Forums / Discussion / General

Trust me, I'm well-versed in the art of wallposting.

Rivers wrote:

It shouldn’t even really be an option.

In an earlier draft of that wall, I made the point that I didn't agree with that idea myself-- however, I had different pressing concerns than those you highlighted. I don't know why I didn't mention it here, but it was probably because I wanted to make the point that he wanted to address the issue of domestic terrorism and the importation thereof, and inadvertently overprioritized that point.

At any rate, I don't agree with the idea myself-- I think the idea of having Muslims in a registry wholesale is self-evidently unethical, but the real issue past that lies in how much nothing it would solve. You can't track someone's religious beliefs-- that itself requires more active surveillance on top of that which the proposition requires to be enacted. Also, Muslims have the privilege of taqiyya, which-- contrary to what critics would tell you-- allows you to lie about your religious adherence to avoid persecution (why they think it would make sense to deny or outright fabricate tenets of your dogmatic faith to deceive people into the religion or to persuade them to ignore you while you do terrorist stuff is beyond me).

>concerning the pussy grabbing

For the record, I don't "defend" (if I can even use that term here) such actions because I think they're right. Personally, I'm a pretty hands off guy when it comes to so much as casually touching girls that I may even know well, talk less of those I don't. I wouldn't be alright with such actions, I wouldn't recommend those actions, I wouldn't teach my children to partake in those actions-- you get the deal.

I "defend" such actions not as not being absolutely crude, but as not being outright assault, because there are certain actions considered consensual between two people (whether they're in a defined relationship is irrelevant) where there isn't any explicit consent given. And as of the time that I wrote that, I heard nothing about repeat occurrences, talk less of with women that refused him. And so that I can't be called out for having no perspective: I had a friend-turned-girlfriend-for-less-than-a-week-at-which-point-the-stress-of-the-circumstances-through-which-the-relationship-formed-gave-me-actual-headaches who, even before that time, would place her hands in… dubious places of mine, all the time without my permission. My reactions ranged from neutral-and-amused to somewhat uncomfortable, but I wouldn't call it assault.

Writing this out, though, I understand that-- especially legally-- this is an absurdly precarious position to take (not to mention, I eventually grew a personal space), and it becomes less justifiable since he wasn't in a relationship with any of those women.

As far as the allegations, I've said this for a while: while sexual assault and rape allegations are notoriously difficult to prove, and I sympathize with those who can't find it within themselves to report their abuser/rapist (especially if they're family members or family friends), generally speaking, I'm not going to believe the accused is culpable without firm evidence. It's excessively damaging to their reputation to go that far without trial, and even if they're acquitted and they really didn't do it, their reputation is damaged for life. It's all currently a non-point.

Also, from the article:

"He was like an octopus," she said. "It was like he had six arms. He was all over the place."

…I'm not even expressing disbelief here-- I think I've just been on the internet for too long.

>concerning gay marriage

Clinton changed her position as recent as 2013, as well. But more on point, his most recent statement is to leave it to the states-- something that, currently, I'm biased towards.

I don't necessarily have a problem with gay marriage on a legal scale, but states were already deciding this by themselves before the SCOTUS decision (such that before then, 37 states declared their own bans unconstitutional). It was a state matter and always was, and I'm not finding any explicit constitutional statement on marriage to begin with in the Bill of Rights (and while it includes some of what amounts to shilling the FADA, which I'm unclear about, here's an RCP article that talks about the issues in Justice Kennedy's majority statement). The fact that it's even at enough risk of being overturned almost as easily as it came such that we're talking about this, as opposed to if it was made a constitutional amendment or ruled in by state through referendum or their own supreme court, points at the victory being potentially hollow and tenuous, especially since foisting this change on all 50 states and their constituents could never guarantee the social change that would make this worthwhile-- the social change that the decision, in whichever form it came (that wasn't the SCOTUS) should have been a reflection of.

It also doesn't guarantee certain marriage related privileges also managed on a state-by-state basis-- the federal government is only responsible for its own actions, in this regard.

Upholding the literal law (“Don’t let your citizens be killed”) isn’t pro- or anti- anything. He’s spinning upholding the law (basically his job description) as pro-LGBTQ.

Even if it didn't demonstrate pro- anything (I thought the fact that he cited the motivations for the shooting and terrorism of that sort as "hateful" meant something apart from the "don't let your citizens get merked" part of his job description), evidence for him currently being anti-LGBTQ for its own sake is scant, at best.

Don even refused to give political viewpoints at one point, when he was doing streams – although he did say he’d like Bernie v Trump for the memes.

I would have liked Bernie v. Trump, too-- it would have been a nice matchup, considering that they were both populists.

It's polarization of both sides, a continuing trend

And also something of a pandemic in the Western world, it seems, looking at the U.K, France, Germany, possibly Poland, and Sweden-- if current trends continue to energize nationalism. "Turnabout is fair play" and "when they go low, we go high just as low, if not lower" seem like they're going to be mantras for politicians to live by this term.

The Supreme court simply said that the right to marriage is also protected under the already established equal rights laws that say a person cannot be discriminated against based upon their Race, Gender, Or Sexual orientation.

My problem is this argument seems to imply that Marriage is an entirely religious affair when it is not. As long as there are Legal Benefits to being married then it is a government institution not a religious one. Shared Assets and Visitation rights are just a few of the things that were being denied to homosexual couples in areas. Yes many states were progressing slowly towards legalizing it, but marriage also affects you on the National Government level Not just the State Level.

Personally I think the Supreme Court was completely in the right with what they did. They interpreted the law and did their jobs.

Which argument?

None of my argument had any religious basis, and I don't think the RCP article made religion a major talking point that led to anything in particular, if it had any religiously-based point.

As long as there are Legal Benefits to being married then it is a government institution

But it's a state institution that the federal government acknowledges, because each state has their own take on marriage, as permitted by the Constitution specifically because the Constitution doesn't have any direct statement on marriage. The federal government has its own way that it handles the marriages that it acknowledges-- it's in control of how they deal with their own benefits, and it has to check itself accordingly. In fact, it's because of this that there are still states that don't offer or enforce the equality of marriage-based privileges to same-sex couples.

As Scalia noted, when the 14th Amendment was ratified and every state drew up its marriage laws, they were all deemed constitutional. Am I mistaken in supposing that's a precedent? Not that marriage was strictly between a man and a woman, but that states could determine such details by themselves?

And as Kennedy pointed out, "The issue before the Court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.”

Well, the Constitution was deemed to protect the rights of states to make their own decision on how they wanted to handle marriage, as previously noted. If that was deemed bad, than-- like Prohibition, and like the abolition of slavery, an amendment could have been ratified to grant the right-- and more permanently, I might add.

However, I have to admit that I can't really say that someone like myself can come up with a definitive "right" answer in a Constitutional sense-- even the much-accomplished Justices couldn't agree, with a 1-vote margin deciding it all. Reading through the opinions, I think both Scalia and Kennedy, at the least, made good points based on values and precedents, and neither of their arguments (Scalia was of disssenting opinion, by the way) were critically based on religion, either.

Which is why it's not my only point.

As it stands, many have lamented that this progress can be "undone" by Trump appointing conservative justices to catch a case to undo the precedent set by Obergefell. Whether or not this is to put the decision back into the hands of the states, to be quite honest, given what I understand… I won't be able to feel much pity. Well, I would, but it wouldn't be because of the loss of something campaigned for for years-- it'd be because the celebration would have proved to be way too early.

As I've stated before, there were other ways to go about this. We could have passed a law, like we usually do. We could have made it an amendment. And either way, if it were passed, it would represent the will of the people, and much better than five out of nine judges. Repealing such a decision would be as difficult, if not moreso, than getting it passed, and most Americans are alright with gay marriage as is.

Right now, overturning the previous ruling, with the current and future vacancies, is possibly going to be as easy as, if not easier than ruling it in, in the first place.

I still argue the best solution to the whole gay marriage debate is full privatization of marriage. Government should completely and utterly get out of the business of marriage. It's duties should extend only to uphold contracts that two or more people put together. Marriage is already a contract, let's not kid our selves.

Yes, that means if two consenting adults want to get gay-married, they can – just establish a contract, and bam.

If that means three or four consenting adults in a polygamous marriage, that's fine with me too.

OBAMA THE MADMAN

President Obama on Tuesday largely commuted the remaining prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the army intelligence analyst convicted of an enormous 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the administration, and made WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, famous.

The decision by Mr. Obama rescued Ms. Manning, who twice tried to commit suicide last year, from an uncertain future as a transgender woman incarcerated at the male military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. She has been jailed for nearly seven years, and her 35-year sentence was by far the longest punishment ever imposed in the United States for a leak conviction.

Now, under the terms of Mr. Obama’s commutation announced by the White House on Tuesday, Ms. Manning is set to be freed on May 17 of this year, rather than in 2045.

I am fucking estatic atm. Thanks, Obama.

Huzzah for whistle-blowers getting better treatment.

We just going to ignore that he's the one who put them there in the first place, and that 2 attempts at suicide didn't do shit to move him, but scoring some brownie points on his way out is?

I hope that Trump pardons Assange, because I have a sinking feeling Obama only did this to reach him.

As far as I am aware it was a court that put her in jail not Obama. Better late than never.

Basilius said:

Every move Trump makes is completely calculate he is the smartest man and any criticism is false.

That's just standard political demagogue stuff, though. Saw it all the time on the Huffpost Comment Section over the years ("Been watching too much Faux News, huh?") Just read the comment section when the FBI said the RNC wasn't hacked.

It doesn't really help that the media's really been overhyping the controversies--to a detrimental point. The pussy grabbing thing probably would have been a lot more devastating for him if it wasn't for the dozen other "implosions" he had over the preceding months. Everyone kind of went "oh, Trump said something bad again." and moved on.

I suspect the more moderate, sensible people are just ignoring the controversies at this point because of how unimportant they are, thus leaving only the fringes to foam at them. If that Russian smoking gun ever happens or Trump murders someone on fifth avenue, the sensible folks will probably step into the minefield to participate.

So no it didn’t matter if I voted or not or for whom.

Congratulations, you played yourself. Local elections not only have far more impact on your daily life (county taxes, road taxes, ordinances, etc.), but your vote matters way more--my Congressional race had a thousand vote difference, while the township trustees had tens of votes difference.

You could have just voted third party/wrote someone in for President or "undervoted" and left that part of the ballot blank if you really didn't want to participate in the presidential election.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/127751-US-EU-make-final-plea-for-free-trade-deal

With the anti-globalization wave impacting major elections, including that of US President-elect Donal Trump, the United States and European Union made a final plea on Tuesday to conclude a trans-Atlantic free trade deal.

Just three days away from Trump's inauguration, and on the same day British Prime Minister Theresa May unveiled her Brexit blueprint, Washington and Brussels issued a joint report to sell the benefits of the massive trade pact that just needs the political will to conclude.

The rationale for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) "is even stronger today than it was when we started these negotiations," US Trade Representative Michael Froman said in a statement.

"We launched the TTIP negotiations in 2013 because we were convinced that the transatlantic trade relationship, already the biggest in the world, could be an even stronger driver of job creation, growth and competitiveness on both sides of the Atlantic."

The joint report said that "with the political will to prioritize long-term gains for our economies and our broader relationship, the United States and the EU could achieve what we set out to do in 2013: conclude an ambitious, balanced, comprehensive and high-standard agreement."

The sides have held 15 negotiating rounds in the effort to reduce tariff and regulatory barriers to trade and investment between the two economies.

However, the report acknowledged the parties have "significant work to do to resolve our differences in several important areas of the negotiations."

DIE ALREADY.

"I will step in"

if he 'rounds up' children for deportation, hits voting rights or 'silences dissent'

resident Obama laid down a marker for President-elect Trump after he takes office

In his final press conference, Trump brought up contentions issues for the U.S. citizenry, and pointedly told Trump he would speak up if his successor strayed far from current policy on rights issues

He mentioned 'systematic discrimination' and efforts to 'punish' immigrants who came here as children

He praised the press for making 'this place work better' in another signal to Trump, who has attacked networks and news outlets

Invokes Jim Crow efforts to 'restrict the franchise' and prioritizes voting rights amid looming fight with the GOP over voter ID laws

But he explains that doesn't mean he would 'get on the ballot'

https://archive.is/1hEqC

Who does he think he is?

>praises the press
>has also dissed Fox News before on at least a couple occasions

Also, I repeat-- how are voter ID laws an attack on voting rights? You only have the right to vote if you're a citizen. Having voter ID ensures that you're a citizen. It's not necessary, though-- in my state, the way that you register to vote involves you proving your citizenship by using your identification to register.

The argument tends to be that poor, rural people would have difficulty obtaining legal ID necessary to vote.

It's only a hypothetical argument at the moment (and one that's easily solvable just by distributing ID to all legal citizens IMO), but it makes sense from a certain standpoint.

I'm not too well-versed in the voting ID stuff, but I can point to a case study of why people are opposed to voter ID.

Court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law

A federal appeals court has struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law, holding that it was “passed with racially discriminatory intent.”

…

"The record makes clear that the historical origin of the challenged provisions in this statute is not the innocuous back-and-forth of routine partisan struggle that the State suggests and that the district court accepted," Judge Diana Motz wrote on behalf of Judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd. "Rather, the General Assembly enacted them in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting. The district court clearly erred in ignoring or dismissing this historical background evidence, all of which supports a finding of discriminatory intent."

The court's opinion bluntly described the legislation as a clear effort to suppress the black vote.

"We cannot ignore the record evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history," Motz added.

I know NC lately has just been a clusterfuck of BS activities, but I can at the very least understand the worries for voter ID when it's been ruled that voter ID was used to purposefully depress certain voters.

Also, going into the area I specialize in – voter ID laws would likely suppress transgender voters. If your new face and clothing looks like the genderbent version of your ID, you will likely not be allowed to vote.

Strict Voter ID Laws Impose Added Costs for Transgender Voters

Fees associated with updating photo ID with a change of gender can range from $8 to $358…

Some states only allow individuals to update their IDs after receiving transition-related surgery…

(Emphasis mine)

Transition-related surgeries are expensive. Sexual reassignment surgery can reach above $100k. Other things, like facial electrolysis, can be $20k.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with voter ID. Don't get confused there. The problem is that voter ID costs money and time, and for some people, a lot of money and time. If voter ID was easier to change and widely available for free, I'd imagine you'd hear a lot less opposition.

Didn't seem to stop the poor and rural citizens from voting in this elections in states with voter id laws.

Meanwhile in Washington, King County routinely has the dead vote in oir elections.

I'd be really mad if I was a Democrat right now. They're doing the worst they've probably ever done in history and all the DNC candidates want to do is stick their fingers in their ears and carry on as normal. Maybe if the RNC ever gets hacked it'll be revealed they actually took over the DNC years ago.

Also, SCOTUS looks likely to overturn part of the Lanham Trademark Act that bars 'disparaging trademarks', which'll clear the way for the Slants (an Asian-American indie band) and the Redskins (the Washington variety, not the Idaho one).

Rivers said:

If your new face and clothing looks like the genderbent version of your ID, you will likely not be allowed to vote.

There's ID checks in Michigan and that's not really how it works. They take your ID, compare the signature and address information on it with the one you give on the information card, then cross check it with the information they have in their binder.

I'm not one to delve into the transgender debate, but unless you get plastic surgery on your face, I don't think hormone treatments are going to change it a ton from the one in your ID picture. I'd imagine hair and clothing matters very little to the precinct folks since that's always going to be different--sometimes drastically so--from your ID picture.

And if you get really worried, you can always schedule all the big surgery and stuff for right before your license expires (which currently costs $20 to renew in Michigan), then when you go in to renew it and get the new picture, you're all ready to go.

I've never really understood the cost argument anyway. You need an ID to open a bank account, drive, go to college, get an SS card (I remember what a nightmare that was), get a credit/library/student card, buy alcohol and cigarettes, take out loans, etc. Most people who have lives also have an ID that gets cheaply renewed every couple of years.

As an aside, when you need to renew it remember to always go 5 minutes before they close. I got there at 4:53 and was out by the time the security guard was locking the door at 4:58.

Rivers wrote:

I know NC lately has just been a clusterfuck of BS activities, but I can at the very least understand the worries for voter ID when it’s been ruled that voter ID was used to purposefully depress certain voters.

Still not seeing it, but maybe Lynch didn't talk about anything that was important:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch hailed the ruling Friday, pointing to its description of the law as "one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history."

"This law was passed with discriminatory intent. It targeted African-Americans 'with almost surgical precision' – imposing stringent ID requirements, reducing same-day registration and constraining out-of-precinct voting to place barriers between citizens and the ballot box. And it sent a message that contradicted some of the most basic principles of our democracy," Lynch said in a statement. "The ability of Americans to have a voice in the direction of their country – to have a fair and free opportunity to help write the story of this nation – is fundamental to who we are and who we aspire to be."

She doesn't really talk about how any of that affects specifically African-Americans. They talk about how this can't be considered in a vacuum, and I understand suspicion, but based on this, it's almost like they just assumed it was.

In other news:

CNN talks about how an Obama cabinet member can become the president. It goes as well as you'd expect.

Also, some former assistant US attorney talks about how Obama should pardon Hillary before he leaves. But for what?

What indeed. Were she pardoned for this unknown deed, it would do far more damage to her than if it were kept quiet.

Guerilla. Dance. Party.

And they're still touting the lie that Pence supports conversion therapy. Not even the Buzzfeed article that they linked to said that. Unless you mean to tell me that stopping transmission of the HIV virus by defunding programs that celebrate the riskiest method of transmission of the virus (that can be practiced by straight people, for the record) and rerouting it to programs that care about preventing that and helping people not do that is a bad thing.

Maybe it's in the context-- considering that he talked about opposing gay marriage and the protected status of gay people in Congress in the previous two points before that one.

…no, still doesn't sound like conversion therapy. Unless you mean to tell me that simply being gay spreads the HIV virus-- wouldn't that be a wonderful implication.

And get a load of this:

“Even before the tragedy at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, during which 49 individuals were massacred on a dance floor, nightclubs and dance served as critical cornerstones of queer/trans activism and expression,” Firas Nsar, founding organizer of WERK for Pence, previously told The Huffington Post. “In taking dance to the streets, we use our bodies to occupy space and assert that will embrace each other, our diversity, and our differences

>we use our bodies to occupy space

All of this is hilarious and pathetic at the same time. These blokes actually think that Pence A) has any power in his particular position, and B) is an actual threat to any of them in any way regardless.

Their idea of asserting the presence of the queer community, as it were, involves… methods that wouldn't at all better his perception of the queer community (you know, unlike a regular demonstration where you talk about how you're like normal people except for the fact that you have a different sexual orientation and/or gender identity). That's the kind of proving that was necessary-- especially to an old, traditionalist conservative.

There’s ID checks in Michigan and that’s not really how it works.

Can you provide any evidence that's also how it works in other states…? Otherwise this argument is just "not in my experience", which is a really bad argument. And even then it can still apply in Michigan. Poll workers are humans. They aren't machines that compare and contrast IDs.

Since the burden of proof isn't completely on you, I'll just provide a simple thought experiment. If you're a poll worker and you're given an ID that has "Sex: M" but the picture is of a girl, and the picture matches the person, would you not be suspicious? Or even worse, if the picture is not matching the person, wouldn't you be even more suspicious? And, to go to the worst case scenario – if that ID also has a name that is different than the one the person says, wouldn't that make you think maybe they stole the thing? Now, this is just for you. Multiply this thought experiment across many different poll workers of different dispositions and knowledge. I don't see how this won't cause issues.

And even then, in some cases, it might not even be a block, but instead just a hurdle, as the following provides an example for:

Poll workers who are tasked with assessing the identity of potential voters may cite inconsistencies in transgender individuals’ ID, voter registration information, and appearance as reasons for preventing the individual from voting with a regular ballot. For instance, a transgender person who has transitioned from their sex assigned at birth and presents photo ID when voting that does not accurately reflect their gender may be asked to vote a provisional ballot instead of a regular ballot.

(Source)

I’m not one to delve into the transgender debate, but unless you get plastic surgery on your face, I don’t think hormone treatments are going to change it a ton from the one in your ID picture.

I think maybe you should avoid delving into the transgender debate until you learn more… We have an entire entry with examples to the contrary. Here's a subreddit that has examples. If you don't want to go through the subreddit, here's one. Here's a 9 minute YouTube video detailing the uploader's transition, in pictures. you can find so many examples that your face can change plenty enough – especially, of course, if you add makeup. There are numerous examples of people looking entirely different after hormones (and makeup).

And if you get really worried, you can always schedule all the big surgery and stuff for right before your license expires

Well, first you have to get $100k. That's on top of the hormones you're likely already taking and the therapy/counseling you're probably in.

This is a major block for transgender people in states that require the surgery before you get the marker changed. Until it's loosened up, the gender marker will in numerous cases seem completely off from the picture and the person.

(which currently costs $20 to renew in Michigan)

Great, but this doesn't change the fact that for transgender people to change both their picture and their gender marker it can cost over $300.

I’ve never really understood the cost argument anyway.

Maybe you're just referring to other arguments about voter ID, but just to be clear, I am talking about changing the gender markers and pictures. You don't end up born with a government issued ID that's wrong. You, at some point, had a name, and a face, and a gender marker put on an ID. You can end up having to pay a lot to get these things changed.

So what exactly stops people from updating their IDs? What's 300 dollars when compared to the thousands they'll spend trying to "be themselves" anyway?

I don't always get my point across well, so please bear with me on this. I try to make my point clear but more often than not I miss something in my longer posts.

The first of three misconceptions in your post – which, admittedly, is at least partly my fault – is that trans people necessarily will spend thousands to get into this position.

I have posted my pictures on KYM for a limited time before. I have yet to transition in any meaningful way. However, just because of how I had styled myself, I had been told things like "If you told me you were a girl, I'd buy it." (Indeed, in an attempt to mock me, my siblings said I looked like a girl.) This shows that you do not need to spend thousands on it, necessarily. (Obviously, if you look like the rowdiest cowboy in the bar, you're going to need some extra work if you intend to look feminine.) The same worry I brought up early on then comes into play if you, say, used makeup, and your gender marker is male. I could very easily be put in a situation where my gender marker seems the opposite of what I look like, and thus questioned or put through extra hurdles in voting. If anyone was to assume I'm the only one like this, well, that'd be a pretty foolish assumption.

There's also the existence of people who transition in ways that aren't exactly guided by a doctor. I won't go into that a lot because I'm not well-versed in that, but a quick google search says birth control pills can cost ~300 a year in total, and iirc some people use birth control to transition. So, even those who do transition in some way may not necessarily spend a ton.

The second misconception is that if they're spending thousands on it, necessarily they won't mind the extra ~$300. However, voting is not an important thing to some people, and most people could live well without it. Meanwhile, gender dysphoria fucking sucks. Mental health is pretty important, about on par with physical health. People go in debt to maintain it. Voting? Well, you can probably understand the idea that it isn't quite as important to many as keeping yourself decently functioning.

The last misconception I noted is that it's okay in the first place for them to spend ~$300 if they're spending that much already. Maybe my ideology is a bit radical like this, but I don't think there should be any major impediments to the voting booth. You're a citizen, you get in. You shouldn't have to dish out enough to buy a week of food for a family of 6 (estimating based on my own experience) in order to exercise your ability to vote.

A California ID card, which is not a Driver's license, card costs $29.00. Most states seem to have driver's license fees which are under $50. We can therefore assume the cost of a voter ID card would be about $40.00

I see no valid argument against a voter ID card system based on cost. Most people can afford ~40 dollars for an ID card. For those who can't, I see no reason why such a program can't be incorporated into an existing welfare program. About 135,000,000 people voted in 2016. Of those, the vast majority probably have a driver's license already. At ~40 dollars per remaining voter, the cost would be a relatively insignificant addition to a state budget, and even less so if there were to be a very likely federal subsidy to any such state programs.

A lot of resistance to the idea of voter id comes from the fact that southern states once used poll taxes to suppress black voting, until this was deemed un-Constitutional. Removing or reducing the cost of a voter ID would eliminate such problems. Some libertarians also oppose such IDs, because they see it as a means for government to track them. Keeping such a program at the state level would remove some of this concern.

IMO there should be some form of voter ID as a means to combat voter fraud, but it should be handled at the state level and done to make it accessible to everyone. I also believe that stolen identity is probably not the only source of voter fraud, and may not be even be the largest. In the widely reported stories of voting irregularities in Detroit, there were said to be incidents in which poll workers kept running the same ballots through the machines over and over again because the machines kept jamming or spitting the ballots back out, but still counting them each time this happened.

In reality the entire voting system(s) need(s) to be overhauled. There should be federal standards for voting methodology and machinery. Better identity-verification measures should be in place. Voters should be required to re-register every six years in person to prevent dead "voters" or "snow-bird" voting (vote by mail to a Northern home state, vote in person in warm retirement state).

So instead of fighting the high cost of acquiring an identification card, which you can easily get a good bipartisan support for. Or making it easier for citizens to get access to identification cards.

No, let's just get rid of voter ID laws, because who cares who votes right?

Some poor people can't get themselves to a polling place, should we subsidize taxis and public transport even further to specifically pick them up too?

@Sandors

Maybe you're talking in general, but if you're replying to my posts, you'll see I'm talking about the charges involved are about changing gender markers and picture in certain states. These charges can be prohibitive. I don't like this.

@Chewbunny

I'll just quote myself.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with voter ID. Don’t get confused there. The problem is that voter ID costs money and time, and for some people, a lot of money and time. If voter ID was easier to change and widely available for free, I’d imagine you’d hear a lot less opposition.

As mentioned, I don't always get my point across perfectly. Non-prohibitively expensive voter ID would do the job too.

It's official! Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States!

Laurie Goodstein
National Religion Correspondent

12:20 PM ET

"Trump had three clergy deliver invocations, and now he’s got three more for benedictions and scripture readings. Six is an inauguration record. Most have two, Nixon had five.
The rabbi, Marvin Hier, founded the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles to fight anti-Semitism and bigotry. More than 3,000 people signed a petition asking him not to participate in this inauguration because they said Mr. Trump has only encouraged bigots.

Rabbi Hier stood by his decision. He is friendly with the family of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and an Orthodox Jew. His family are big donors to the Wiesenthal Center."

Also, Trump does his oath on two Bibles-- one of them being a Bible his mother gave him in 1955.

Something about that is actually pretty touching.

My college classmate was in DC, I think she was in the general audience considering the chants "we want Trump" were louder than whatever the protesters were saying. In her Snapchat story, she was pointing out several of the Biblical signs that were on the street. Now, the usual format of biblical signs that go with protests is docile and funny if not that (poking fun at typos, misquoted sermons), but some of those were a higher degree of bad ("Roman Catholicism is the doom of mankind!", "those who don't get saved aren't saved!"). I point this out because I'm asking do we know what religion Donald Trump practices? Because to this point, I've never seen a Christian sign that monstrously denounces a Christian denomination like the WBC denounces homosexuality :|

He's a Presbyterian.

(Less serious posting ahead)

Happy Inauguration Day Everyone!

>that second video

Could you be anymore melodramatic? God I fucking hate liberals.

reminder that liberal just means change oriented policy

It wasn't supposed to be like this

Rivers said:

Can you provide any evidence that’s also how it works in other states…?

No, because I've only voted in Michigan. I'm only giving how an ID check is where I vote, much as I've done previously with how long the line was in my precinct. As for your hypothetical example, I don't think the precinct worker cares unless there's a substantial difference (height, major facial discrepancy like eye position/color or nose from) from the ID picture and the person's face. Even then, they'd probably shrug it off if the signature and address information is accurate (obviously there's be a ton more suspicion if the person had to stare at the ID to write down the address).

Also, I did a little quick digging, nothing major since this honestly isn't something I want to debate a ton, and I couldn't find any actual examples of transgender individuals being denied voting abilities. There were a lot of abstracts--could, might, may--but no actual examples and given what a hot button culture wars issue this is right now, I'm surprised there hasn't been at least one Huffpost article that had a definite case in it.

…this doesn’t change the fact that for transgender people to change both their picture and their gender marker it can cost over $300.

In the state of Texas. In Michigan, it's 20 bucks and you can redo your whole license when you renew it--gender and picture included. Although I think your legal name is required for the name. I'm sure it's different in other states, but I only have experience with Michigan's laws.

Uh… I've gotta say, the second you typed "liberal just means" you were already dead wrong, no matter what came after. It's one of the vaguest damn political terms ever conjured up. Basically the only true common ground comes from the Latin root word, "liber", meaning free. So it's got to have something to do with freedom… in some sense. Of course, that term is extremely damn contentious as well, so it's not much help.

No, because I’ve only voted in Michigan.

It's great that voting there is okay, but it doesn't change that bad things happen elsewhere.

As for your hypothetical example, I don’t think the precinct worker cares unless there’s a substantial difference (height, major facial discrepancy like eye position/color or nose from) from the ID picture and the person’s face. Even then, they’d probably shrug it off if the signature and address information is accurate (obviously there’s be a ton more suspicion if the person had to stare at the ID to write down the address).

Your response to my hypothetical is a hypothetical.

There's also a very large gap in how the arguments work. My argument revolves around the fact that people are different, and repeating numerous times someone's probably gonna be a dick. Your argument involves generalizing every single poll worker. I'd guess mine is stronger.

Also, I did a little quick digging, nothing major since this honestly isn’t something I want to debate a ton,

Then trying to argue in the first place might've been a bad move. I've established very well how much I care about this stuff.

and I couldn’t find any actual examples of transgender individuals being denied voting abilities.

The first issue with this is an underlying, implicit assumption that it hasn't happened because you couldn't find an article on it. Even accounting for the fact that it is currently a hot-button culture war issue, this assumption falls apart. Transgender people are harassed at high rates. Because it's a hot button issue, calling attention to yourself is just asking for people to be assholes to you – like Milo Yiannopolous was. Any trans person who decides to tell the media about this will, very likely, receive some unpleasant attention. This isn't some far-reaching conclusion, this is reality. (I feel inclined to doubt that any outlet of any quality would accept anonymous reports of discrimination as news-worthy.)

Then there's this assumption – rather subtle, but it's there – that prevention isn't worthwhile if it hasn't happened. You repeat this same interaction numerous times across the country at every election, it's nearly certain that someone's gonna be a dick. That's not okay. Even if we assume it hasn't happened, there's no reason that we should do nothing. This is especially clear when you read stories like the ones in this article which shows that there are related issues anyways.

In his wallet, Anthony Settles carries an expired Texas identification card, his Social Security card and an old student ID from the University of Houston, where he studied math and physics decades ago. What he does not have is the one thing that he needs to vote this presidential election: a current Texas photo ID.

For Settles to get one of those, his name has to match his birth certificate -- and it doesn’t. In 1964, when he was 14, his mother married and changed his last name. After Texas passed a new voter-ID law, officials told Settles he had to show them his name-change certificate from 1964 to qualify for a new identification card to vote.

So with the help of several lawyers, Settles tried to find it, searching records in courthouses in the D.C. area, where he grew up. But they could not find it. To obtain a new document changing his name to the one he has used for 51 years, Settles has to go to court, a process that would cost him more than $250 -- more than he is willing to pay.

In Michigan, it’s 20 bucks and you can redo your whole license when you renew it--gender and picture included.

And? It's still bad if it's one state. If you happened to prove me wrong on the statement that it's multiple states that it's ridiculous, it's still bad. It's great that it's easy in Michigan – that's what I'm arguing for – but it being okay in some places doesn't make it not okay in others.

Maybe this argument is striking at the fact that I keep saying ~300. Alright, so let's say I'm wrong, and then lower it to, say, ~200? or even ~100? This still keeps to the theme of the argument because it's still really a non-negligible cost for the ability to cast a single vote in a sea of votes. Many are already disillusioned with the voting system, with mass swaths saying "my vote doesn't matter". Do we need another barrier? And one of the links I provided even showed another state is, in fact, like this – Kansas, to be specific. Prices there can reach nearly $200 based on a study I linked.

I'm going to reiterate my main point to try to make sure we're all completely on the same page. I know I don't always get my point across well. I miss the forest (the overall theme) for the trees (the exact arguments). So, I'm going to try to be a clear

There is nothing inherently wrong with voter ID. However, voter ID, when implemented in certain ways, can introduce hurdles and discourage some voters. Because every citizen should be able to vote without any significant impediments or discouragements (I would hope we all agree on this) voter ID, if implemented, should be easy to get, and easy to change.

Liberal pretty much means not conservative, which can apply to a lot of things. The word itself means to discard old values and embrace new ideas, the ideology itself is meant to spread the ideas of Liberty and Equality.

The problem being is that the actual party itself became split between what it values more, at least in the united states. Those who valued Liberty more became Libertarians, collecting the more right wing but not conservative members of the country, as well as people who weren't far left.

Which left the people who value Equality over Liberty, which shows in the demands for large government actions to enforce a morality of acceptance to somewhat crazy degrees. As well as the propagation of safe spaces, trigger words, internet censorship, and federal government interference.

Those are the people angry at Donald Trump right now and whom are throwing massive amounts of salt all over the place. Meanwhile the Conservative party, which is also split between Grassroots and Neocons, is doing all it can to spin Trump in a positive light, because honestly nobody wants the Far Left to win, except the far left.

Everyone who is Center-Right, Neutral, and Left-Libertarian, is left to kinda just exist, with neither party working to garner their votes or support.

"Liberal pretty much means not conservative, which can apply to a lot of things. The word itself means to discard old values and embrace new ideas, the ideology itself is meant to spread the ideas of Liberty and Equality."

The word is also the Latin of "Liberalis" which means "generous", a sort of tie-in to how Liberal economic and social policy is.

Liberalism is a centrist term. Being leftist and liberal are completely different. Liberalism is more focused on socially left issues, yet are more economically right or center, the left focuses more on the economy, but still place time on social issues. Liberals would be the Clinton supporters who are protesting Trump due to Russian ties while leftists would be protesting Trump as a corporate shill who will privatize the country. Jimmy Dore has great videos on this issue.

Except that the "leftist" economic models, i.e collectivism > socialism > communism were primarily the works of a historian/sociologist, one who's economic ideals are wholly dependent on sophistry, over hard numbers. Embraced by a cohort of academics that for the most part hardly ever participated in the economy they continually theorize about, and never would have to face the true impact of their ideas.

These leftist economic models have shown to bring utter ruin to societies they are implemented in, and although at times they offer a short term economic gain, they ultimately end up failing in any long-term capacity.

Since leftists cannot argue the historic and economic record of their economic models being implemented in terms of efficiency, growth, and longevity, they have relegated in using morality as the crux of why their economic model should be implemented.

Well, I find that ironic considering that morality of their economic models also don't hold up well under scrutiny.

Speaking of faulty economic policy:

US has withdrawn from TPP

https://archive.is/chGcN

>For too long, Americans have been forced to accept trade deals that put the interests of insiders and the Washington elite over the hard-working men and women of this country. As a result, blue-collar towns and cities have watched their factories close and good-paying jobs move overseas, while Americans face a mounting trade deficit and a devastated manufacturing base.

>With a lifetime of negotiating experience, the President understands how critical it is to put American workers and businesses first when it comes to trade. With tough and fair agreements, international trade can be used to grow our economy, return millions of jobs to America’s shores, and revitalize our nation’s suffering communities.

This strategy starts by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers. President Trump is committed to renegotiating NAFTA. If our partners refuse a renegotiation that gives American workers a fair deal, then the President will give notice of the United States’ intent to withdraw from NAFTA.

>In addition to rejecting and reworking failed trade deals, the United States will crack down on those nations that violate trade agreements and harm American workers in the process. The President will direct the Commerce Secretary to identify all trade violations and to use every tool at the federal government’s disposal to end these abuses.

To carry out his strategy, the President is appointing the toughest and smartest to his trade team, ensuring that Americans have the best negotiators possible. For too long, trade deals have been negotiated by, and for, members of the Washington establishment. President Trump will ensure that on his watch, trade policies will be implemented by and for the people, and will put America first.

By fighting for fair but tough trade deals, we can bring jobs back to America’s shores, increase wages, and support U.S. manufacturing.

YAHOO

GDP by state:

2016 Election map:

From what I see, Republican hardcore states tend to not generate very much money.

Well lets look at the top 10 welfare recipient states…well I'll be damned, those are sure a lot of red states. Its almost like in terms of taxes, money is largely flowing out of blue states and into more poor republican states in the form of Medicare, Food Stamps, Etc. Clearly cutting these programs would greatly help stop those lazy fucking moochers from taking all the money.

Well lets see a few reports now

Well It seems to me that Republican controlled presidential don't seem to do too good. Its almost as if Republicans enjoy doing things that are bad for the economy…like going into pointless wars in the middle east over nothing, cutting taxes on the rich resulting in a huge budget deficit, and cutting social programs that help people in need when their economies are in the shitter.

Lets not forget the man that saved the US economy with Social programs, FDR. The New Deal and "The Second New Deal" (as some historians use) saved the US economy from the worst depression it had faced up until the point, largely with social programs and MORE government oversight of big businesses.

You have a lot of broken links, so I can't do any full response, but I do want to say this: we didn't get out of the recession because of FDR's policies. We still suffered under FDR's policies-- what helped us, ultimately, was the fact that we entered World War 2 and ended up creating many new jobs to put even the women to work.

Furthermore, for worse better or worse, we have interests in the Middle East, namely oil and curbing Russian influence under the codename of democracy. Nobody in their right mind would spend money and lives in the Middle East for no reason-- that makes no sense. But since you want to blame Republicans for that, tell me why Obama contined to be involved in the Middle East, himself, for his entire presidency-- and in ways that he didn't even inherit from Bush.

EDIT: Since some of the links you had are broken as of the time I'm writing this, I can't comment on party policy concerning budgets in general, but I do want to mention something somewhat anecdotal: my own state is strongly blue, and we currently have a Republican governor despite having a Democrat everything else. Likely, this happened because the last governor we had (a Democrat) was so outrageously bad at money that we accrued debt we didn't even need to accrue-- a major reason being that we spent money we never had to do things that could have honestly waited.

It would seem that the Democrats seek to get their revenue from taxing the very rich while being more lenient (neutrally speaking) with the middle class, as to strengthen the middle class and make it harder to slip into poverty. Republicans want to be more lenient with companies, seeing them as job producers and not wanting them to take their business elsewhere. The reason they cut certain social programs, apart from ideological preference, is that they cost money and they want to minimize spending (or at least minimize total cost, which is probably why they may like doing stuff in the Middle East-- because they feel they can get a profit out of either having better relations with those countries, or having them more reliant on their patronage, if you know what I mean). Democrats want to spend more on said social programs, among other things.

The issue that Republicans have, to me, is that they have too much faith in companies. If they can break even, they make even. But if they're already making profits, they're going to want to continue making those profits, and will cut corners to do so-- thus, the regulations imposed on them. In theory, it's a good idea, but it's based on a good faith assumption that they'll create more jobs here if you're less harsh on them, and then on top of that, that it's okay to shift the tax burden to the lower classes who they assume will prosper.

And it would seem that Democrats want to prevent companies from shafting the working class, and thus impose regulations on them… that are never airtight, so they end up taking their business elsewhere, anyways. Their focus is the working class, so they want to help them by supporting things like welfare and Social Security. Except that Social Security is collapsing because more money goes out than in, and when you can get more money from welfare than you can working any job you can geet, there's no incentive to work a job. Instead of giving people a boost to rise up the socieconomic ladder, you've given them a reason to continue being mediocre. You can see that in the poorer parts of the African-American community, where fatherlessness is rampant and the single mothers are practically married to the state. In theory, helping the little guy is a great idea, but if the little guy isn't given a reason to go out and work, you're helping nobody.

You say that heavy red states are the top recipients of welfare… except that such is the case under a government that had prioritized such programs. You talk about heavy blue states having higher GDPs, except that most of those places also have high populations. And much of Middle America isn't well populated to begin with.

Like, Detroit is heavy blue, for example. Does this observation just understandably break down when you go down to the metropolitan level?

So regressives call the constitution outdated because of the second amendment and the electoral college and hate freedom of speech.
Then they write this.

Do they like the constitution or not?

You do realize that none of the blue states practice leftist policies at all, right? They all practice centrist, regulated, welfare capitalism. Chewybunny may not have the slightest clue about leftism or its history, but you're not much better.

Crap not sure how those links broke. I'm stuck on a mac because my harddrive is failing on my main pc. Too late for me to edit them.

Short sweet sum up:
Governments run by democratic officials tend to have more economic growth than republican ones. A variety of factors can be at fault for this not just the governing styles. For example the Republican president's loving desire to go to war in the middle east causing oil prices to shock and for consumer confidence to go down but in at least some part the governing styles of democrats contributes to the growth.

States with the highest amount of people on government assistance are largely republican states. meaning the high taxes in Democratic states is causing money to flow right into these broke a fuck republican states.

Here are the links again without hyper linking because for some reason I can't do that right:

http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php

http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2016/6/the-economy-under-democratic-vs-republican-presidents

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/top-10-states-rely-most-federal-aid

I might be missing one but it is just another source for democrats vs republicans in terms of the economy.

Yesss, data, please keep using data-based arguments! Of course, I want to make sure we're using data properly, so here's my advice to improve that argument:

Presidential voting patterns isn't super rigorous. Maybe try checking out state legislatures and governorships as well as who they vote for president, and maybe go a bit more sophisticated and instead of looking at it black-and-white, you analyze by how strongly they won. Also, you should use GDP per capita if you are insistent on GDP, as it's more representative given population differences. GDP is a bit misleading, though, as it's a bit of a rough measure, due to the fact that the world doesn't revolve around money, despite what some people might say. Also, you compared 2012 GDP to 2016 voting patterns. It should've been 2012 voting patterns.

Edit: Oh yeah, someone also suggested that you also attempt to compare average income based on ideology – for example, average Trump voter income versus average Clinton voter income.

I ran through real quick GDP per capita in 2012 against 2012 voting patterns for president, and there is a clear trend for blue states having a higher GDP per capita. Although, again thinking about data and interpretation thereof, it might be important to note that technological centers tend blue and agricultural centers tend red. Agriculture, while not flashy, is important, because people need food.

That's all I got on this atm.

Well from what a google search has told me, income vs who was voted for, seems to imply that the average Trump voter has a higher income than the average Hillary supporter. While on the other hand the more educated (4 year degree) population voted for Hillary over Trump.

Hillary supporters tended to have an average income just about in line with the median housing income of the US.
While Trump supporters tended to have an average income above the average median housing income of the US.

Of course that would explain at least partially some of their support of Trump considering he promised to cut taxes on the higher income tax brackets.

Also what Bernie said when he said "The poor do not vote".