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.
2016/04/14 22:36:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
motyak wrote: Are you fething serious wembley. You put a gigantic, unspoilered thing just to say "just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000", which isn't even the point? Put more thought into how you post in this thread, I know it's one of your babies but just do it.
So, I'm not convince you've read the whole article then... there's good stuff in there if you spend the time...
Furthermore, what's the criteria for something that's "too big" that'd be a good candidate to spoiler?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/14 22:39:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
motyak wrote: Are you fething serious wembley. You put a gigantic, unspoilered thing just to say "just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000", which isn't even the point? Put more thought into how you post in this thread, I know it's one of your babies but just do it.
So, I'm not convince you've read the whole article then... there's good stuff in there if you spend the time...
Furthermore, what's the criteria for something that's "too big" that'd be a good candidate to spoiler?
As a mobile user, I'd seriously appreciate it if you spoiler anything over 6-7 paragraphs. It's not that I don't want to read it, it's just after I've read it and I come back to the thread using "First Unread" it can occasionally drag the screen back up the page. It's a minor annoyance with a simple fix.
Which this bill would have required jury commissioners to retain information from individuals not qualified to serve as jurors for reasons that would also disqualify them from voting, such as:
- not being a citizen of the United States
- no longer being a resident of the Commonwealth
- being a resident of another county or city in the Commonwealth
- having been convicted of a felony and having not provided evidence that their right to vote has been restored
- or having been adjudicated incapacitated.
Gov. McAuliffe said, "more study is requred"... but, has since done nada.
motyak wrote: Are you fething serious wembley. You put a gigantic, unspoilered thing just to say "just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000", which isn't even the point? Put more thought into how you post in this thread, I know it's one of your babies but just do it.
So, I'm not convince you've read the whole article then... there's good stuff in there if you spend the time...
Furthermore, what's the criteria for something that's "too big" that'd be a good candidate to spoiler?
As a mobile user, I'd seriously appreciate it if you spoiler anything over 6-7 paragraphs. It's not that I don't want to read it, it's just after I've read it and I come back to the thread using "First Unread" it can occasionally drag the screen back up the page. It's a minor annoyance with a simple fix.
d-usa wrote: If we had as many hearings and investigations about in-person voter fraud than we have on emails and Benghazi.
Different burden of proof for different folks.
You don't have any burden when you have the Truth (trademark pending)
Ya know... if you want double-standards in prosecuting citizens vs. elected officials, or are okay with your elected officials flat-out lying to you because it's inconvenient to your favored party's re-election campaign...
The Democratic Party is for you!
Just make sure you are who you say you are when you arrive at the polling stations.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/04/14 23:30:01
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/14 23:14:17
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
motyak wrote: Are you fething serious wembley. You put a gigantic, unspoilered thing just to say "just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000", which isn't even the point? Put more thought into how you post in this thread, I know it's one of your babies but just do it.
So, I'm not convince you've read the whole article then... there's good stuff in there if you spend the time...
Furthermore, what's the criteria for something that's "too big" that'd be a good candidate to spoiler?
Just spoiler everything because you always c and p entire articles
motyak wrote: Are you fething serious wembley. You put a gigantic, unspoilered thing just to say "just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000", which isn't even the point? Put more thought into how you post in this thread, I know it's one of your babies but just do it.
So, I'm not convince you've read the whole article then... there's good stuff in there if you spend the time...
Furthermore, what's the criteria for something that's "too big" that'd be a good candidate to spoiler?
Just spoiler everything because you always c and p entire articles
Aye, might just do that from now on.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/14 23:31:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what demographics are being targeted by voter ID laws, and it doesn't take a genius to listen to the same politicians talk about how these laws will benefit their party.
I feel dumber every time I listen to people try to defend them and explain to me how it doesn't have anything to do with disenfranchising people.
2016/04/14 23:42:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: It doesn't take a genius to figure out what demographics are being targeted by voter ID laws, and it doesn't take a genius to listen to the same politicians talk about how these laws will benefit their party.
I feel dumber every time I listen to people try to defend them and explain to me how it doesn't have anything to do with disenfranchising people.
Right, because having to prove that you're eligible is "disenfranchising the people".
Why bother with IDs for anything then?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/14 23:52:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: It doesn't take a genius to figure out what demographics are being targeted by voter ID laws, and it doesn't take a genius to listen to the same politicians talk about how these laws will benefit their party.
I feel dumber every time I listen to people try to defend them and explain to me how it doesn't have anything to do with disenfranchising people.
Right, because having to prove that you're eligible is "disenfranchising the people".
Why bother with IDs for anything then?
Are they on the electoral roll? Yes? Then they're eligible. End of.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/04/14 23:54:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Right, because having to prove that you're eligible is "disenfranchising the people".
It is if the end result is people can't vote solely because they can't get ID. I'm sure many a southern gentlemen said "it's not disenfranchising people to require them to pass a literacy test. How can they even read the ballot to vote if they can't read?" Que auto failing anyone not white regardless of whether they passed (and everyone white who failed because only "trash" can't read). The moment you establish a litmus test beyond "citizen" for the right to vote, you inevitably start disenfranchising people. Sometimes it just has to be that way. We have to maintain rolls after all as a most basic component of any electoral process. That's completely different from this. This is arguing for a safeguard against and problem that does not demonstrably exist that makes it harder for people to vote.
Right, because having to prove that you're eligible is "disenfranchising the people".
It is if the end result is people can't vote solely because they can't get ID. I'm sure many a southern gentlemen said "it's not disenfranchising people to require them to pass a literacy test. How can they even read the ballot to vote if they can't read?" Que auto failing anyone not white regardless of whether they passed (and everyone white who failed because only "trash" can't read). The moment you establish a litmus test beyond "citizen" for the right to vote, you inevitably start disenfranchising people. Sometimes it just has to be that way. We have to maintain rolls after all as a most basic component of any electoral process. That's completely different from this. This is arguing for a safeguard against and problem that does not demonstrably exist that makes it harder for people to vote.
Then at what point do you ascertain the voter is a "citizen" and those are legally able to vote?
d-usa wrote: It doesn't take a genius to figure out what demographics are being targeted by voter ID laws, and it doesn't take a genius to listen to the same politicians talk about how these laws will benefit their party.
I feel dumber every time I listen to people try to defend them and explain to me how it doesn't have anything to do with disenfranchising people.
Right, because having to prove that you're eligible is "disenfranchising the people".
Why bother with IDs for anything then?
Are they on the electoral roll? Yes? Then they're eligible. End of.
No. There's demostrative proof that simply being on the roll isn't enough.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/04/15 00:04:05
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/15 00:07:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I love how the party of smaller government that constantly complains about government overreach keeps on creating laws like this to solve 'problems' that don't exist...
2016/04/15 01:07:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Whembly, would you support a bill that guaranteed every citizen would get an ID? It would be a large step towards ensuring voter fraud does not happen and all citizens are given a voice. However, it would require a federal expansion and a lot of tax money to accomplish. Oh yeah, it would also have to be a free ID.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/15 01:07:55
2016/04/15 01:15:34
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Whembly, would you support a bill that guaranteed every citizen would get an ID? It would be a large step towards ensuring voter fraud does not happen and all citizens are given a voice. However, it would require a federal expansion and a lot of tax money to accomplish. Oh yeah, it would also have to be a free ID.
Absolutely.
I'd go as far as re-issuing picture IDs on Social Security cards (excepting non-citizens legally here of course).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/15 01:19:25
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/15 01:31:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Seaward wrote: I'd argue it's one of the few things to build a national party around, but I'm a libertarian.
Well if you want to go out there and try to make military spending levels the primary point in a national campaign, you go and do that. But 'its the military spending, stupid' isn't a phrase for one very good reason.
Regardless, you're correct; the gun vote goes Republican, and Democrats have generally done poorly any time guns have been a serious issue in an election. That only tends to happen in state or local races.
And this is the primary problem - guns can be winning issues in some local races, but it's a big part of the national party's platform.
From a presidential electability standpoint? Sure, there's a problem. The national voter base is more concerned with nonsense issues like who gets to pee where or whether or not Trump meant that all Mexicans are rapists.
You're confusing internet noise with the actual issues that most voters base their choice on. "It's the bathroom transgender equality" also isn't a famous political phrase for a reason.
Anyway. You asked for three issues that Republicans poll better than 30% on. Those were the three that popped immediately into my head. There are plenty more.
Yeah, and thanks for taking up the challenge. And for the record there's a couple of others, a lot more depending on how you characterise Rep and Dem positions. The question wasn't an absolute (it'd be absurd if it were actually true). It's a means to get people thinking about the nature of the problem. In terms of general political identification the Republicans have a large natural advantage - lots more people self-identify as conservative than as liberal. But once you get past that general level and in to politicy detail, then you start to see the Republican party problems start to form.
People want to pay less tax, that's an easy vote winner. But once you see Republican tax plans built around massive tax cuts at the top end of town, justified with warmed up Reagan trickle down stuff, it isn't hard to see how that becomes a vote loser.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/15 05:26:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yeah, and thanks for taking up the challenge. And for the record there's a couple of others, a lot more depending on how you characterise Rep and Dem positions. The question wasn't an absolute (it'd be absurd if it were actually true). It's a means to get people thinking about the nature of the problem. In terms of general political identification the Republicans have a large natural advantage - lots more people self-identify as conservative than as liberal. But once you get past that general level and in to politicy detail, then you start to see the Republican party problems start to form.
People want to pay less tax, that's an easy vote winner. But once you see Republican tax plans built around massive tax cuts at the top end of town, justified with warmed up Reagan trickle down stuff, it isn't hard to see how that becomes a vote loser.
I've personally seen a lot of "we need to deregulate business" type arguments from people who lean Right... whether they be identified Republicans, self-identified Libertarians or whatever. And I think that that idea does seem to go hand in hand with Reaganomics. Luckily, I'm beginning to see better and better explanations by left-leaning experts and pundits that are beginning to sway the more rational folks out there, that *better* regulation is a good thing, and that no one out there really wants *more* regulation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/15 05:26:47
2016/04/15 05:31:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
And I believe that 60% is of people who turned up to vote for Sanders in a primary. And everyone should remember that primary voters is still a pretty small portion of the electorate - about 10% vote in the Democratic primary. And it's a pretty selective group - the most committed Clinton and Sanders voters are voting.
So if you open it out and ask the greater Democratic base if they'll stay home if Clinton or Sanders wins, that number almost disappears. Then you start seeing 80% they'd be satisfied with either, and very few saying they'll stay home or switch candidates if their preference doesn't get up.
The numbers are much bigger in the Republican party. 35% would be unsatisfied with Trump or Cruz, and a large portion of that have stated they will stay home.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: The same types of polls with similar results were being done with Obama vs. Hillary, if memory serves. They don't mean anything. People say that a lot, and then wind up voting once they've gone through eight more months of general campaigning.
Yep.
This is a question that gets asked in this mid to late stage of the primary every single cycle. And right now, because people are fully engaged in the primary and cheering for their guy, they answer accordingly. Months from now, once losing candidates have pledged support behind their guy, and once the debates and speeches between the two final candidates are underway, all of this will be a forgotten memory.
The only real complicating factor to any of it is the Republicans, who will likely end up with a nominee who didn't win the most delegates. How that plays out is likely to have greater ramifications that in previous years. Whether they are big or small ramifications will be the question, and depend on how well the leadership plays it, and how Trump decides to accept it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Depends on who they nominate, I think. Sanders polls great now, but he has Republican money actually helping him rather than attacking him. Once the attacks start - and most of them will be nothing more than just pulling old video of him saying truly radical leftist gak - I think his numbers are going to plummet. The dude is way, way, way to the left of what Americans are comfortable with, but he's doing a damn good job keeping the crazy tamped down for now.
Yeah, and it's quite telling how little Clinton has attacked Sanders. She doesn't want to alienate the left wing of the base she'd like to have in the general. About the only sustained attack she's made on Sanders has been on gun control, because it's the one issue where he's to the right of the party's base.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/15 05:42:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/15 05:48:31
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Seaward wrote: Depends on who they nominate, I think. Sanders polls great now, but he has Republican money actually helping him rather than attacking him. Once the attacks start - and most of them will be nothing more than just pulling old video of him saying truly radical leftist gak - I think his numbers are going to plummet. The dude is way, way, way to the left of what Americans are comfortable with, but he's doing a damn good job keeping the crazy tamped down for now.
Yeah, and it's quite telling how little Clinton has attacked Sanders. She doesn't want to alienate the left wing of the base she'd like to have in the general. About the only sustained attack she's made on Sanders has been on gun control, because it's the one issue where he's to the right of the party's base.
Here's the thing to consider though... I've seen a number of recent comparisons recently that suggest that Sanders is no more extreme than some previous sitting presidents. A number of comparisons suggest that he is a combined/carbon copy of guys like Teddy Roosevelt and FDR, based on his policies.
Would you agree that, in general terms, the US fared pretty damn well with either of those guys in office, no?
2016/04/15 06:28:19
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Tannhauser42 wrote: Here's a random thought. How much would it cost to actually buy an election? Suppose Texas is expected to go red by only 1000 votes, and Oklahoma will go blue by 5000 votes. What if you paid 2000 of those blue Oklahomans to move and live in Texas just long enough to swing Texas blue? Compared to how much is already spent on campaigning and ads, would this sort of thing cost more or less? Just something I was wondering.
It'd cost many thousands of dollars per vote to swing just 1,000 votes, think of movie, hotels etc. And the idea of being able to identify a state as needing exactly 1,001 more votes isn't a thing in the first place. You'd be looking at needing 100k votes, so we're probably talking something like $500m to swing a close state.
It'd also be much cheaper to give money to locals to get them to vote. You'd find a lot of people willing to do it for less than the thousands it'd take to move state. In fact, at this point parties do everything but hand over money - they drive buses down to aged care, organise church groups, go door knocking in poor areas offering lifts to voting location. They do everything they can to make the process as easy as possible, short of actually handing over a monetary reward.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/15 07:35:12
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
He makes the argument that public knowledge or shared reality, the range of things we collectively know that is drawn mostly from scientific discovery, has been eroded. He makes the case that this is because the Republican party has found one scientific reality unacceptable - climate change. And so the party that founded NASA and NOAA has now decided to ignore or deny the unequivocal statements made by those same organisations.
The article really shines from then on, when it opens up the debate past climate change, in to the consequences on all parts of policy and political debate. From the article “If the point of science is to provide us with a method for establishing public knowledge, then its rejection is also the rejection that such public knowledge is possible.”
It is an insight in to how someone as ridiculous as Trump could win a majority of votes in a major political party. If the facts are just a matter of opinion, then why does it matter when Trump says factually wrong things on an almost daily basis. And when Ted Cruz is a goldbug, is he really in any position to call out Trump on the facts?
Give it a read, it’s a really good piece. For my own money, I’m not convinced that climate change was actually the issue that pushed the Republicans out of the reality based community. The author touches on evolution and creationism as a forbearer, but I think the connection there is stronger than he realises. There’s no political reason that it should be the Republicans who went for climate denial – it’s just as easy to make a case for Democrats denying climate change in order to protect coal miners as one of the last union sectors, but that didn’t happen. Instead it was the Republicans, and it’s probably because there’d been a long decline in the party towards rejecting accepted scientific reality – starting with creationism. It was the wedge by which all subsequent rejection of science and accepted reality was made possible.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I've personally seen a lot of "we need to deregulate business" type arguments from people who lean Right... whether they be identified Republicans, self-identified Libertarians or whatever. And I think that that idea does seem to go hand in hand with Reaganomics. Luckily, I'm beginning to see better and better explanations by left-leaning experts and pundits that are beginning to sway the more rational folks out there, that *better* regulation is a good thing, and that no one out there really wants *more* regulation.
Yeah, that’s a pretty good example of a political argument that’s run its course. ‘Less government’ and deregulation was a big vote winner, it was the central plank of Reagan’s policy goals, and that guy did pretty well in two elections. But it’s a stale argument, precisely because as you say it isn’t about more or less regulation, but about the right regulation. I don’t people have quite woken up to that distinction yet, but the endless talk about ‘less regulation today, economic growth tomorrow’ is sounding increasingly hollow, because deregulation is actually very hard to deliver in a sensible fashion, and where it has been delivered it hasn’t delivered growth.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Here's the thing to consider though... I've seen a number of recent comparisons recently that suggest that Sanders is no more extreme than some previous sitting presidents. A number of comparisons suggest that he is a combined/carbon copy of guys like Teddy Roosevelt and FDR, based on his policies.
I wasn’t making an argument that Sanders would be ineffective in office. My point was that he wouldn’t get there. The thing people have to remember about Clinton is that Republicans have been working on her for almost 25 years. Everything she’s done wrong, and everything that Republicans can semi-plausibly accuse her of having done wrong has been pushed in to the media endlessly. I doubt Republicans will be able to move opinions of Clinton any more than they already have. But Sanders current approval ratings have to be viewed in the context that no-one has started any attacks on him yet. Remember how fast the shine wore off Obama once the Republicans started in with attacks on him? Sanders is only going to be more vulnerable, because they won’t just be accusing him of being socialist – he actually is.
But I think your point about FDR’s effectiveness raises a good point, so even though I wasn’t talking about Sanders in office, I’ll post a reply anyway Thing is, politicians don’t work in a vacuum, though. FRD had an agenda that was set to massively change US institutions, and drag the economic framework of the country way to the left… far more than Sanders is even hinting at. But FDR was dealing with vastly different economic and social conditions are vastly different. Right now there is a lot of built up economic frustration, but that’s nothing like the economic disaster that FDR was facing.
As a slightly offbeat comparison, our most recent Prime Minister would probably sit somewhere around the blue dogs in US politics, though his very conservative social views could arguably drag him in closer to the establishment Republicans. But in Australia he was a disaster pretty much from day one. Every policy initiative was shot down, and his personal approvals rankings sank to terminal levels in pretty much record time. The man wasn’t stupid, and he had political skill and a lot of experience, but he was simply a terrible fit for leading Australia at this time.
I suspect a hypothetical Sanders presidency might be somewhat similar – wrong guy in the current political circumstances.
Would you agree that, in general terms, the US fared pretty damn well with either of those guys in office, no?
FDR is my personal fave , so yeah, I’d have to agree. Teddy I’m not so well informed on, outside of the ‘Teddy was an awesome man of action’ stuff. I understand he fought a lot of corruption, but that’s about all I know.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/15 07:39:34
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/15 10:27:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I have often wondered about that. My conclusion is that Republicans have for decades been confronting a world that is against them.
Public opinion on many social issues has become more liberal, e.g. gay marriage.
Science has disproved things that religion used to reserve to itself, such as the origin of species. This undermines traditional authority, which is a fundamentally conservative concept.
Humans are social creatures. Society clearly works better when people co-operate more than compete.
The economy hasn’t improved as a result of deregulation, tax decreases and other right-wing measures. The rate of growth has dropped since the mid-1970s, when neo-conservatism started to gain ground.
There’s evidence for societies with more even distribution of wealth being happier and healthier for everyone, even including the (no longer so super-) rich.
The sum of the above is that a lot of cherished Republican ideas are challenged and disproved by the world actually works. In order to keep believing in the conservative ideals it therefore becomes essential to be able to ignore the facts.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have often wondered about that. My conclusion is that Republicans have for decades been confronting a world that is against them.
Public opinion on many social issues has become more liberal, e.g. gay marriage.
Science has disproved things that religion used to reserve to itself, such as the origin of species. This undermines traditional authority, which is a fundamentally conservative concept.
Humans are social creatures. Society clearly works better when people co-operate more than compete.
The economy hasn’t improved as a result of deregulation, tax decreases and other right-wing measures. The rate of growth has dropped since the mid-1970s, when neo-conservatism started to gain ground.
There’s evidence for societies with more even distribution of wealth being happier and healthier for everyone, even including the (no longer so super-) rich.
The sum of the above is that a lot of cherished Republican ideas are challenged and disproved by the world actually works. In order to keep believing in the conservative ideals it therefore becomes essential to be able to ignore the facts.
The R's have also lost a lot of their traditional blue collar support from industries such as the automobile industry, that ended up going to South Korea and Japan.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/04/15 12:25:44
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Why do you persist in your pretence that voter ID has anything to do with preventing voter fraud, and that any problems to do with it are merely minor bureaucratic niggles?
You personally did not invent the idea. You don't have to support it. Are you really so mind-controlled that you will support anything a Republican administration puts forward?
Pretty harsh there boyo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: If the people who supported voter ID laws would put at least half as much effort into getting those IDs into voters' hands, then would this really even be an issue?
Agreed: several methods:
*At 18, everyone gets a state ID. Its done at school. If you drop out of school, well, no voting for you.
*There is no reason IDs could not be issued at any significant government office. All you need is a smart phone to take down the data and take a pic.
- proof can be the Canadian style: bills with your name showing you have been her the requisite time, etc.
*Alternatively federal ID. Show me your Paperz, Zitizen!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/15 13:00:26
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/04/15 13:13:36
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I wouldn't use gatewaypundit as a source... he's a brazen mouth-piece for Trump.
The police stated they have photo evidence of the battery... but, the DA must of felt they wouldn't have a good case to pursue, as it is their descretion.
I linked gateway because they had the video of the DA talking about the case. Kinda hard to beat that as a source for what the DA is doing, alleged bias of the reporting agency notwithstanding. If you read through the articles, and as I pointed out in my post, the photo evidence was a picture taken days later. Images recovered from her phone the day of showed no bruising or marks after the event. That combined with the video provided by Trump and the Secret Service review lead to the DA (a Democrat) not pursuing charges. Essentially it wasn't even a bad case- it was no case.
Media doesn't seem to be plastering this one everywhere, though, as they did the allegations. Which just goes to show that the entertainment based US media likes Trump's sensationalism, but are not terribly interested in follow up or facts overall.
-James
2016/04/15 14:27:19
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
"Sarah Palin: Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am"
Spoiler:
Sarah Palin tore into Bill Nye’s scientific qualifications on Thursday, saying he has no authority to say climate skeptics are wrong.
Palin, the former governor of Alaska and the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, said the man known for his show "Bill Nye the Science Guy," is using his position of authority to harm children by teaching them that climate change is real and man-made.
“Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am,” Palin said at a Capitol Hill event held to roll out a film that aims to discredit climate scientists. “He’s a kids’ show actor, he’s not a scientist.”
Palin said behind the “alarmism” that the climate is changing is a “predetermined” and political agenda “of those, I think, who are controlling the narrative right now on changes in the weather.”
She repeatedly dismissed climate change as changes in weather, and said scientists who believe the consensus that humans are the main cause of global warming are trying to shut down human progress.
Palin encouraged parents to teach their children to doubt climate change and to “ask those questions and not just believe what Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to tell them.”
Palin, largely unknown on the national stage before the 2008 election, made a name for herself as an outspoken advocate of fossil fuels, repeatedly exclaiming, “Drill, baby, drill!” during the campaign to encourage more oil and natural gas drilling.
She has endorsed Donald Trump in the 2016 election, though she largely shied away from talking about presidential politics Thursday, except to suggest that candidates talk more about the climate change controversy.
“It’s something that our candidates should be talking about, and giving us their view on and hopefully acknowledging that it needs to become, in the science community, less political,” she said. “Otherwise, it leads us to believe that so many things coming from perhaps the scientists could be bogus. If this is bogus, you know, what else are they trying to tell us and trying to control us around if they can’t get this one right?”
Nye is a one of the main targets of the film shown Thursday, known as "Climate Hustle." It stars Marc Morano, head of skeptic blog Climate Depot, and is presented largely as a response to "Merchants of Doubt," a documentary attacking skeptics and comparing them to the tobacco industry.
In an interview with Morano in the film that he highlighted, Nye advocates for investigating people and companies who make a name for themselves doubting climate science.
“The introduction of this extreme doubt … about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen,” he said. “So I can see where people are very concerned about this and are pursuing criminal investigations as well engaging in discussions like this … they’re keeping us from getting to work, they’re holding us back.”
Palin shot back at the event.
“I’m all about mankind. I want life to be better for mankind and that takes development of our natural resources. That’s what allowed America to become exceptional,” she said.
“If anything, some people would say I’m pushing progress and development too aggressively, certainly not holding anybody back, I want people to work, I want people to produce.”
Sauce Disclaimer: I have no idea, political spectrum, where the source website lays. It was something that I had linked to me via Facebook. Thought it hysterical and wanted to share into this thread, since it's political in nature.
(more)
(building)
(less)
