Hey hey hey, hold on there. TDS is not a failing comedy show. It is a failed comedy show. There is a difference.
a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Also, I had linked to that tidbit already, from the source. [emoji14]
I feel like he's getting better, but has yet to find his pace or an appropriate level of sophisticated comedy. It's a bit of a shame, because his stand-up when he talks about his own experiences growing up is biting and fantastic, but it feels like he goes for easy shots on the Daily Show because he doesn't have the personal history with the source material.
Necronic
Staff member
Man. The voter suppression stuff we're seeing is kind of disturbing. I think there's a chance that quite a few states are going to lose their right to manage their own elections again. I think most of them only got those rights back less than a decade ago.
21st century and this shit is STILL a problem. But hey. Something something "PC culture" is killing our country and "racism isn't real" or whatever it is. I'm sure someone will quickly fill in the rest of the argument shortly.
21st century and this shit is STILL a problem. But hey. Something something "PC culture" is killing our country and "racism isn't real" or whatever it is. I'm sure someone will quickly fill in the rest of the argument shortly.
If any state is going to, it will be North Carolina.
Please be aware that the states dealing with it are under different federal rules that other states. The fact is that the laws they are implementing are already active elsewhere. In Michigan you don't have same day registration, and you have to show an ID. In California this is also true.
Only 14 states have same day registration.
The articles I'm seeing are about NC's elimination of same day registration and voter ID. Again, check out Michigan and California - both states where the DNC seems to have no problem with "voter suppression".
So when you see reports of voter suppression, please remember that some states are under more onerous, and older, federal rulings, and make sure you understand that these may be valid, but in some cases it may simply be the state bringing their voting requirements in line with the rest of the nation, and not because they are more onerous than other states.
If you have references for some of the more "disturbing" stuff you're seeing I'd be interested in links to reputable sources so I can understand the problem better.
Only 14 states have same day registration.
The articles I'm seeing are about NC's elimination of same day registration and voter ID. Again, check out Michigan and California - both states where the DNC seems to have no problem with "voter suppression".
So when you see reports of voter suppression, please remember that some states are under more onerous, and older, federal rulings, and make sure you understand that these may be valid, but in some cases it may simply be the state bringing their voting requirements in line with the rest of the nation, and not because they are more onerous than other states.
If you have references for some of the more "disturbing" stuff you're seeing I'd be interested in links to reputable sources so I can understand the problem better.
To those who are still unsure (or even are sure) about what this whole email scandal thing is, check out this weeks This American Life. It's a little more understandable why Clinton used her own email server when you realize the slow progression of technology within government as well as the sad misunderstanding of how emails work within many of our government officials. Sadly, it appears to be a 'Series of Tubes' head-slapping.[DOUBLEPOST=1478559206,1478559100][/DOUBLEPOST]
Just because 'other people are doing it' doesn't mean it is right. I don't approve of Michigan and California having poor voting laws either. For fuck's sake, India can get a voting booth within 1 mile of everyone to vote.
If you disagree with having to show ID, that's fine. But the news media are blasting a few states for laws which are already in place elsewhere, without providing the perspective that such laws are common and are constitutional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board
You can, of course, rail against voter ID requirements, and you can go ahead and complain to your state legislatures, but at least understand that the Supreme Court already ruled, and if you want to understand why you should probably read about the case. It was a 6-3 decision, so even if made today using an incomplete court they would still find that the law is constitutional. If the court was missing two justices they would still find it constitutional. If it was missing three then even in the "worst" case it wouldn't change the lower court ruling finding it constitutional, thus the ID laws would stand even if you got rid of two more Justices you disagree with.
It's pretty firmly established.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board
You can, of course, rail against voter ID requirements, and you can go ahead and complain to your state legislatures, but at least understand that the Supreme Court already ruled, and if you want to understand why you should probably read about the case. It was a 6-3 decision, so even if made today using an incomplete court they would still find that the law is constitutional. If the court was missing two justices they would still find it constitutional. If it was missing three then even in the "worst" case it wouldn't change the lower court ruling finding it constitutional, thus the ID laws would stand even if you got rid of two more Justices you disagree with.
It's pretty firmly established.
I don't even remember bringing up Voter ID. But since you brought it up, the fact that the supposedly 'fiscal' party wants it instituted everywhere when it solves a statistically non-existent problem is laughable. The fact that it is constitutional shouldn't even be a deciding factor when statistics finds it to be a stupid, unreasonable restriction.
The problem isn't the ID laws in and of themselves, it's when states don't facilitate the acquisition of said IDs and thus end up infringing upon the right to vote, usually to poorer people who can't do things like drive, but still have to find a way to take a day off of work to spend it at the DMV.
Not all states implement voter ID laws equally.
And not all US citizens have things like a permanent address.
Not all states implement voter ID laws equally.
And not all US citizens have things like a permanent address.
Every state's law is different. Some request ID, but don't require it. Some require ID, but it doesn't have to be picture ID, it can merely be proof of residence.
The states are fully in control of how their citizens are counted and polled, as long as there's no evidence of a constitutional issue.
The problem with the case brought to the supreme court in 2008 regarding ID laws was that the plaintiffs could not produce a single person as a witness/victim showing that the laws prevented them from voting even though they were a citizen. The defendants, on the other hand, couldn't produce evidence of voting fraud, but the state has the ability to create laws to prevent perceived problems, so the court had to allow the state its autonomy since there was no valid evidence that it was harmful.
North Carolina and several other states where minorities suffered under egregious jim crow laws that prevented people from voting are subject to special ruling and consideration. In short because of their history they are held to a higher standard, so while the case set the bar at "can the plaintiff show someone was hurt by this law", the states under this consideration have the bar set to, "Can the state show that this law doesn't hurt anyone."
I'm sure you can see that the state power to set voting law is significantly restricted under these circumstances, where they have to spend inordinate amount of money on studies proving what is essentially unprovable simply to set their laws in line with the rest of the nation.
Whatever happened to that building in Indiana seized by law enforcement that would somehow equal 45,000 people's votes to not be counted?
But the NC law doesn't require even a picture ID issued by the state. Their bar is set pretty low:
I understand that for some people any sort of proof they have residency is "disturbing" but doesn't this address the "can't get to the DMV 'cause I've got to work" issue?
A
Anonymous
Anonymous
anon for reasons, dont know how much is public
dep of justice still using cassette tapes for majority of fed courts in 2010
in 2014 cases could not be processed in dep of justice for several months because tech running their server was from the mid90s, still running windows 98, went without maintenance, essentially melted, significant problems of course
Gov tech progress is dumb as bag full of bags
Looks like the investigation is still ongoing. The police appear to have selected a few of the forms, for instance, reached out the the people registered, and they indicated they never filled out such forms - the forms legally have to be filled out by the person registering.
It's a registration operation run by someone affiliated with previous democratic presidential runs that claims to be non partisan, but who didn't register the organization with the secretary of state. So far the police have indicated that few forms appear to show any fraud, but as the investigation is ongoing it'll be hard to get any real information out of them.
I doubt the organization held onto the forms, though, my expectation is they submitted them as they canvassed for them, and that most of the people newly registered will probably have no problems at the polls.
Still, it does make one wonder.[DOUBLEPOST=1478561491,1478561432][/DOUBLEPOST]Linky: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...estigating-voter-registration-fraud/90407438/
I mean, right off the bat, you're saying homeless people are not allowed to vote. But that's a problem with registration in general, because proof of citizenship is required, and not one that is solely hindered by ID laws. When you are poor and desperately trying to stay afloat, those things can potentially be harder to acquire than you think. A bank account can require a minimum balance, a utility bill requires your name to be on the residence. It's a sticky problem, and you basically have to decide if the right to vote can be hindered in the name of preventing an in person voter fraud that still has not managed to show up in significant numbers.
Given the wording of the sentence it sounds like you agree that voting fraud happens, but you disagree that it's a big enough issue that it's worth voter ID laws.
I'm not going to argue the ID itself. You're basically using the worst case scenario - someone who has no address, no job, no ability to travel to an office or can't afford the $13 fee for a state ID.
But then if you're going to use the phrasing "significant numbers" to suggest that fraud isn't something worth avoiding, then you should probably use that same phrasing when wondering if disenfranchisement is worth looking at: the statewide rate of homelessness in NC is about 0.1%.
And even in Indiana they couldn't find a single person who exemplifies your worst case scenario to bring to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps I'm wrong - perhaps this is a bigger problem than I imagine it to be. Perhaps the 5,000 people who are homeless in NC want to vote, and are being blocked at every turn.
But you'd think if you were trying to strike down such a law you'd be able to find one person who was disenfranchised by a similar law in a similar state.[DOUBLEPOST=1478562471,1478562311][/DOUBLEPOST]Of course I'm the bad guy for even arguing the point, so I might as well double down:
If I were so homeless that I couldn't meet the minimum requirements of that law - a single paystub, or $13 and a visit to their registration office for a state ID - then I honestly believe that voting would be very, very low on the list of my priorities.
Perhaps, however, there are a multitude of homeless people who are clamoring to vote and are blocked at every turn by these laws, but if so then the democrats would certainly find them and share their stories, right?
Just me musing out loud: Is the number of disenfranchised voters significantly less or more than the number of fraudulent votes cast (in a given state or nation wide)? I have no numbers, thus it is just me musing.
I suspect its murky on both sides because you'd have to set a bar at some point. What counts as being "disenfranchised" is argued vehemently on both sides. What counts as "fraud" is similarly argued.
The version of the NC Voter ID law that got struck down by the Federal Appeals Court did not allow student IDs, utility bills, or employee IDs, and specifically denied any IDs that were expired. These are all things that were explicitly allowed before 2014.
The court found that the GOP legislature had specifically requested voter registration according to race and then pushed through a bill that (on top of the above):
When all that failed, the NC GOP advised in-state board of elections to cut early voting hours as they saw fit to manage costs.
According to a professor at University of Florida, of 4 southern states where they record race in voter registration, NC is the only one where the AA vote actually declined versus 2012.
And then the GOP basically bragged about it.
The court found that the GOP legislature had specifically requested voter registration according to race and then pushed through a bill that (on top of the above):
- Reduced early voting hours in areas with high minority residency
- Reduced provisions for same-day registration, which minorities in NC were more likely to use
- Reduced the number of polling sites in counties with minority residency
- Banned out-of-precinct provisional ballots entirely
When all that failed, the NC GOP advised in-state board of elections to cut early voting hours as they saw fit to manage costs.
According to a professor at University of Florida, of 4 southern states where they record race in voter registration, NC is the only one where the AA vote actually declined versus 2012.
And then the GOP basically bragged about it.
I'm familiar with registering to vote in NC.
should have mentioned that in my post.But yeah the only thing required to register is a proof of residency which I would have just assumed is something required in all 50 states, since ballots tend to be pretty localized and they need to base that off something.
OH MY GOD, I JUST GOT THE SAME POLITICAL CALL TWICE IN A ROW. WE ALREADY TURNED IN OUR BALLOTS, STOP FUCKING CALLING.
That said, I think every state needs to be required to have early voting. Beyond that, I'm just making the point for the sake of making the point, but I really don't like the statement of "If you're that poor, you probably don't care about voting," which is kind of a... crappy? point of view.
That said, I think every state needs to be required to have early voting. Beyond that, I'm just making the point for the sake of making the point, but I really don't like the statement of "If you're that poor, you probably don't care about voting," which is kind of a... crappy? point of view.
A little further reading suggests that the forms filled out were submitted and the people should be registered. What's at issue are the 5,000 to 10,000 forms the organization believes it would have filled out in the last week if the police hadn't shut them down.
In other words, the conflict is that the voter registration organization was shut down, and so theoretically another 5k-10k people who would have been registered by the organization are not, and thus are disenfranchised.[DOUBLEPOST=1478564220][/DOUBLEPOST]
I agree, and I'm trying to figure that conflict out in my head. It would be nice if I could hear some personal stories of those disenfranchised by these laws because the disconnect is probably simply that I can't truly put myself in their shoes.
Voting is a right. Not a privilege, and not a curated entitlement that only a few get to exercise. It's a right. Says so in the constitution five times.
I'm not super passionate about politics. I'm not some jingoist who thinks my country is the best, or some republican or democrat who thinks the other side is evil. But I am patriotic in the sense that I believe very strongly in the ideals that this country was founded on. And one of those ideals is that we, as citizens, have certain rights. Liberties that we are granted as inalienable and inviolate. I have this feeling that anyone who wishes to exercise them should be able to do so. Not by jumping through hoops. Not by making a certain amount of money. Not by holding a specific set of beliefs. Anyone, freely, whenever they want.
Free speech is also a right. And one we take pretty seriously here. We have all kinds of court precedents about censorship, prior restraint, and all kinds of things when it comes to the exercising of that right.
So, why don't we take the right to vote as seriously? Because we don't. When it comes to voter ID and other similar burdens, the court doesn't treat the right to vote as nearly as important as the right to free speech. Handwaving away those burdens as "low" is bullshit. You can smugly say "Well, if you can't come up with $13.00...maybe you shouldn't really care that much about voting." But that's a certain level of privilege that might be hard to see when you're sitting in the middle of it.
You know, I make a shit ton of money. More than I'm comfortable ever disclosing here. But let's just say that I'm very comfortably above that "2% er" line. But you know what else? I've also been so freaking poor that I not only didn't have $13.00 to pay for a state id--I've gone without eating so that my family could. I spent that 2 and a half years driving on an expired license. But in those days, I could still vote regardless.
Personally, I don't care of the numbers are low--if one person in the whole country can't vote in order to keep 50 illegal immigrants from voting, we have failed. I'd much rather it the other way around. Because voting is a god-damned right. And every time we chip away at those rights, we become less of the America that I believe in.
I'm not super passionate about politics. I'm not some jingoist who thinks my country is the best, or some republican or democrat who thinks the other side is evil. But I am patriotic in the sense that I believe very strongly in the ideals that this country was founded on. And one of those ideals is that we, as citizens, have certain rights. Liberties that we are granted as inalienable and inviolate. I have this feeling that anyone who wishes to exercise them should be able to do so. Not by jumping through hoops. Not by making a certain amount of money. Not by holding a specific set of beliefs. Anyone, freely, whenever they want.
Free speech is also a right. And one we take pretty seriously here. We have all kinds of court precedents about censorship, prior restraint, and all kinds of things when it comes to the exercising of that right.
So, why don't we take the right to vote as seriously? Because we don't. When it comes to voter ID and other similar burdens, the court doesn't treat the right to vote as nearly as important as the right to free speech. Handwaving away those burdens as "low" is bullshit. You can smugly say "Well, if you can't come up with $13.00...maybe you shouldn't really care that much about voting." But that's a certain level of privilege that might be hard to see when you're sitting in the middle of it.
You know, I make a shit ton of money. More than I'm comfortable ever disclosing here. But let's just say that I'm very comfortably above that "2% er" line. But you know what else? I've also been so freaking poor that I not only didn't have $13.00 to pay for a state id--I've gone without eating so that my family could. I spent that 2 and a half years driving on an expired license. But in those days, I could still vote regardless.
Personally, I don't care of the numbers are low--if one person in the whole country can't vote in order to keep 50 illegal immigrants from voting, we have failed. I'd much rather it the other way around. Because voting is a god-damned right. And every time we chip away at those rights, we become less of the America that I believe in.
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, it's not, and it doesn't. Nowhere in the constitution does it outline the right to vote, it only says that you can't deny people enfranchisement for certain specific reasons. We still deny the "right" to vote to felons. The 14th amendment, section 2 implicitly permits the States to decide criteria for disenfranchisement.
There is -no- right to vote in the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.salon.com/2006/09/21/no_right_to_vote/
That said, many STATE Constitutions do assert an inalienable right to vote.
Well I suppose I'd have to disagree with this extreme position. Just because something is a right doesn't mean the state cannot balance it against fraud. You may have the right to travel across the state border, but you're still going to have to cover your own costs of travel.
GasBandit
Staff member
And I have the right to all the firearms I care to pay for myself, not the right to demand the government furnish me with one. The right to something does not mean it must be given to you at no cost or inconvenience to you, everything else be damned.
I was wondering when you'd come and say this. It's not election season until you've pointed out no one has a right to vote! Now it's official!
GasBandit
Staff member
I didn't say no one has a right to vote, I said there is no right to vote guaranteed by the US Constitution. As I said, many states decided that was a glaring omission and had it explicitly written into their state constitutions.
And I've said my piece about voter ID laws a hundred times already.
Let me rebut with my own website citation
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-right-or-privilege/262511/
So you are saying people pick and choose the rights they feel are important but conveniently ignore the ones that don't benefit their preconceived notions? Consider me shocked.Let me rebut with my own website citation
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-right-or-privilege/262511/
I guess I agree more in principle with Benjamin Franklin: "It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"
I'm not trying to convince everyone to agree with me. Clearly, they don't. But that's my opinion on the matter, and I don't see it changing any time soon.
I wasn't being malicious. Simply pointing out how it comes out EVERY election. It's sort of a tradition at this point.
And yes, I usually mention Voter ID laws too, which is MY thing every election season but someone beat me to the punch this year.