Because the United Stares has a long, sordid history of voter suppression of minorities. It's no surprise that most states that have recently passed voter id laws are former Confederate states. Anyone with a basic understanding of high school history would know this quite well. Plus I don't get the idea that Mexico is a third world, violent, drug infested hole but our laws should be just like theirs. There's no death penalty in Mexico, I guess we need to adopt that too. Maybe if you could prove voter fraud as a factor in elections then any of these points might matter.
Have their been any trial convictions yet? Are you absolutely sure this wasn't an orchestrated false flag action? How would you know? Because it has been a standard election practice for about 2000 years. Who burned the Reichstag? It's easier for the side with money to create the narrative. Lawyers and people will do things against their own interest if you pay them enough. I'm not saying they did or didn't, I am saying don't believe everything in an election year and don't let small events influence the characterization of long held trends and beliefs. Liberalism is not more or less violent than other philosophies. In politics violence is usually a response to marginalization. That's what makes Mr. Trump's exclusive rhetoric so dangerous, it implies the future marginalization of specific groups, specifically those who have hard fought gains for acceptance over the last 50 years.
just lol at how you can rationalize anything based on your political bias... learn to think more critically
Upgrade TO Mexican standards* What Mexico does should at least be the minimum requirement for a countries citizen to vote How about we use the Canadian system? 1. Have ONE Government issued ID with name, address and photo (such as a drivers license) 2. Have TWO authorized identifications (such as a birth certificate or bank/credit card statement) 3. You have to take an oath and sworn statement in front of an elector. Maybe we shouldn't use the Canadian system, because as you know Canadians are racist... oh and because one political party is dependent on voter fraud.
That would be great if there's ever a real issue with fraudulent elections. So far it hasn't been a problem in the slightest. Let me know when not having an ID is an issue resulting in election fraud. What we do know from the people who are trying to get the laws passed, is that their intention is not prevent fraudulent voting, but to keep people who won't for them from voting. We know that because they've said as much.
I don't even know how voter fraud works unless a fraudster REALLY puts in the effort then I guess that individual really takes "Every vote matter" notion to heart then. The way polling stations work were I'm in(Massachusetts) you register to vote at the RMV which obviously requires some form of ID already. Then on election day, pollsters have these giant binders with all our names in them organized by household street address. So, someone who wants to commit voter fraud would have to go out of his or her way to make sure to know the name and address of a legally registered voter and then stalk that individual so they are certain that individual hasn't shown up to vote or else that slot in that binder would already be marked and that fraudster would be in for a very awkward situation. It's hilarious because the right wing believes that illegal Mexicans commit voter fraud. Do they honestly believe that an illegal will go to these lengths just to vote? Jesus, then they are already upstanding citizens as they value voting THAT MUCH. I mean who goes through THAT much trouble to cast one vote?
If you don't know how voting fraud works, then why comment on it? You do realize ballot stuffing for the presidential election is not the only form of fraud? For voting fraud to be relevant, (ie. more than just a couple people casting multiple votes), it has to be done on a conspiracy level. So while your dearly beloved parties are busy distracting you from the real issue, they continue to entrench themselves in power. If "super delegates" doesn't scream voter fraud, then nothing will get your attention.
I agree with you that US politics go in cycles but I think you underestimate what lasting impact a US President can make. While a president is very constrained by Congress presidential power has greatly increased since WWII. While it's true Obama has been stifled by the GOP in Congress as many Republicans complain about he still has done much using the power of the executive. While a President Trump will be hamstrung by Congress as someone who has a thin skin and a history of using things like the courts to go after people he doesn't like he can do a lot with the Executive branch. He's already said he will use his AG to go after Clinton and given his comments about many in the press it's likely he uses that too. Many of his comments have already offended both enemies and allies and at a time when there is so much danger and complexity in the World it is very difficult to see how his foreign and national security policy can work. Another area where the presidency can make a very large impact is just in turning back or not advancing the work that previous presidencies have done. As many have noted the ACA has a lot of problems that require fixing but most would agree that the previous situation prior was also headed to disaster. If the next president decides not to pay attention to continuing health care reform we could easily slide back to the previous situation of both rapidly increasing health care costs with increasing uninsured. All of this is in addition to what Deckard pointed out about lifetime appointments of federal judges. I don't believe that a Trump presidency will be the end of the World but I do think it is very realistic that a Trump presidency will be one that will be more authoritarian, risky to the US economy, damaging to US global standing, and also set back progress on things like healthcare and environmental progress.
If you take a look at Trumps base, everything he says caters to this group...which is a very anti-democrat group. If anything, he will end up like Obama by spending more time whining why he can't accomplish the things he promised in which he never intended to in the first place. Sanders on the other hand will do everything possible to do what he has promised. That worries me.
Jesus Christ dude. I'm referring to the type of 'voter fruad' that conservatives harp about that can be allegedly solved with voter id on election days. That doesn't mean I don't believe other means of voter suppression doesn't exist such as gerrymandering. I don't know where you picked up this notion that I implied that?
Thats exactly my point. Republicans are busy screaming for voter ID laws to stop the rampant abuse of voter fraud at the polls while the Democrats are busy screaming that it disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of minorities. Both are extremely blown out of proportion while the real fraud continues deep within the parties.
Um...those are OR statements, not AND statements. And they're factually incorrect. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/9-things-to-know-about-voting-under-the-new-elections-act-1.2612571 1) Do you need to have photo ID? 2) What do you need, if you don't have a driver's licence? 5) Do you have to prove citizenship? ^ This practically never happens. lol, America would go berserk about vouching. I canvassed, voted, and volunteered for several elections, once in a capacity that involved scaling get out the vote efforts, so while not a lawyer, I'm intimately familiar with voting challenges in Quebec at the very least. The system is designed for access over fraud detection. Another point: it's a lot easier to have a piece of photo government ID in Canada thanks to our nationalized medicine insurance card, which is a photo government ID. another perk.
He's going to go after the press? Unless Trump manages to appoint judges that tow the line, he's going to get all kinds of rulings sent back to him that affirm the importance of the First Amendment and libel laws. No, New York Times v. Sullivan is not going to be overturned just because America elected an oompa loompa. As for federal appointment of judges, do you think the Democrats will have less than 40 seats in the Senate? There is always a check and balance. Payback is a b**ch. The GOP opened a can of worms there and I'd look forward to them swallowing it. The last part you just said is true of basically anybody that would be elected Republican. That's my point. All of the ideas of the Republican orthodoxy are flat out wrong, even the IMF has gone out of their way to acknowledge this. When they have their due with an oompa loompa who can't stop his ass from Twitter wars, it'll be hard to separate the man and the ideas--an exercise that is already contorting Republicans. Trump is a slightly more volatile version of the damage Republicans could cause, who happens not to believe that hard about some of the most damaging aspects of the Republican agenda (social conservatism, austerity). He is a confused, ineffectual fool who averaged less than S&P returns on an inherited fortune. The very notion that he can be considered a success shows a sickness within America that has to be expressed. He is, in short, the perfect banner-bearer of the GOP, a confused expression of its ugliest desires, the ID that will destroy Republican unity. He is, I believe, as a candidate or in an elected capacity, a potent weapon to destroy Republican ideas that deserve to die. re: Austerity and the IMF http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm
I never said federal judges didn't matter. In fact, I pretty explicitly said it did. I'll repeat what I said to RJ: Thinking long requires some pain, that I admit. Not end-of-the-world pain though. As for the NYMag articles: http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx ---- This implies that other candidates do not have substantive policy papers and research behind their statements. Just because Hillary Clinton cannot distill down to a level of memorable communication with voters (an essential skill for any elected pol) shouldn't be construed as a failure on the part of other candidates to think as deeply about issues as she does. Is the stereotype about Bernie the fact that he hasn't carefully put together a measure of tax increases or spending measures to counterbalance his proposals and has some substance behind those easy-to-catch slogans? Because he has. You can dispute the economic theory underlying those assumptions, but don't dispute that there aren't assumptions. In any case, complexity isn't a virtue in of itself. The most fundamental aspects of human intelligence are about simplifying things to Renaissance beauty--a highly complex topic whose outlines are "easily apprehended". I never got the political media's obsession with Hillary's ability to drone on about details. To me, she has basically failed at a basic political skill every time she does that. "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." - Blaise Pascal. ---- Let's call a spade a spade here, Trump or any Republican candidate will spend a hell of a lot of time in media-jail time. ---- ^ Ah ha! We're getting somewhere now. ---- This was a great profile piece of the Vanity Fair scope, an examination of personalities, a broad scoping profile filled with generalizations, sweeping observations, and scant amounts of data. The writing has a certain amount of craftsmanship and the assignment may have been to follow the person not the ideas--but that makes it wholly ineffectual as a piece to convince progressives to adopt Hillary whole-heartedly. The issue is not fearing women when Americans fear socialists more. The issue ARE the issues. I'll elaborate on those next post, and share some articles of my own.
Deckard, I suggest reading this article, one on one issue of many for why progressives might hesitate to embrace Hillary. Feel free to critique it as I have critiqued your article. The rest I'd be glad to share in a thread dedicated to Hillary, conscious that we're devolving a bit from a Trump discussion: How Hillary became a Hawk Throughout her career she has displayed instincts on foreign policy that are more aggressive than those of President Obama — and most Democrats: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0
TLDR, in summary, I'd vote for Hillary over Trump if I were in a swing state if I could, otherwise I'd vote for Jill Stein. As I'm in California, you guys can guess where my vote would go if I could vote The world won't erupt in fireballs if Trump gets elected though, and it might be slightly more amusing--and perhaps even a boon for the long-term progressive agenda if he produces a backlash on the magnitude of George Jr, which is what really matters (and not the Twitter wars/fracas that is the carnival of retail politics).
