US & NA Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Iron_Captain**

BaronIveagh wrote:
godardc wrote:
And nobody think that after this new cold war (the last decade), a warming could be good, thanks to Trump and Putin ? Maybe it is time to stop seing Russian as opponent and they will stop oppose America (even if I don't get how they could with their tiny GDP :p ) ?

I doubt they ever will stop, short of a replacement of Putin. You have to understand, this is a man will never NOT see the west as an opponent.

Actually, there was a time when Putin did not see the West as an opponent. The problem is kinda that the West never stopped seeing Russia as an opponent, and so Putin was pushed into seeing the West as an opponent as well.

**earlofburger**

godardc wrote:
And nobody think that after this new cold war (the last decade), a warming could be good, thanks to Trump and Putin ? Maybe it is time to stop seing Russian as opponent and they will stop oppose America (even if I don't get how they could with their tiny GDP :p ) ?

Nah they have too much value as an evil boogeyman, There's a lot of money to be made in the "almost war business".

**Wolfblade**

Omega-soul wrote:

And Russia doesn't? How many people, political opponents, and journalists go "missing" over there again each year? You think the FBI/CIA/NSA are shady? How about the KGB, of which Putin was the head of?

That's astounding fact-checking skills from you.

Let me be your google - Putin highest rank in KGB was Lieutenant-colonel. He never was the head of KGB even remotely - he was the first assistant (vice-head os department) of counter-intelligence in GDR (Soviet Germany).
Then from 98 to 99 he indeed was the head of FSB.
And for your better understanding 1998 is the year of Economic default in Russia - so Putin was all about to reform the structure - basicly paper works.
Just for you to know and understand what kind of person he is - his specialization and education is Law. He is a lawyer/judge type man basicly. He is not a Rembo or something - yes of course he had a military career - but it involved more paperworks than muscleworks.

So when he is asked about missing people - he is not that type of man that would physically remove his opponents. He prefers to undermine them and keep in a short distance to control situation. And as any former special agent he prefers to work silently so no one ever knows, without any noise. Eliminating people is the noise. Organized eliminating people eventualy brings the same treatment to you.

And third thing you should know about Putin - he is not God of Russia - he has opponents in Russia - and i mean not those clowns you hear from the media - his opponents is a numbers of powerfull Russian Oligarchs, that controls various spheres in Russia.
Like Khodorkovsky - he was the real opponent. Does Putin eliminated him? No. He granted him a pardon. All those Oligarchs that failed to confront Putin just goes away (mostly in Britain) - they are don't killed. So by the number of Oligarchs/Buisnessman refugee you can see that elimination is not the regular instrument of Putin's Policy. He is a lawyer afterall.

P.S. well, Iron_captain nailed it first - I agree with him.

1. You're right, he was head of the FSB, not the KGB, my bad. Either way, neither are better than the CIA, FBI, or NSA.

2. I'm not sure why you think I think he personally kills/kidnaps/removes his opponents, that's just silly. I should expand on the "disappearances" as more than just "poof, they're never seen from again." Looking back, I realize the word choice was pretty poor as it obviously implies assassination.

3. Not sure why you think I think Putin is the God of Russia either. Obviously he has opponents, but realistically Putin has control of the country, and it's doubtful that anyone will take it from him currently.

**Ouze**

LordofHats wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Post all those stories if they are everywhere.

Or is this the often debunked “many were automatically registered, no evidence they voted” story?

It always is. The only story I've ever found of people who shouldn't be voting actually voting in any number was in Virginia, and the problem there would easily have been solved by proper purges of the voter rolls/verification of address. The problem wasn't even technically non-citizens voting the issue effected citizens too but certain corners focused completely on how non-citizens got caught in the rope.

There was a woman in Iowa who voted twice, for Trump, because she was afraid illegals were going to cast illegal votes and fix the election.

**Kilkrazy**

KTG17 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
earlofburger wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, Voter ID laws tend to disenfranchise people. Specifically, minorities, the poor, and the elderly.

Care to elaborate on that?

Just because I should probably give a bit of a more helpful answer, even if I feel it's a futile effort on this board:

As it has been explained, many of the demographics that have a hard time getting the required IDs are often demographics that are tend to vote a certain way (ie: Democratic), while almost all laws implementing voter ID requirements are passed by Republican legislatures.

One of the most obvious examples of voter ID laws and voting access was a few years ago in South Carolina I think. We had a big discussion on here and when you actually looked at the election results it made it pretty easy to see how each specific change affected the demographics: Early Registration (registering before you turned 18, if you will be 18 on the date of the election) was restricted, and that demographic voted Democrat. Sunday voting was eliminated, and that demographic was mainly black senior citizens being driven to polls after church voting Democrat. Early voting was cut down to fewer days (most early voters voted Democrat). For Voter IDs, Student IDs were not accepted (mostly voted Democrat), Concealed Carry IDs were accepted (mostly voted Republican), expired IDs were not allowed, unless you were over 60something (old people voted Republican). Etc.

One of the big red herrings you will often see is that Voter ID laws often target minorities, which ultimately brings the defense of "stop calling the GOP racist". I personally think that race really isn't the issue here, and that the GOP would be happy to get rid of any laws that disenfranchise minorities if they would vote Republican instead of Democrat.

I just got a new drivers license. I had to go in and get it and not order a new one online because its in a new format (REAL ID Act). The old one will keep me from gaining entry to federal buildings, or even flying on commercial flights in 2020.

Phase Location Enforcement Date
Phase 1 Restricted areas (i.e., areas accessible by agency personnel, contractors, and their guests) for DHS headquarters in Washington. April 21, 2014
Phase 2 Restricted areas for all Federal facilities and nuclear power plants. July 21, 2014
Phase 3 Semi-restricted areas (i.e., areas available to the general public but subject to ID-based access control) for most Federal facilities.
3a. Federal Security Levels 1 and 2 January 19, 2015
3b. Federal Security Levels 3, 4, and 5, and military facilities October 10, 2015
Phase 4 Boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft. A driver's license or identification card from a noncompliant state may only be used in conjunction with a second form of ID for boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft. October 1, 2020

https://www.flhsmv.gov/driver-licenses-id-cards/real-id/

If I have to go through getting the right ID to gain access to commercial flights, I sure as hell should have some ID to prove who I am when I go to vote.

It is a false equivalence.

**LordofHats**

The significant difference there is that we have a demonstrated threat where someone could get on a plane pretending to be someone else for extremely dangerous reasons. On the other hand, we have no demonstrated threat that requiring ID will stop. All incidents reported of voter fraud have either been 1) caught because the system works or 2) are easily solved by tightening up and coordinated across state lines when it comes to voter rolls.

So yeah. False equivalence. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that there is no reason to pass voter ID laws, except the presumption that they will disrupt the ability of opposition demographics to vote and when that's the only reason then it shouldn't be done never mind the absolute sleaziness of using politics and slandering millions of people for the sake of personal political gain.

But then I did just point out that the new GOP strategy is to disrupt the other side from voting rather than actually convincing anyone they're right a few pages ago didn't I

**NinthMusketeer**

gorgon wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
gorgon wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
I can't think of anything else the GOP could do to damage their long term prospects beyond what they already have done and are doing. There is no path forward in which they perform well politically in the 2020s. They have a base of delusional loyalists... and that's it. They have/are alienating every demographic that's trending towards increased political representation. They have hitched themselves to wagons that the majority of citizens and the majority of the first world is against them on (global warming, guns, abortion, foreign policy in general). They have no political values beyond partisan politics (I reiterate here that we live in an age where a Republican is by definition -not- a conservative) and even the positions they supposedly support are not at all popular without tremendous deception/the base's willing delusion. They are setting themselves up to be on the wrong side of the 2020 census. They are justifiably associated with racism, sexism, and countless social issues which go against what the majority of people want. They are strongly tied to the wealthy who are themselves heading for a social reckoning come the imminent economic downturn. Their image among millenials has been poisoned so badly it may never recover and when the next recession hits the same will happen with the next generation.

Even if they did an about-face right now it would be too little, too late. They have dug themselves the deepest political hole imaginable and Trump is the Balrog.

What? Lol man you need to travel around the country some. Most Americans don’t even know he is out of the country let alone what he said during his trip.

I would say many...most might be pushing it.

But I agree that the above is wishful thinking from one side of the political spectrum, and I don't even like Trump. That supposedly dead party controls Congress and the WH, the majority of governorships, and has installed a conservative majority in the SCOTUS. That seems pretty healthy to me even if their leader is a fool.

If Trump becomes a problem that threatens to drag down the rest of the GOP, they'll dump him and pivot. We just haven't reached that point yet.
I stated the 2020s to underline that I feel this is a long-term trend. It is a significant misinterpretation to see my post as a comment that the party is currently dead.

Since 2020 is 18 months away, it didn’t seem like a terribly long-term projection.

Besides, any snapshot of what the GOP and voters are today doesn’t necessarily reflect what they will be 10 years from now.

Millennials will become more fiscally conservative as they enter higher earnings years and begin to acquire property and accumulate assets. It happened to the Boomers and Gen X, and will happen again.

Political parties are also constantly evolving. Trump - empowered by a more rural, blue collar base - has changed the party for now. But he’s an old man, a singular personality, and someone who may have some serious legal issues soon. Let’s not forget that this supposedly extremist party ran moderates in the previous two presidential races.

I referred to an entire decade. Millenials are progressing dramatically less in wage growth and property ownership, the difficulty in doing so is making them increasingly bitter. You are right that the trend will go that way, but it is not a binary situation where it does or it doesn't; the degree to which it happens matters. You also only addressed one of many factors which I raised. To say political parties constantly evolve is true but ignores the nature that it is not a random process or one that cannot be predicted. Myself and many others have known for some time that the current GOP is the direction it's been heading in, and people have been saying so for decades. That the moderates the chose to run lost while extreme candidates won only further underscores what I am saying.

Captain Joystick wrote:
skyth wrote:
Sounds alot like the no true Scottsman falacy.

No True Scotsman is about making a generalization and then changing the definition of that generalization in order to disclude counter-examples that challenge it.

If anything, you're looking for association fallacy, in so far that Musketeer is suggesting the Republican party has sold its soul to partisan fighting so too has every self-described Republican; but this is the internet, where people wield hyperbole like a baby wields a gun.

Actually I think there's a very real possibility the whole party will split apart along reactionary and 'liberal' conservative lines in the future, but I've been saying that'll happen 'any day now' since the tea party and it still hasn't happened, so what do I know.

The crux of my argument is essentially this: if someone expresses values but acts against them they are not a representative of those values. Actions take precedence over words. If they had good reason to believe they were supporting those values while voting against them then I would not say that. But if a an individual has overwhelming, readily available, and abundantly clear evidence that they are acting against their own values yet do so anyways then that is simply it; they are not a representative of those values. Perhaps they do have such values but regardless they have been made strictly secondary to others that not only differ but run directly counter to them There is no association fallacy because there is no association.

I am stating that if an individual or group expresses a certain set of values but acts against those values then they do not represent them.

**Disciple of Fate**

I think Trump has been visited by his 'uncle that knows nuclear stuff' from beyond the grave:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44868727

...US President Donald Trump says there is "no time limit" for North Korea to denuclearise and that there is no need to rush the process.

It marks a shift in tone from Mr Trump who previously said nuclear disarmament would start "very quickly".

Last month, the US president and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un held historic talks and pledged to denuclearise the Korean peninsula.

The accord did not have a timetable for the process or plan to carry it out.

Since the meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Kim on 12 June, there has been little reported progress towards denuclearisation.

Last week North Korea accused the US of making "gangster-like" demands for the process, and branded the US attitude at high-level talks as "extremely troubling".

Mr Trump said on Tuesday that talks with Pyongyang were going fine.

"We have no time limit. We have no speed limit," the US president told reporters.

"Discussions are ongoing, and they're going very, very well," he said.

...

If discussions are going well when NK isn't showing up or berating Pompeo, what will he think of to cover when it all falls apart, how can he possibly pin this on Obama!

**Da Boss**

Seems like he can lie as much as he wants. The republican base will eat up any amount of bs.

**Bran Dawri**

whembly wrote:

Is it required required in <checks your map> Netherland? Or, is it something you cant really function in your society without it.

EDIT: fyi, for anyone curious, in Missouri's State Constitution you much provide some sort of IDs:
https://s1.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/ElectionGoVoteMissouri/acceptable_ids.pdf

It's required. My 3-year old son has a passport. Two, actually. WhenI I get back from Norway we're going to get one for our daughter (now 6 months old) as well. We could have just gotten him an ID-card for cheaper as that satisfies the law, but a passport is needed for travel outside the EU, ie for when we go to visit the wife's family in Brazil.

Funny story, when I first went to the US for work in Texas back in 2008, my only actually valid piece of ID was my passport with the visa in it, but literally everyone -including the police- would not accept it as an ID, but would accept my driver's licence, which isn't technically a valid ID even in the Netherlands.

**Disciple of Fate**

To add to the above passport ID discussion, I doubt the EU passport ID system would fly in the US, seeing as it includes fingerprint data. And you are required to carry it with you at all times for identification purposes (the fine is ~$90). Furthermore its not free either, they recently upped the renewal date to a decade, but it used to be 5 years for ~$50, so that still has a cost issue.

I assume the above is verging on a 1984 scenario to some in the US.

**Just Tony**

d-usa wrote:Post all those stories if they are everywhere.

Or is this the often debunked “many were automatically registered, no evidence they voted” story?

LordofHats wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Post all those stories if they are everywhere.

Or is this the often debunked “many were automatically registered, no evidence they voted” story?

It always is. The only story I've ever found of people who shouldn't be voting actually voting in any number was in Virginia, and the problem there would easily have been solved by proper purges of the voter rolls/verification of address. The problem wasn't even technically non-citizens voting the issue effected citizens too but certain corners focused completely on how non-citizens got caught in the rope.

All the stories I found originally were the HuffPo stories painting illegal alie... sorry, undocumented immigrants as doe eyed victims being ripped apart from their spouses and children, also included was the Polish doctor in Wisconsin (pretty sure, may have been Michigan) who were all the face of evil deportations. two thirds of the stories referenced the undocumented voting, including a mother living in Texas that was already supposed to be deported.

I commented on the yahoo posting of the stories, yet after a good ten minutes of trying to find my comments to link back to the articles, the same threads kept cycling back to the top: me lambasting idiot bigots in Captain Marvel comments, every single thing I posted in response to every Rachel Dolezal story I read, and some sanctuary city stories. If Yahoo had a way to search your comments from oldest, I'd have some links right away. As it stands, I'm at work and will get back to it.

Ouze wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Post all those stories if they are everywhere.

Or is this the often debunked “many were automatically registered, no evidence they voted” story?

It always is. The only story I've ever found of people who shouldn't be voting actually voting in any number was in Virginia, and the problem there would easily have been solved by proper purges of the voter rolls/verification of address. The problem wasn't even technically non-citizens voting the issue effected citizens too but certain corners focused completely on how non-citizens got caught in the rope.

There was a woman in Iowa who voted twice, for Trump, because she was afraid illegals were going to cast illegal votes and fix the election.

I also found one of my comments on a story where someone did time and lost their right to vote, voted, and got arrested for voter fraud.

I will accept that since I'm expected to do my own intel gathering for my claims, that you will do the same? Come back with a link.

Not denying it happened, idiots do stupid things constantly in the US. IF ANYTHING, it showcases how easy voter fraud can be committed. I can't see how an ID law wouldn't be considered a viable option, ESPECIALLY if it also catches felons who lost the right to vote.

**tneva82**

Rosebuddy wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:

No, you are not. Why? Leverage. A Russian attack on the RNC would have played into Hillery's hands regarding Russia. Casus Belli.

Clinton possibly did want war with Russia but the thought only makes me grateful that she lost.

She doesn't want war. Meanwhile Trump thinks nukes should have been used already. He's the war starter out of the two

**skyth**

ID laws wouldn't prevent that.

**Bran Dawri**

My passport doesn't have fingerprint data on it, and a simple ID-card (much cheaper if you don't travel much) suffices as ID, at least in the Netherlands.
I've never heard of anyone actually getting fined for not carrying ID either. Though that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it's not like the police are patrolling the streets yelling "papers please" at all and sundry.

Often a driver's license is accepted as well, though technically not a valid ID.

**Da Boss**

I do not have a European ID. The UK wanted to remain out of Schengen because it is super paranoid about migration and ID cards for some reason. Ireland has a common travel area with the UK, so we were forced to stay out of Schengen too, even though we were pro joining. Wonderful neighbours, the British.

Anyhow. So I only have my Irish passport as ID until I apply for German citizenship which sometimes causes minor problems (I do not carry my ID with my at all times for example because my passport is too valuable and important). But if I explain the situation to any official who asks for ID they generally understand and just ask me to present myself with my ID at whatever location within a week or two. It has only come up about twice in 7 years living here.

So I don't think it is possible that there can be fines for not having the ID card, since Irish in Europe have the right to be here but no ID card. Hopefully we join Schengen after Brexit and I get one of those snazzy cards. Though I should get one when I finish my german dual citizenship paperwork.

I think the national IDs make everything a lot more simple. A lot of the problems with Brexit for example are caused by the UK having no idea who is in the country really because there is no requirement to register locally like there is in most UK countries.

**Just Tony**

skyth wrote:ID laws wouldn't prevent that.

If it logged the person as having voted already, OR was used to run people through a registry as far as if they are eligible to vote, then they most assuredly WOULD prevent that. Unless, of course, someone is using a fake ID. Easy to remedy. The current US military ID system has fingerprint ID capacity, use that with licenses or state IDs.

**Da Boss**

Seems weird to be dedicating so much political time and energy to such a tiny problem though, doesn't it? Voter fraud is a tiny problem in the US. The influence of foreign spies on your campaigns would seem to be a much bigger issue.

**Disciple of Fate**

Bran Dawri wrote:
My passport doesn't have fingerprint data on it, and a simple ID-card (much cheaper if you don't travel much) suffices as ID, at least in the Netherlands.
I've never heard of anyone actually getting fined for not carrying ID either. Though that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it's not like the police are patrolling the streets yelling "papers please" at all and sundry.

Often a driver's license is accepted as well, though technically not a valid ID.

How? Since 2009 fingerprints are legally required in the Netherlands (plus the EU but I believe the UK opted out as well as one other country) for passports, supported by the court in 2016, only and ID card doesn't have that. Plus an ID card isn't that cheap anymore, currently its priced at roughly 50 versus 65 for a passport.

They have fined people over it here though. I think the only year they gave data for was either 2014 or 2015 and they fined about 20.000 people. Of course you don't get carded randomly (although some groups seem to have it more than others) but if asked you still have to be able to present it by law. I'm not saying there is an issue, just saying the above might not fly in the US for mindset reasons.

The driver license part is true, but legally speaking that shouldn't be the case.

**Da Boss**

Fines for not carrying your ID on you is a bit much. It should be fine to just present it to the police station within 2 weeks or whatever.

**YeOldSaltPotato**

Just Tony wrote:
skyth wrote:ID laws wouldn't prevent that.

If it logged the person as having voted already, OR was used to run people through a registry as far as if they are eligible to vote, then they most assuredly WOULD prevent that. Unless, of course, someone is using a fake ID. Easy to remedy. The current US military ID system has fingerprint ID capacity, use that with licenses or state IDs.

Oh look, a clerical error says all the democrats in this district voted already.

I'd say I was being paranoid here, but given enough democrats are being actively purged from voter rolls that many of us now actively check our voter registration status a couple times a month leading into elections I'm certainly not giving the republicans the opportunity.

**BaronIveagh**

Just Tony wrote:

If it logged the person as having voted already, OR was used to run people through a registry as far as if they are eligible to vote, then they most assuredly WOULD prevent that. Unless, of course, someone is using a fake ID. Easy to remedy. The current US military ID system has fingerprint ID capacity, use that with licenses or state IDs.

First get the states to agree on a universal standard on their IDs and issue free ones to replace those that have not already expired. PA has ones that have not yet expired that cannot be used to even get on a plane.

Also, again, I work at Social Security. If you think this is gonna work, I will just keep rolling around on the floor laughing. Just getting out SSCs strains your governments ability to do it correctly, and these are no where near as fancy as those. Worse there are ways to lose your fingerprints or have them be difficult to read, particularly among the elderly.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lose-your-fingerprints/

**YeOldSaltPotato**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
To add to the above passport ID discussion, I doubt the EU passport ID system would fly in the US, seeing as it includes fingerprint data. And you are required to carry it with you at all times for identification purposes (the fine is ~$90). Furthermore its not free either, they recently upped the renewal date to a decade, but it used to be 5 years for ~$50, so that still has a cost issue.

I assume the above is verging on a 1984 scenario to some in the US.

I guess my question is what is the justification for charging people directly for something they're required by law to have like this?

We've had enough issues here with places where you get identification magically closing just as voter id laws are imposed, the idea of being fined for not having that id is leaning on Orwellian in that context.

**Disciple of Fate**

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
To add to the above passport ID discussion, I doubt the EU passport ID system would fly in the US, seeing as it includes fingerprint data. And you are required to carry it with you at all times for identification purposes (the fine is ~$90). Furthermore its not free either, they recently upped the renewal date to a decade, but it used to be 5 years for ~$50, so that still has a cost issue.

I assume the above is verging on a 1984 scenario to some in the US.

I guess my question is what is the justification for charging people directly for something they're required by law to have like this?

We've had enough issues here with places where you get identification magically closing just as voter id laws are imposed, the idea of being fined for not having that id is leaning on Orwellian in that context.

The justification is service costs. That is literally it, each municipality can decide their own service costs up to 50 for a card or 65 for a passport. I could pay 50 in my city and in a 10 min drive I might only pay 20. They legally can't make you pay extra for a mandatory ID card, but as service costs are not set in stone paying extra is just basic reality.

As for fining, it doesn't happen a lot and they need a reason to ask for ID. But reasoning can be very vague, like driving around a certain area at night or what amounts to hanging around.

You can't function in society without it, from banks to education to healthcare everybody requires you to have that government ID, because otherwise they won't do business with you.

**YeOldSaltPotato**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
The justification is service costs. That is literally it, each municipality can decide their own service costs up to 50 for a card or 65 for a passport. I could pay 50 in my city and in a 10 min drive I might only pay 20. They legally can't make you pay extra for a mandatory ID card, but as service costs are not set in stone paying extra is just basic reality.

As for fining, it doesn't happen a lot and they need a reason to ask for ID. But reasoning can be very vague, like driving around a certain area at night or what amounts to hanging around.

You can't function in society without it, from banks to education to healthcare everybody requires you to have that government ID, because otherwise they won't do business with you.

That's the same excuse used to close places you can get IDs over here.

If such a thing was to be done in the US I'd push for all my worth for it to be free outside of re-issuing lost cards. It should be a cost you can anticipate and provide proper funds for given even a basic knowledge of your population.

**Disciple of Fate**

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
The justification is service costs. That is literally it, each municipality can decide their own service costs up to 50 for a card or 65 for a passport. I could pay 50 in my city and in a 10 min drive I might only pay 20. They legally can't make you pay extra for a mandatory ID card, but as service costs are not set in stone paying extra is just basic reality.

As for fining, it doesn't happen a lot and they need a reason to ask for ID. But reasoning can be very vague, like driving around a certain area at night or what amounts to hanging around.

You can't function in society without it, from banks to education to healthcare everybody requires you to have that government ID, because otherwise they won't do business with you.

That's the same excuse used to close places you can get IDs over here.

If such a thing was to be done in the US I'd push for all my worth for it to be free outside of re-issuing lost cards. It should be a cost you can anticipate and provide proper funds for given even a basic knowledge of your population.

Of course it could be free, but they would just raise taxes in another way. Part of the problem is the arbitrary cost, it should really be done at the national level instead of left to the local government, as they are state issued anyway. Only thing is that here you can't disenfranchise voters with it, as you are required by law to have one and can't function without. If its not mandatory but required for voting that opens up another can of worms.

**Kilkrazy**

All citizens have a right to vote. If it's made a legal requirement to have an ID card to do so, the state should make 100% certain to issue cards to all citizens and pay for it from general tax revenue. There should be zero malarkey about accepting driving licenses or utility bills or whatever, and it should be made extremely easy to get the necessary card.

But of course we all know that Voter ID actually is a GOP plan to disenfranchise minority groups considered more likely to vote Democrat. That is why it is being made difficult to obtain the ID.

**godardc**

In France it is a fixed amount of money, 25 or 30, you have to go to the city hall to get a new one, where do you buy yours in Netherland ? Very surpised there are different costs !
What's funny is we have voter cards too, used only to vote, in addition of our ID card. But you can vote without the voter card, whereas you can't vote if you have your voter card but not your ID card...

To stay on topic I don't think president Trump to be a war monger, he made peace meetings with Kim and Putin, has been in office for more than a year and no war happened or is happening, we can't say the same about his predecessors (I don't judge here the previous war of the USA, just that Trump seems less warmonger).
People should take a breath and see he is not the madman they thought he was, he is not destroying the world, just shaking it a bit I guess.

**warhead01**

Kilkrazy wrote:
All citizens have a right to vote. If it's made a legal requirement to have an ID card to do so, the state should make 100% certain to issue cards to all citizens and pay for it from general tax revenue. There should be zero malarkey about accepting driving licenses or utility bills or whatever, and it should be made extremely easy to get the necessary card.

But of course we all know that Voter ID actually is a GOP plan to disenfranchise minority groups considered more likely to vote Democrat. That is why it is being made difficult to obtain the ID.

I absolutely agree that anything mandatory should be provided. It's not like it would cost that much to provide the ID's.

However, I am not sold on the idea that ID's are used to discourage voting now. The idea of needing an ID to vote as a boggyman, sure. But not the ID it self.
There is a disconnect in the US about the "minorities" ability to do anything. One side of the country thinks a group needs their hands held to accomplish anything. The other side, literally the easy when interviewed on the street were in disbelief that people in California thought they couldn't get a drivers licence or for that matter use a smart phone. Random people asked all seemed to both have their various ID's and know where to go the get them. Granted that was New York but why should it be different anywhere else.

I live in a town of 1500. We have a DMV in the center of town.

ID's don't fix everything for voting but they might be a step in the right direction for a while. I think I would be for prosecuting anyone committing intentional vote fraud with harsher penalties for those Organizing and enabling it.

What I haven't seen in this thread so far is any mention of the social shift toward Socialism and Communism in the left.

**Bran Dawri**

@ Disciple: I think that fingerprint stuff wasn't actually implemented until after the court confirmation then. My passport's from 2015.
But I agree that in the US this would either not fly or (as is sometimes currently attempted) would be implemented in such a way it keeps the other side from voting. Which is just plain wrong.