic rungs), banking, getting a job, traveling by plane, etc. If we really want to talk about voter disenfranchisement allowing felons to vote should be number one priority. Like, it's not even close, but instead of fighting for this most of the effort is on voter ID stuff which is a losing proposition. In the mind of the average person (outside of progressive circles they'll think you a moron because basically everyone has an ID now-a-days) this will get you laughed out of the room. I dunno man. I have no ID, and because I'm on disability I get about £200/month to live on and i spend all of that on food and bills (I had to quit smoking because I couldn't afford it) and I don't even have a family to support. I can imagine having kids and having to choose between feeding them and having ID, I know which I would choose. I'm not having a go at you here, but I think people who aren't poor don't really understand what its like to not have enough money for stuff like this. Its only $25 is a good argument if that $25 is in someone's pocket instead of being a weeks food for their family. You live in the UK, why are you using your country as a proxy for America? We have EBT (food stamps) for folks who are that poor. Trust me, no one in America outside the homeless can legitimately claim that 20-25$ every decade is too much a burden for something so important in today's world.
I wasn't trying to use my country as a proxy, I just assumed that the poor in the US are just as poor as the poor in the UK.
Apparently not though, and America's poor have disposable income.
|
I'd argue that holding votes during the week instead of say, sunday, and having no compulsory time or day off to go vote, letting people deal with their employer, while at the same time reducing vote by mail does more than ID for disenfranchisement.
Closing polling places to have people cover more distance forcing them to take more time off work, also.
Aggressively removing people from voting lists, as well, depending on the reason (not voted for a few years is not a good one)
Here, as Biff said, we need an id to vote(everyone has a national id), and you need to have registered to the town when you moved in (or at any point after that) to get a voter card and have your name on the registry and be assigned a polling location.
Not an issue.
All our votes are during weekends.
|
On May 18 2020 19:39 Nouar wrote:
I'd argue that holding votes during the week instead of say, sunday, and having no compulsory time or day off to go vote, letting people deal with their employer, while at the same time reducing vote by mail does more than ID for disenfranchisement.
Closing polling places to have people cover more distance forcing them to take more time off work, also.
Aggressively removing people from voting lists, as well, depending on the reason (not voted for a few years is not a good one)
Here, as Biff said, we need an id to vote(everyone has a national id), and you need to have registered to the town when you moved in (or at any point after that) to get a voter card and have your name on the registry and be assigned a polling location.
Not an issue.
All our votes are during weekends.
Having an assigned voting location if you vote on the actual election day also helps a lot. That means there is a max amount that could show up that day for that location. Based on that and previous years voting % you can calculate likely queue times. Thus if you can do it and if it ends up with massive queues it is a clear case of voter obstruction.
Could even make a law of a maximum of 1 000 (number pending) people scheduled per line/location if it gets bad enough.
Here there is a law requiring you to register where you live. So easy for them to combine that with the list of eligible citizens and know everybody that should be able to vote and send out a notice to them. Being forced to register for it would likely massively decrease voter numbers here.
|
On May 18 2020 19:39 Nouar wrote:
I'd argue that holding votes during the week instead of say, sunday, and having no compulsory time or day off to go vote, letting people deal with their employer, while at the same time reducing vote by mail does more than ID for disenfranchisement.
Closing polling places to have people cover more distance forcing them to take more time off work, also.
Aggressively removing people from voting lists, as well, depending on the reason (not voted for a few years is not a good one)
Here, as Biff said, we need an id to vote(everyone has a national id), and you need to have registered to the town when you moved in (or at any point after that) to get a voter card and have your name on the registry and be assigned a polling location.
Not an issue.
All our votes are during weekends.
I'm inclined to think the same. Add to that the prison industrial complex, broken/missing equipment, last minute polling place location changes with no effective notification mechanism, no verifiable paper trail in several states, and a host more issues. Voter ID is just one of many voter suppression techniques used by US politicians.
|
Compulsory voting has its issues, but making suppression and get-out-the-vote gamesmanship irrelevant is a big plus. I'm surprised we're one of the only countries that does it.
We also have fairly good ID coverage, but we don't even use them for voting. This seems to work okay. If everyone votes as a matter of course, identity issues become obvious when the second copy of the person tries to vote. If the first vote is the fraudulent one, it does still get cast, but we can at least see how often this happens, and it's always been rare.
|
On May 18 2020 13:14 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 04:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 18 2020 04:18 cLutZ wrote:On May 17 2020 23:22 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 17 2020 16:05 Atreides wrote:
I mean a caucus is at least as much voter suppression as id requirements. It's humorous reading this, because europeans in this thread are all on board with republican voter suppression as an established fact, but in the US the most common complaint of voter suppression is ID requirements, and as far as I have seen that is completely accepted in european systems. The problem isn't the system, it is how it is used. See also the citizenship question on the census. Is that a horrible question we shouldn't be asking? No, it is important information we should be collecting. However, one of the people involved with it died and his daughter was kind enough to release information that showed the sinister reasons behind the question. If all US states gave IDs to everyone for free then no one would have a problem with voter ID laws. You'll notice that key difference between the US and Europe. Unfortunately this is not true. All states that require an ID for voting also provide a free ID for that purpose on request. By way of example see the bottom right portion of the Indiana fee schedule here. So, we know as fee for obtaining an ID is not a good faith argument. I use Indiana because I had to cite their voter ID case recently. Indeed, usually the argument is that its way too hard for some voters to prove they are US citizens. Again, by way of example, Indiana requires: 1) Proof of Identity 2) Proof of Lawful Status 3) Social Security Number 4) 2 Documents Proving Indiana Residence Details of what you can use in the link. In practice, you basically need your birth certificate or naturalization papers from DHS, plus a tax document and one other misc document (like an electric bill). These requirements have become quite controversial. You're missing the intention of providing free IDs. If there is any person who can vote who cannot obtain voter id for any reason that is unacceptable. The ID requiring documentation that people don't have isn't any better than charging money that people can't afford. Don't get hung up on the terminology. More familiar with NC where our voter ID laws have been struck down in courts. The intention of these laws was clear that they were meant to disenfranchise voters and that is stated clearly in the courts verdict on the case. That is a bad objection that is kind of self defeating when you look at it. There are always going to people who aren't going to be able to exercise a right in any system with security. The FFL background checks have lots of false flags where you are denied even though you 100% have the right to buy a gun. There is an appeal process, and for most people that process is much much more expensive, time consuming, and difficult than it is to obtain the required ID docs for a voter ID in even the most difficult states. That is a feature of any security system.
I don't expect literally everyone to get an ID. I just expect you to understand that someone arguing against IDs costing money isn't any different than someone who thinks documentation people can't get is the same problem. The intent is to disenfranchise voters. Argue that disenfranchising some voters is worthwhile to provide security for a problem that doesn't exist if you want, but don't tell me I'm arguing in bad faith.
On May 18 2020 16:22 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 11:19 iamthedave wrote:On May 18 2020 10:01 pmh wrote:
the argument that voter suppression is not a thing because european countries require a passport / ID card to vote doesn't really make sense.
Voter supression is not a thing imo because how hard can it be to get an ID card?
The argument that its to expensive makes little sense to me,its like 20$-30$ and it does last for years.
You need an ID to open a bank account,to do any sort of serious transaction.
Like if you want to register with a doctors practice,a library or even a gym,when you sign a rental contract,to prove your age when you go into a bar and what not. If people have trouble getting an idea the council can help you with it.
In usa i believe people get their voting ballots by mail so they must have an official adress at least. How is it difficult to get an id if you have an official adress,i honestly dont see it.
Apparently it's quite difficult for many African Americans, to the point its widely considered to have been put into place specifically to disenfranchise them. No, apparently it's assumed to be so, but no one has ever provided data on this point. To me, it's as racist or more racist assuming blacks can't get IDs because....why? (I don't want to put words into folks mouths here) I lived in the South for most of my life and my anecdotal experiences on this matter is that black folks aren't kind to this view of them. They're not too dumb or too poor to get an ID considering ID's are practically required in modern life to do basically anything.
Is a court striking down a law because of disparate impact an assumption?.
On May 18 2020 19:39 Nouar wrote:
I'd argue that holding votes during the week instead of say, sunday, and having no compulsory time or day off to go vote, letting people deal with their employer, while at the same time reducing vote by mail does more than ID for disenfranchisement.
The law I've been citing in NC that was struck down did most of this:
The measure requires voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls and shortens the early voting period from 17 to 10 days. It will also end pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-old voters who will be 18 on Election Day and eliminates same-day voter registration.
People on the left generally support voter id laws. It's the other stuff that disenfranchises them along with it that they rally against.
|
I saw this a few days ago. This is something I'm interested in, in a morbid sort of way. How much longer before the unrest turns civil and large scale where the national guard has to be called? It seems as if there is a lot of things going on that are just perfect drivers for a clash of police state vs protesters/rioters. There was that nonsense in Michigan (?) where a congresswoman had a detail of black, armed gun owners escort her to work because she didn't feel safe. There wasn't an incident and the people who were there were on record stating that they weren't looking for trouble. Not how I would have gone about it, but it would have triggered a lot of conversations had the capitol police done anything to hinder them.
As the pandemic moves from public health crisis to partisan flashpoint, the debate over the coronavirus response in the U.S. is becoming increasingly nasty – and, in some cases, violent.
It's not just the clusters of gun-toting protesters at state capitols. In sporadic incidents across the country, disputes over emergency measures have turned into shootings, fistfights and beatings. Stories abound of intimidation over masking. And armed right-wing groups have threatened contact tracers and people who they say "snitch" on neighbors and businesses violating health orders.
Researchers who study the links between polarization and violence stress that these incidents are still rare and extreme reactions; polls show that the majority of Americans support and are abiding by distancing measures. But there are fears that the pandemic — especially landing in an election year — has the potential to inflame divisions to dangerous levels if left unchecked.
Source
|
On May 18 2020 20:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 19:39 Nouar wrote:
I'd argue that holding votes during the week instead of say, sunday, and having no compulsory time or day off to go vote, letting people deal with their employer, while at the same time reducing vote by mail does more than ID for disenfranchisement.
Closing polling places to have people cover more distance forcing them to take more time off work, also.
Aggressively removing people from voting lists, as well, depending on the reason (not voted for a few years is not a good one)
Here, as Biff said, we need an id to vote(everyone has a national id), and you need to have registered to the town when you moved in (or at any point after that) to get a voter card and have your name on the registry and be assigned a polling location.
Not an issue.
All our votes are during weekends. I'm inclined to think the same. Add to that the prison industrial complex, broken/missing equipment, last minute polling place location changes with no effective notification mechanism, no verifiable paper trail in several states, and a host more issues. Voter ID is just one of many voter suppression techniques used by US politicians.
What's your response to Wegandi's pooh-poohing of Voter ID being a problem for African Americans?
|
At the end of it the Republic survives through bread and circuses. The circus problem doesn't seem to be an issue so I don't think that any real unrest comes until people run out of food
|
On May 18 2020 18:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 18:07 Wegandi wrote:On May 18 2020 17:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 18 2020 16:22 Wegandi wrote:On May 18 2020 11:19 iamthedave wrote:On May 18 2020 10:01 pmh wrote:
the argument that voter suppression is not a thing because european countries require a passport / ID card to vote doesn't really make sense.
Voter supression is not a thing imo because how hard can it be to get an ID card?
The argument that its to expensive makes little sense to me,its like 20$-30$ and it does last for years.
You need an ID to open a bank account,to do any sort of serious transaction.
Like if you want to register with a doctors practice,a library or even a gym,when you sign a rental contract,to prove your age when you go into a bar and what not. If people have trouble getting an idea the council can help you with it.
In usa i believe people get their voting ballots by mail so they must have an official adress at least. How is it difficult to get an id if you have an official adress,i honestly dont see it.
Apparently it's quite difficult for many African Americans, to the point its widely considered to have been put into place specifically to disenfranchise them. No, apparently it's assumed to be so, but no one has ever provided data on this point. To me, it's as racist or more racist assuming blacks can't get IDs because....why? (I don't want to put words into folks mouths here) I lived in the South for most of my life and my anecdotal experiences on this matter is that black folks aren't kind to this view of them. They're not too dumb or too poor to get an ID considering ID's are practically required in modern life to do basically anything. People should be able to apply for a government grant for an ID if they can prove they can't afford it. I'm against national ID schemes on principal but I guess in modern life you do kinda need ID anyway. I also hate national ID schemes, but I doubt there is anyone besides the homeless who can't afford 20-25$ every 8-10 years for a state ID. We have EBT, SCHIP, SSDI, and a host of other various welfare schemes for the poor. The argument that this is precluding someone from voting is not really persuasive, especially when you need IDs for vices (alchohol, tobacco, etc. which is very popular primarily in lower socio-economic rungs), banking, getting a job, traveling by plane, etc. If we really want to talk about voter disenfranchisement allowing felons to vote should be number one priority. Like, it's not even close, but instead of fighting for this most of the effort is on voter ID stuff which is a losing proposition. In the mind of the average person (outside of progressive circles they'll think you a moron because basically everyone has an ID now-a-days) this will get you laughed out of the room. I dunno man. I have no ID, and because I'm on disability I get about £200/month to live on and i spend all of that on food and bills (I had to quit smoking because I couldn't afford it) and I don't even have a family to support. I can imagine having kids and having to choose between feeding them and having ID, I know which I would choose. I'm not having a go at you here, but I think people who aren't poor don't really understand what its like to not have enough money for stuff like this. Its only $25 is a good argument if that $25 is in someone's pocket instead of being a weeks food for their family.
it's a pretty arcane discussion anyway. The US government could just pay for people's IDs. For 300 million people 20 bucks per card is like 6 billion every few years. That's pocket change for Uncle Sam. I guess the bigger issue from a voting barrier standpoint is people who don't even have an address.
Btw how does voting work for people in the US who don't have an address because they're say homeless, how do they prove their identity?
|
On May 19 2020 04:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 18:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 18 2020 18:07 Wegandi wrote:On May 18 2020 17:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 18 2020 16:22 Wegandi wrote:On May 18 2020 11:19 iamthedave wrote:On May 18 2020 10:01 pmh wrote:
the argument that voter suppression is not a thing because european countries require a passport / ID card to vote doesn't really make sense.
Voter supression is not a thing imo because how hard can it be to get an ID card?
The argument that its to expensive makes little sense to me,its like 20$-30$ and it does last for years.
You need an ID to open a bank account,to do any sort of serious transaction.
Like if you want to register with a doctors practice,a library or even a gym,when you sign a rental contract,to prove your age when you go into a bar and what not. If people have trouble getting an idea the council can help you with it.
In usa i believe people get their voting ballots by mail so they must have an official adress at least. How is it difficult to get an id if you have an official adress,i honestly dont see it.
Apparently it's quite difficult for many African Americans, to the point its widely considered to have been put into place specifically to disenfranchise them. No, apparently it's assumed to be so, but no one has ever provided data on this point. To me, it's as racist or more racist assuming blacks can't get IDs because....why? (I don't want to put words into folks mouths here) I lived in the South for most of my life and my anecdotal experiences on this matter is that black folks aren't kind to this view of them. They're not too dumb or too poor to get an ID considering ID's are practically required in modern life to do basically anything. People should be able to apply for a government grant for an ID if they can prove they can't afford it. I'm against national ID schemes on principal but I guess in modern life you do kinda need ID anyway. I also hate national ID schemes, but I doubt there is anyone besides the homeless who can't afford 20-25$ every 8-10 years for a state ID. We have EBT, SCHIP, SSDI, and a host of other various welfare schemes for the poor. The argument that this is precluding someone from voting is not really persuasive, especially when you need IDs for vices (alchohol, tobacco, etc. which is very popular primarily in lower socio-economic rungs), banking, getting a job, traveling by plane, etc. If we really want to talk about voter disenfranchisement allowing felons to vote should be number one priority. Like, it's not even close, but instead of fighting for this most of the effort is on voter ID stuff which is a losing proposition. In the mind of the average person (outside of progressive circles they'll think you a moron because basically everyone has an ID now-a-days) this will get you laughed out of the room. I dunno man. I have no ID, and because I'm on disability I get about £200/month to live on and i spend all of that on food and bills (I had to quit smoking because I couldn't afford it) and I don't even have a family to support. I can imagine having kids and having to choose between feeding them and having ID, I know which I would choose. I'm not having a go at you here, but I think people who aren't poor don't really understand what its like to not have enough money for stuff like this. Its only $25 is a good argument if that $25 is in someone's pocket instead of being a weeks food for their family. it's a pretty arcane discussion anyway. The US government could just pay for people's IDs. For 300 million people 20 bucks per card is like 6 billion every few years. That's pocket change for Uncle Sam. I guess the bigger issue from a voting barrier standpoint is people who don't even have an address. Btw how does voting work for people in the US who don't have an address because they're say homeless, how do they prove their identity?
Homeless just don't vote, can't say for sure though. We have like a 20% turnout for voting.
We're having this same problem with the bailout money, people who don't have any bank accounts and those who don't file taxes. There's no trace of them in the government systems and we don't know where they currently live.
|
honestly, the justification for voter ID laws is very weak in my opinion. Regardless of what you may think its purpose is, they are primarily intended to prevent voter fraud, which is already incredibly rare (something that happens like 1 in 15 million votes). It really is not worth doing on that basis alone.
My impression is that the evidence suggesting that voter ID laws reduce minority turnout is pretty mixed. Therefore, I see no good reason to create voter ID laws when it is clear it will be of negligible benefit (which is giving it more respect than it deserves) but it may or may not decrease minority turnout. Voter ID laws have pretty broad public support because most people tend to think voter fraud is a much bigger problem than it really is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States#Studies_and_analysis
|
On May 19 2020 03:14 Sermokala wrote:
At the end of it the Republic survives through bread and circuses. The circus problem doesn't seem to be an issue so I don't think that any real unrest comes until people run out of food
'Let them eat stocks'
- Trump 2020
On a more serious note, what happens if Biden is found unfit for the role right after the election?
|
You change the definition of unfit
On a more serious note, how do you define "fit for the role of the president of the United States?
|
On May 19 2020 08:34 Sent. wrote:
You change the definition of unfit
On a more serious note, how do you define "fit for the role of the president of the United States?
Being able to get approved by senate after an impeachment vote while being stark raving mad comes to mind.
|
So Trump has removed four inspectors general since the start of april. How are you guys feeling about those checks and balances? The state department one was investigating Pompeo for bypassing congress on a Saudi weapons deal.
Apparently now the 'acting' replacement IGs are doing oversight while working at the department they oversee at the same time, creating a nice conflict of interest.
Senator Grassley is worried but I have little doubt that he will fold to the administration like republican senators like to do.
|
Trump is taking hydroxychloroquine
Any other elected member of the government doing the same?
|
On May 19 2020 14:33 CorsairHero wrote:
Trump is taking hydroxychloroquine
Any other elected member of the government doing the same?
I think they should increase the daily dose. Just to be sure. You don't wanna risk anything with the president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
