|
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 June 23 2022 03:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2022 03:01 gobbledydook wrote:On June 23 2022 02:11 Kyadytim wrote:
If you require a social security card to get an ID that permits voting, that's a problem for people who don't have the necessary documents. To get a replacement social security card, you need a passport or proof of ID and a birth certificate. To get a replacement birth certificate you need photo ID. To get a passport, you need proof of citizenship and photo ID.
This is about as far down this rabbit hole as I'm willing to research, but also, not all of these documents can be acquired for free. If you lost everything in a fire, or never had them because your parents lost them, or any other reason, you can probably expect to spend tens of hours and at least $50 (probably more like $100) on getting the documentation needed. This is functionally a poll tax that inhibits poor people from voting. Yet people routinely use IDs to buy alcohol. It's not an issue of access. It's a matter of will. once you look older than 25 you no longer get ID'd which is the majority of the voting population. This is a wildly ignorant statement, so loaded.
Also, plenty of places don't card altogether regardless of how old someone looks because a sale is a sale and they need to make a profit for their business to survive. People aren't suddenly strict, law-abiding citizens just because they own a liquor store.
|
On June 23 2022 03:24 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2022 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On June 23 2022 03:01 gobbledydook wrote:On June 23 2022 02:11 Kyadytim wrote:
If you require a social security card to get an ID that permits voting, that's a problem for people who don't have the necessary documents. To get a replacement social security card, you need a passport or proof of ID and a birth certificate. To get a replacement birth certificate you need photo ID. To get a passport, you need proof of citizenship and photo ID.
This is about as far down this rabbit hole as I'm willing to research, but also, not all of these documents can be acquired for free. If you lost everything in a fire, or never had them because your parents lost them, or any other reason, you can probably expect to spend tens of hours and at least $50 (probably more like $100) on getting the documentation needed. This is functionally a poll tax that inhibits poor people from voting. Yet people routinely use IDs to buy alcohol. It's not an issue of access. It's a matter of will. once you look older than 25 you no longer get ID'd which is the majority of the voting population. This is a wildly ignorant statement, so loaded. Also, plenty of places don't card altogether regardless of how old someone looks because a sale is a sale and they need to make a profit for their business to survive. People aren't suddenly strict, law-abiding citizens just because they own a liquor store.
This is not always incorrect. In an extremely funny situation, when i was in the US with my father about 15-20 years ago, he wanted to buy some beer from the supermarket, and they wanted to see his ID for that. My father was about 45 years old at that point in time, and definitively didn't look as if he was 18 years old.
|
|
|
Has any of you ever been without a valid voting ID and then procured one? What was that like for you? The only person in this thread who has said they went through that was Kwark, and he said it was a pain in the ass.
|
On June 23 2022 04:33 Djabanete wrote:
Has any of you ever been without a valid voting ID and then procured one? What was that like for you? The only person in this thread who has said they went through that was Kwark, and he said it was a pain in the ass.
I checked a box while renewing my driver license that said "register to vote" and got my ID in the mail a few weeks later. Wasn't also simultaneously trying to transfer over foreign documents at the time though, which simplified things.
|
On June 23 2022 03:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2022 03:24 StasisField wrote:On June 23 2022 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On June 23 2022 03:01 gobbledydook wrote:On June 23 2022 02:11 Kyadytim wrote:
If you require a social security card to get an ID that permits voting, that's a problem for people who don't have the necessary documents. To get a replacement social security card, you need a passport or proof of ID and a birth certificate. To get a replacement birth certificate you need photo ID. To get a passport, you need proof of citizenship and photo ID.
This is about as far down this rabbit hole as I'm willing to research, but also, not all of these documents can be acquired for free. If you lost everything in a fire, or never had them because your parents lost them, or any other reason, you can probably expect to spend tens of hours and at least $50 (probably more like $100) on getting the documentation needed. This is functionally a poll tax that inhibits poor people from voting. Yet people routinely use IDs to buy alcohol. It's not an issue of access. It's a matter of will. once you look older than 25 you no longer get ID'd which is the majority of the voting population. This is a wildly ignorant statement, so loaded. Also, plenty of places don't card altogether regardless of how old someone looks because a sale is a sale and they need to make a profit for their business to survive. People aren't suddenly strict, law-abiding citizens just because they own a liquor store. This is not always incorrect. In an extremely funny situation, when i was in the US with my father about 15-20 years ago, he wanted to buy some beer from the supermarket, and they wanted to see his ID for that. My father was about 45 years old at that point in time, and definitively didn't look as if he was 18 years old.
Most places I go to in the US scan ID regardless as company policy. Like they can’t continue the purchase unless an id is scanned. The employees and store can get fucked if they allow someone underage to buy cigs or beer. Bars are a different story, if you look over 30 not many card. Restaurants do though
|
On June 23 2022 04:33 Djabanete wrote:
Has any of you ever been without a valid voting ID and then procured one? What was that like for you? The only person in this thread who has said they went through that was Kwark, and he said it was a pain in the ass.
This is why issuing ID should be handled from a perspective that getting cards in hands is how the efficacy of the census is judged. It would be kind of like issuing a summons. You’re basically hunted down so that people can confirm you got your card
|
United States43213 Posts
On June 23 2022 04:33 Djabanete wrote:
Has any of you ever been without a valid voting ID and then procured one? What was that like for you? The only person in this thread who has said they went through that was Kwark, and he said it was a pain in the ass.
It wasn’t just the immigrant thing either.
On April 06 2021 07:28 KwarK wrote:
When I first came to the US and tried to get a drivers license I printed out the requirements ahead of time from the DMV website, brought in what I needed and expected to get it pretty simply. I ran into the following hurdles.
1) My lease paperwork was 28 days old. The requirement said a lease signed within the last 90 days. The lady told me that it had to be older than 30 days. I showed her their internal requirements and that it just said less than 90. She said that the requirement wasn’t specific about the age but that she knew it was greater than 30. I pointed out that it was specific, it was specifically less than 90, but she wouldn’t take it.
2) My bank statement was deemed unacceptable as proof of address. They hadn’t yet mailed me one because I’d just come to the US so I went to the bank and explained and they were nice enough to print one out for me on bank letterhead paper and put a business card from the branch manager on it. This was not good enough. It had my address at the top, it was a statement of my account, and I got it from the bank but apparently it wasn’t a bank statement showing my address.
3) I was told I needed an authorized translation of my British drivers license so that they could read it. I asked her which language they needed it translated to and she said English. I told her that in England we speak English and asked which part of the license she was unable to read. She pointed at the expiration date which was in DD/MM/YYYY format. However given it was something like 03/04/2016 she couldn’t have known it wasn’t MM/DD/YYYY. In any case I told her those were numerals and that I couldn’t translate those. She wouldn’t accept that explanation. In retrospect I’m lucky I didn’t say they were Arabic numerals, I’d have ended up in Gitmo.
I then drove to a business called MVD Express, gave them the same documents, paid $70, and got my US license. The secret ingredient to getting documented was money.
If you have to take time off work and ride the bus to go to the DMV and they don’t have an office in your town then you’re never gonna get one. I’m pretty good at navigating bureaucracies which is why I brought the DMV’s list of document requirements with me to the DMV so that I could show why everything I had met their requirements and I still couldn’t get one in two attempts.
|
On June 23 2022 04:33 Djabanete wrote:
Has any of you ever been without a valid voting ID and then procured one? What was that like for you? The only person in this thread who has said they went through that was Kwark, and he said it was a pain in the ass.
Not for voting but getting ID at the DMV I had to bring with me social security card, passport, birth certificate, two proofs of address which was a pain in the ass because I didn't have the right documents. For that I had to go to the bank and ask them to print out a document with my home address on it (rather than PO Box), and I was lucky the DMV clerk took a scanned copy of my rental agreement rather than the original.
So all in all yeah if I didn't speak English, have access to car, have a bank account, and parent who kept birth certificate it would have been even more hassle than it already was.
|
On June 23 2022 06:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2022 04:33 Djabanete wrote:
Has any of you ever been without a valid voting ID and then procured one? What was that like for you? The only person in this thread who has said they went through that was Kwark, and he said it was a pain in the ass. It wasn’t just the immigrant thing either. Show nested quote +On April 06 2021 07:28 KwarK wrote:
When I first came to the US and tried to get a drivers license I printed out the requirements ahead of time from the DMV website, brought in what I needed and expected to get it pretty simply. I ran into the following hurdles.
1) My lease paperwork was 28 days old. The requirement said a lease signed within the last 90 days. The lady told me that it had to be older than 30 days. I showed her their internal requirements and that it just said less than 90. She said that the requirement wasn’t specific about the age but that she knew it was greater than 30. I pointed out that it was specific, it was specifically less than 90, but she wouldn’t take it.
2) My bank statement was deemed unacceptable as proof of address. They hadn’t yet mailed me one because I’d just come to the US so I went to the bank and explained and they were nice enough to print one out for me on bank letterhead paper and put a business card from the branch manager on it. This was not good enough. It had my address at the top, it was a statement of my account, and I got it from the bank but apparently it wasn’t a bank statement showing my address.
3) I was told I needed an authorized translation of my British drivers license so that they could read it. I asked her which language they needed it translated to and she said English. I told her that in England we speak English and asked which part of the license she was unable to read. She pointed at the expiration date which was in DD/MM/YYYY format. However given it was something like 03/04/2016 she couldn’t have known it wasn’t MM/DD/YYYY. In any case I told her those were numerals and that I couldn’t translate those. She wouldn’t accept that explanation. In retrospect I’m lucky I didn’t say they were Arabic numerals, I’d have ended up in Gitmo.
I then drove to a business called MVD Express, gave them the same documents, paid $70, and got my US license. The secret ingredient to getting documented was money. If you have to take time off work and ride the bus to go to the DMV and they don’t have an office in your town then you’re never gonna get one. I’m pretty good at navigating bureaucracies which is why I brought the DMV’s list of document requirements with me to the DMV so that I could show why everything I had met their requirements and I still couldn’t get one in two attempts.
That is fucking mad.
DMV has this wondrous hate around it, and I've never had that experience here (except the wait times). The bureaucracy is astounding. If no one makes money I guess it's not worth improving which is why you wind up with that garbage...
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
On June 22 2022 19:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2022 13:04 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 12:22 WombaT wrote:On June 22 2022 11:54 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 11:45 WombaT wrote:
It’s total, total nonsense at best, irresponsible and dangerous at worst to perpetuate this nonsense, as we’ve already seen.
How’s about, if fraud is such a concern, voter IDs come in, free for all eligible voters.
No? Oh you don’t want to secure elections while making it as easy as possible to vote? Hm wonder why that is…
From a personal perspective it’s a damn shame that it’s the current incarnation of the GOP that’s had success in delegitimising faith in various institution and not some comparable leftist movement, god they have a really entrenched captive audience.
Of all the people to harbour thoughts of Revolution it’s THAT lot? Think I've said this before but every state that requires voter ID also provides it for free. Obviously you have to provide a few things on your end or it would be pointless. But it is free. At least that was the case last time I checked. And more and more the analysis is showing that voter ID laws don't reduce turnout, which we kinda already had an inkling of anyways. "Jim Crow 2.0" in Georgia turned out to be nothing of the kind. As for your last comment the institutions have discredited themselves. People are just finally paying attention. + Show Spoiler +Note: not an endorsement of stolen election rhetoric. Paying attention how? Believing in errant nonsense in lieu of trusting flawed institutions isn’t exactly an upgrade. It’s a complex, flawed world we live in but throwing the baby out with the bath water and going with a ‘Play your own reality’ book isn’t a great solution. Nonetheless yes you are correct, I don’t actually have any particular issue with voter ID laws provided they’re easy to obtain. Plenty of places do this with no disenfranchisement, indeed generally higher turnouts. Maybe I’ve missed it, if ‘the Steal’ was a legitimately held belief and I was a legislator, I’d be pushing my party, and indeed across the aisle to institute changes that prevent such an eventuality. Instead they seem to be rather doubling down on the rhetoric with sweet fanny Adam’s on the former front. Pretty much everything from the presidency, to the Congress, the educational system, even the health profession, they are beclowning themselves. by the way, Joe's Biden absurd claims about the Georgia ID law and how it was going to suppress votes (and the subtext there that elections there will not be legitimate) is of the same variety as "stop the steal." So I'm not interested in high ground arguments. In the PA gov primary, the top Democrat candidate (now their nominee) ran ads for the "stop the steal" guy in the GOP primary because he wanted to run against him (and will get his wish!). So I know even Democrat politicians don't believe their own rhetoric. (they tried to do something similar in a congressional primary but that guy just lost today). So disagree or not, we can already see from primary results that stolen election rhetoric doesn't actually mean that much to GOP voters. "Stop the steal" types are losing way, way more than they are winning (but there are exceptions). As a poll question you may get GOP voter saying it's not legit for years, but that's not new for either party, it just varies in form. The January 6th protest is just a in-your-face-version. I'd have to check but I wonder how many people here were hoping the electoral college would invalidate Trump's 2016 win? Remember there was a big push and we had more faithless electors than just about any other election in history. Yet that campaign had the same chance of success as the riot. The Electoral Count act may actually be fixed to make sure there is no ambiguity about the VP's role, either (that legislation has been on thin ice because Democrats wanted to push their whole election agenda into it). So regardless of poll questions, or silly things some activists manage the get into party platforms, those are not the issues driving voters and Trump's influence is waning. I hope it's gone by the time he might try to run again, but it is weakening. So from my perspective the silliness of the the stolen election debate is not the most pressing issue facing Americans. It's just what Democrats want to focus on because Biden sucks and is unpopular and they don't have jack squat to run on in congress, so they might as well do this. tl:dr stop the steal is not a strong animating force in GOP politics (with exceptions) and unlike Democrats after 2016, pretty much no elected Republicans are basing their criticism of Joe Biden on him being illegitimate. Just that he's a terrible president. ‘ Pretty much everything from the presidency, to the Congress, the educational system, even the health profession, they are beclowning themselves.’ The media in general, ‘Marxist’ universities etc etc. At this stage are there institutions this particular section of conservatism does have any faith in? I presume you’re a more traditional conservative and perhaps not an able spokesman in this domain. It strikes me very much as reactionary populism from people who are unable or unwilling to countenance living in pluralist societies that have institutions with specific roles who may on occasion do things one doesn’t personally like. If institutions are so flawed where’s the big push, the ideas to fix them coming from? Much of the impetus, at least visibly is dealing with the real important issues of the day like abortion, or trying to get rid of trans people. I’m sure there are other items on the agenda I have missed from my particular island the other side of the agenda. I would agree that the Dems are clutching on to the issue to detract from their own failings and it’s not the most important issue facing Americans, it’s still AN important issue. I mean we’re not talking 5-10% of people holding these kind of positions. Point taken re gripes about legitimacy, albeit with differing degrees of extremity. I’ve encountered enough belief that Russia handed Trump the election and pushed Brexit over the line to think those are pretty widespread views, ones I don’t personally agree with. One can still think the Electoral College is a bad rule to play the game by but still accept that it’s the system the game is currently played with.
A lot's been said here the last 20 hours or so but
Ideas are out there, it's just that most people on your side don't like them lol. There's no united push because the right is fragmented, just as it's been for the past 100 years. It needs outside forces to unite it (i.e. Communism). Something so obviously horrific that they put aside their differences. Without that foe, you get a split of people who want to return the world to the way (they think) it was or those who want to adapt.
The current debate is whether the institutions we have can be saved or not. although again perhaps this is the perennial debate on the right no matter what is going on. If conservatives normally want to preserve the institutions we have, but eventually most of them decide they aren't worth saving...well that sounds like a recipe for a bad time. The political version of the golden rule, i.e. don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have, is not going to last on the right much longer if it sees the left run roughshot over the rules already in place. And at least to me the last few years have shown the left really accelerating. Since Obergefell they apparently think, or at least act, as if they are invincible. The little bit of conversation and convincing they tried to do is basically gone. Now of course in my mind that's the ideological and temperamental inclination of the left anyways, but that's why politics never ends 
idk writing in a hurry i don't feel this post is really that helpful... but we have a presidency that has become more important and yet less serious, a Congress that doesn't do anything, a media that hates differing ideas, an education system that doesn't educate, and a bureaucracy that has more and more partisan bureaucrats. It's conquest's second law coming to life. So do you burn it down or try to fix it?
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26026 Posts
On June 23 2022 08:59 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2022 19:14 WombaT wrote:On June 22 2022 13:04 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 12:22 WombaT wrote:On June 22 2022 11:54 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 11:45 WombaT wrote:
It’s total, total nonsense at best, irresponsible and dangerous at worst to perpetuate this nonsense, as we’ve already seen.
How’s about, if fraud is such a concern, voter IDs come in, free for all eligible voters.
No? Oh you don’t want to secure elections while making it as easy as possible to vote? Hm wonder why that is…
From a personal perspective it’s a damn shame that it’s the current incarnation of the GOP that’s had success in delegitimising faith in various institution and not some comparable leftist movement, god they have a really entrenched captive audience.
Of all the people to harbour thoughts of Revolution it’s THAT lot? Think I've said this before but every state that requires voter ID also provides it for free. Obviously you have to provide a few things on your end or it would be pointless. But it is free. At least that was the case last time I checked. And more and more the analysis is showing that voter ID laws don't reduce turnout, which we kinda already had an inkling of anyways. "Jim Crow 2.0" in Georgia turned out to be nothing of the kind. As for your last comment the institutions have discredited themselves. People are just finally paying attention. + Show Spoiler +Note: not an endorsement of stolen election rhetoric. Paying attention how? Believing in errant nonsense in lieu of trusting flawed institutions isn’t exactly an upgrade. It’s a complex, flawed world we live in but throwing the baby out with the bath water and going with a ‘Play your own reality’ book isn’t a great solution. Nonetheless yes you are correct, I don’t actually have any particular issue with voter ID laws provided they’re easy to obtain. Plenty of places do this with no disenfranchisement, indeed generally higher turnouts. Maybe I’ve missed it, if ‘the Steal’ was a legitimately held belief and I was a legislator, I’d be pushing my party, and indeed across the aisle to institute changes that prevent such an eventuality. Instead they seem to be rather doubling down on the rhetoric with sweet fanny Adam’s on the former front. Pretty much everything from the presidency, to the Congress, the educational system, even the health profession, they are beclowning themselves. by the way, Joe's Biden absurd claims about the Georgia ID law and how it was going to suppress votes (and the subtext there that elections there will not be legitimate) is of the same variety as "stop the steal." So I'm not interested in high ground arguments. In the PA gov primary, the top Democrat candidate (now their nominee) ran ads for the "stop the steal" guy in the GOP primary because he wanted to run against him (and will get his wish!). So I know even Democrat politicians don't believe their own rhetoric. (they tried to do something similar in a congressional primary but that guy just lost today). So disagree or not, we can already see from primary results that stolen election rhetoric doesn't actually mean that much to GOP voters. "Stop the steal" types are losing way, way more than they are winning (but there are exceptions). As a poll question you may get GOP voter saying it's not legit for years, but that's not new for either party, it just varies in form. The January 6th protest is just a in-your-face-version. I'd have to check but I wonder how many people here were hoping the electoral college would invalidate Trump's 2016 win? Remember there was a big push and we had more faithless electors than just about any other election in history. Yet that campaign had the same chance of success as the riot. The Electoral Count act may actually be fixed to make sure there is no ambiguity about the VP's role, either (that legislation has been on thin ice because Democrats wanted to push their whole election agenda into it). So regardless of poll questions, or silly things some activists manage the get into party platforms, those are not the issues driving voters and Trump's influence is waning. I hope it's gone by the time he might try to run again, but it is weakening. So from my perspective the silliness of the the stolen election debate is not the most pressing issue facing Americans. It's just what Democrats want to focus on because Biden sucks and is unpopular and they don't have jack squat to run on in congress, so they might as well do this. tl:dr stop the steal is not a strong animating force in GOP politics (with exceptions) and unlike Democrats after 2016, pretty much no elected Republicans are basing their criticism of Joe Biden on him being illegitimate. Just that he's a terrible president. ‘ Pretty much everything from the presidency, to the Congress, the educational system, even the health profession, they are beclowning themselves.’ The media in general, ‘Marxist’ universities etc etc. At this stage are there institutions this particular section of conservatism does have any faith in? I presume you’re a more traditional conservative and perhaps not an able spokesman in this domain. It strikes me very much as reactionary populism from people who are unable or unwilling to countenance living in pluralist societies that have institutions with specific roles who may on occasion do things one doesn’t personally like. If institutions are so flawed where’s the big push, the ideas to fix them coming from? Much of the impetus, at least visibly is dealing with the real important issues of the day like abortion, or trying to get rid of trans people. I’m sure there are other items on the agenda I have missed from my particular island the other side of the agenda. I would agree that the Dems are clutching on to the issue to detract from their own failings and it’s not the most important issue facing Americans, it’s still AN important issue. I mean we’re not talking 5-10% of people holding these kind of positions. Point taken re gripes about legitimacy, albeit with differing degrees of extremity. I’ve encountered enough belief that Russia handed Trump the election and pushed Brexit over the line to think those are pretty widespread views, ones I don’t personally agree with. One can still think the Electoral College is a bad rule to play the game by but still accept that it’s the system the game is currently played with. A lot's been said here the last 20 hours or so but Ideas are out there, it's just that most people on your side don't like them lol. There's no united push because the right is fragmented, just as it's been for the past 100 years. It needs outside forces to unite it (i.e. Communism). Something so obviously horrific that they put aside their differences. Without that foe, you get a split of people who want to return the world to the way (they think) it was or those who want to adapt. The current debate is whether the institutions we have can be saved or not. although again perhaps this is the perennial debate on the right no matter what is going on. If conservatives normally want to preserve the institutions we have, but eventually most of them decide they aren't worth saving...well that sounds like a recipe for a bad time. The political version of the golden rule, i.e. don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have, is not going to last on the right much longer if it sees the left run roughshot over the rules already in place. And at least to me the last few years have shown the left really accelerating. Since Obergefell they apparently think, or at least act, as if they are invincible. The little bit of conversation and convincing they tried to do is basically gone. Now of course in my mind that's the ideological and temperamental inclination of the left anyways, but that's why politics never ends idk writing in a hurry i don't feel this post is really that helpful... but we have a presidency that has become more important and yet less serious, a Congress that doesn't do anything, a media that hates differing ideas, an education system that doesn't educate, and a bureaucracy that has more and more partisan bureaucrats. It's conquest's second law coming to life. So do you burn it down or try to fix it?
Perhaps the left stopped bothering trying to convince people who patently can’t be convinced?
, i.e. don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have, is not going to last on the right much longer if it sees the left run roughshot over the rules already in place - Im unsure how this rule of thumb scans with ‘you can’t nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the final year of your term, except when you can’. We’re not even talking running roughshod over precedent, but a precedent they themselves established.
but we have a presidency that has become more important and yet less serious, a Congress that doesn't do anything, a media that hates differing ideas, an education system that doesn't educate, and a bureaucracy that has more and more partisan bureaucrats.
What are the proposes fixes to this in this particular lane?
Let’s solve the issue of a President that’s less serious, but more important by backing and doubling down on a guy who invited a coup?
Congress, ok that’s a fair shout.
There’s plenty of differing ideas in the media. It’s the free market/the marketplace of ideas when it suits, moaning incessantly when it isn’t. I agree there’s clear flaws in the sector, but this is what a commercially driven, corporatised media is going to look like, it will largely bend with the wind of the majority, or particular captive audiences. What is the proposed alternative here? The left have some idea of what that looks like at least.
The education system is in dire need of reform, top to bottom, structurally. Sure. That reform is not ‘stop educating people on things like Marxism and America will be fine’, which seems to be the main gripe.
Bureaucratic composition I know not enough about to pontificate about.
|
It's the difference between wanting to make things better or making things worse for the sake of making them worse. There really isn't a discussion to be had or convincing you can do when one side isn't convinced reality exists.
When the right learns how to read and do math again we will be able to talk like people again.
|
On June 23 2022 04:33 Djabanete wrote:
Has any of you ever been without a valid voting ID and then procured one? What was that like for you? The only person in this thread who has said they went through that was Kwark, and he said it was a pain in the ass.
I'm curious as well for the US experience. Here in Brazil it depends a lot on where you live, and a lot has changed since I grabbed mine some 15 years ago. It wasn't a particularly traumatic experience back then though it was time consuming (of course, it varies a ton from place to place). It's become much more simplified recently and from what I understand, for 2022 it can be done entirely online by taking selfies and pictures of your documents.
|
In January 6 committee news, the committee will have a hearing tomorrow and are delaying all subsequent hearings until July, due to new evidence surfacing, including documentary video footage of Trump and his inner circle before and after the january 6th insurrection.
|
On June 23 2022 11:57 StasisField wrote:
In January 6 committee news, the committee will have a hearing tomorrow and are delaying all subsequent hearings until July, due to new evidence surfacing, including documentary video footage of Trump and his inner circle before and after the january 6th insurrection.
That's some great spin for taking a 3-day weekend before a 2 week vacation and then going back to work
|
|
|
On June 23 2022 09:33 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2022 08:59 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 19:14 WombaT wrote:On June 22 2022 13:04 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 12:22 WombaT wrote:On June 22 2022 11:54 Introvert wrote:On June 22 2022 11:45 WombaT wrote:
It’s total, total nonsense at best, irresponsible and dangerous at worst to perpetuate this nonsense, as we’ve already seen.
How’s about, if fraud is such a concern, voter IDs come in, free for all eligible voters.
No? Oh you don’t want to secure elections while making it as easy as possible to vote? Hm wonder why that is…
From a personal perspective it’s a damn shame that it’s the current incarnation of the GOP that’s had success in delegitimising faith in various institution and not some comparable leftist movement, god they have a really entrenched captive audience.
Of all the people to harbour thoughts of Revolution it’s THAT lot? Think I've said this before but every state that requires voter ID also provides it for free. Obviously you have to provide a few things on your end or it would be pointless. But it is free. At least that was the case last time I checked. And more and more the analysis is showing that voter ID laws don't reduce turnout, which we kinda already had an inkling of anyways. "Jim Crow 2.0" in Georgia turned out to be nothing of the kind. As for your last comment the institutions have discredited themselves. People are just finally paying attention. + Show Spoiler +Note: not an endorsement of stolen election rhetoric. Paying attention how? Believing in errant nonsense in lieu of trusting flawed institutions isn’t exactly an upgrade. It’s a complex, flawed world we live in but throwing the baby out with the bath water and going with a ‘Play your own reality’ book isn’t a great solution. Nonetheless yes you are correct, I don’t actually have any particular issue with voter ID laws provided they’re easy to obtain. Plenty of places do this with no disenfranchisement, indeed generally higher turnouts. Maybe I’ve missed it, if ‘the Steal’ was a legitimately held belief and I was a legislator, I’d be pushing my party, and indeed across the aisle to institute changes that prevent such an eventuality. Instead they seem to be rather doubling down on the rhetoric with sweet fanny Adam’s on the former front. Pretty much everything from the presidency, to the Congress, the educational system, even the health profession, they are beclowning themselves. by the way, Joe's Biden absurd claims about the Georgia ID law and how it was going to suppress votes (and the subtext there that elections there will not be legitimate) is of the same variety as "stop the steal." So I'm not interested in high ground arguments. In the PA gov primary, the top Democrat candidate (now their nominee) ran ads for the "stop the steal" guy in the GOP primary because he wanted to run against him (and will get his wish!). So I know even Democrat politicians don't believe their own rhetoric. (they tried to do something similar in a congressional primary but that guy just lost today). So disagree or not, we can already see from primary results that stolen election rhetoric doesn't actually mean that much to GOP voters. "Stop the steal" types are losing way, way more than they are winning (but there are exceptions). As a poll question you may get GOP voter saying it's not legit for years, but that's not new for either party, it just varies in form. The January 6th protest is just a in-your-face-version. I'd have to check but I wonder how many people here were hoping the electoral college would invalidate Trump's 2016 win? Remember there was a big push and we had more faithless electors than just about any other election in history. Yet that campaign had the same chance of success as the riot. The Electoral Count act may actually be fixed to make sure there is no ambiguity about the VP's role, either (that legislation has been on thin ice because Democrats wanted to push their whole election agenda into it). So regardless of poll questions, or silly things some activists manage the get into party platforms, those are not the issues driving voters and Trump's influence is waning. I hope it's gone by the time he might try to run again, but it is weakening. So from my perspective the silliness of the the stolen election debate is not the most pressing issue facing Americans. It's just what Democrats want to focus on because Biden sucks and is unpopular and they don't have jack squat to run on in congress, so they might as well do this. tl:dr stop the steal is not a strong animating force in GOP politics (with exceptions) and unlike Democrats after 2016, pretty much no elected Republicans are basing their criticism of Joe Biden on him being illegitimate. Just that he's a terrible president. ‘ Pretty much everything from the presidency, to the Congress, the educational system, even the health profession, they are beclowning themselves.’ The media in general, ‘Marxist’ universities etc etc. At this stage are there institutions this particular section of conservatism does have any faith in? I presume you’re a more traditional conservative and perhaps not an able spokesman in this domain. It strikes me very much as reactionary populism from people who are unable or unwilling to countenance living in pluralist societies that have institutions with specific roles who may on occasion do things one doesn’t personally like. If institutions are so flawed where’s the big push, the ideas to fix them coming from? Much of the impetus, at least visibly is dealing with the real important issues of the day like abortion, or trying to get rid of trans people. I’m sure there are other items on the agenda I have missed from my particular island the other side of the agenda. I would agree that the Dems are clutching on to the issue to detract from their own failings and it’s not the most important issue facing Americans, it’s still AN important issue. I mean we’re not talking 5-10% of people holding these kind of positions. Point taken re gripes about legitimacy, albeit with differing degrees of extremity. I’ve encountered enough belief that Russia handed Trump the election and pushed Brexit over the line to think those are pretty widespread views, ones I don’t personally agree with. One can still think the Electoral College is a bad rule to play the game by but still accept that it’s the system the game is currently played with. A lot's been said here the last 20 hours or so but Ideas are out there, it's just that most people on your side don't like them lol. There's no united push because the right is fragmented, just as it's been for the past 100 years. It needs outside forces to unite it (i.e. Communism). Something so obviously horrific that they put aside their differences. Without that foe, you get a split of people who want to return the world to the way (they think) it was or those who want to adapt. The current debate is whether the institutions we have can be saved or not. although again perhaps this is the perennial debate on the right no matter what is going on. If conservatives normally want to preserve the institutions we have, but eventually most of them decide they aren't worth saving...well that sounds like a recipe for a bad time. The political version of the golden rule, i.e. don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have, is not going to last on the right much longer if it sees the left run roughshot over the rules already in place. And at least to me the last few years have shown the left really accelerating. Since Obergefell they apparently think, or at least act, as if they are invincible. The little bit of conversation and convincing they tried to do is basically gone. Now of course in my mind that's the ideological and temperamental inclination of the left anyways, but that's why politics never ends idk writing in a hurry i don't feel this post is really that helpful... but we have a presidency that has become more important and yet less serious, a Congress that doesn't do anything, a media that hates differing ideas, an education system that doesn't educate, and a bureaucracy that has more and more partisan bureaucrats. It's conquest's second law coming to life. So do you burn it down or try to fix it? Perhaps the left stopped bothering trying to convince people who patently can’t be convinced? , i.e. don't give the government power you aren't willing to let your worst opponent have, is not going to last on the right much longer if it sees the left run roughshot over the rules already in place - Im unsure how this rule of thumb scans with ‘you can’t nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the final year of your term, except when you can’. We’re not even talking running roughshod over precedent, but a precedent they themselves established. but we have a presidency that has become more important and yet less serious, a Congress that doesn't do anything, a media that hates differing ideas, an education system that doesn't educate, and a bureaucracy that has more and more partisan bureaucrats. What are the proposes fixes to this in this particular lane? Let’s solve the issue of a President that’s less serious, but more important by backing and doubling down on a guy who invited a coup? Congress, ok that’s a fair shout. There’s plenty of differing ideas in the media. It’s the free market/the marketplace of ideas when it suits, moaning incessantly when it isn’t. I agree there’s clear flaws in the sector, but this is what a commercially driven, corporatised media is going to look like, it will largely bend with the wind of the majority, or particular captive audiences. What is the proposed alternative here? The left have some idea of what that looks like at least. The education system is in dire need of reform, top to bottom, structurally. Sure. That reform is not ‘stop educating people on things like Marxism and America will be fine’, which seems to be the main gripe. Bureaucratic composition I know not enough about to pontificate about.
at this point I've addressed the court thing like 7+ times in this thread so I won't again. Suffice to say that Supreme Court nominations normally have the following pattern: if you have the votes (i.e. presidency and congress controlled by the same party) then in presidential election years seats are filled, and if there is split control they are not. The exact same thing is true is midterm years. That was not unusual in either case. Moreover, I don't expect complete ideological consistency from anyone, again I bet I could go back to after election 2016 and see lots of posts about how Trump could be prevented from taking office. And if not here, I could lots of other places.
People on the right have ideas but one 1) most of them are non-starters to the left (even going so far as to disagree on the exact nature of the problem) and 2) because the media has a very distinct slant people are exposed to many of those ideas with them either being presented in the worst light possible or just having them be ignored. But the single sentence summary is the right is still debating whether or not and how to use state power versus trying to to use non-electoral means (culture, education, etc) to bring about the society they want to see. I think that's different than the left. Seems to me that all but the most hardcore all agree that the state should be used not just to protect those who need it, but to move people in the direction they want them to go. Conservatives aren't even all on the same page. I expect a good bit of pushback from those who say the small government rhetoric was all talk, but that's not correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
