No, I know that. I meant, that's the "ideology" they use to convince their supporters they're doing good work. It makes it easy to get away with a lot by misrepresenting motive. In this case, they say they want to stop voter fraud, when in reality, they probably want to make it easier to disenfranchise democrats.
edit: I think we both mean mainstream conservatism
There is the Christian conservative ideology, the fiscal/libertarian conservative ideology, and the neo-conservative ideology. The three definitely run counter to each other on multiple issues. Its a mighty feat of doublethink for a person to believe in all three simultaneously.
And they vote for both parties republicans and the gop.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In The Myth of Voter Fraud, Lorraine C. Minnite presents the results of her meticulous search for evidence of voter fraud. She concludes that while voting irregularities produced by the fragmented and complex nature of the electoral process in the United States are common, incidents of deliberate voter fraud are actually quite rare. Based on painstaking research aggregating and sifting through data from a variety of sources, including public records requests to all fifty state governments and the U.S. Justice Department, Minnite contends that voter fraud is in reality a politically constructed myth intended to further complicate the voting process and reduce voter turnout
You have yet to make a case for vote fraud being an issue. In fact, people here have shown, over and over, that it is not. Considering this, there is no point to enacting voter ID laws in the first place. Which then leads into the question of, if there is no evidence of the problem these laws are supposed to solve, why are you continuing to push them?
Clarification: What I meant was that by passing a law meant to keep illegal immigrants from voting they are trying to make it seem like they are doing so in large numbers, thereby framing the immigration debate in a different way.
The whole voter suppression thing goes down when you look at the fact that rural poor would be hardest hit by this law and they vote Republican.
There are no urban poor?
There are lots of urban poor in places like Virginia, Florida, California, and Nevada, whereas the rural poor are mostly concentrated in areas like Mississippi, Alabama, Utah, Wyoming, and West Virginia.
i.e. places where it won't matter have rural poor, places where it does matter have urban poor.
Clarification: What I meant was that by passing a law meant to keep illegal immigrants from voting they are trying to make it seem like they are doing so in large numbers, thereby framing the immigration debate in a different way.
The whole voter suppression thing goes down when you look at the fact that rural poor would be hardest hit by this law and they vote Republican.
There are no urban poor?
There are lots of urban poor in places like Virginia, Florida, California, and Nevada, whereas the rural poor are mostly concentrated in areas like Mississippi, Alabama, Utah, Wyoming, and West Virginia.
i.e. places where it won't matter have rural poor, places where it does matter have urban poor.
Well yes.
What I found objectionable was his notion that we're only concerned that people who lean democratic won't be able to vote.
Assuming there's a clear interest (real or perceived) for non-citizens in supporting one candidate over another, and assuming they know they won't get asked to prove their citizenship
And you complained about our assumptions.
One of those assumptions IS the anti-ID assumption.
Styro: Thanks for the link.
AngelHedgie: Who's pushing voter IDs? Not me. Isn't it enough that I clearly, unambiguously said "I don't believe we should act."? What the fuck more do you want to hear?
You say that with some authority, but I'm not aware of any Supreme Court decisions to that effect... and as we all know, something isn't unconstitutional until Justice Kennedy says it is.
Not aware of any SCOTUS cases saying that Voter ID laws are, in effect, a Poll Tax, or that the SCOTUS has never ruled that a poll tax is unconstitutional? 'Cause the latter's easy: Harper v Virginia Board of Elections. If the former, then, yeah, Voter ID laws have been being held up as A-OK from my understanding.
Only when there is a free ID option.
Which is, of course, retarded because "free" here only really deals with "did the BMV* ask you for $X for your ID?" It ignores lost income from having to take time off work, income to get to and from the BMV, time lost providing/assisting your children, etc etc etc. Yay, for taking things as literally as possible!
* Or wherever one might get an ID in their state.
There is an opportunity cost for participation in the political life of the nation. Arguments like these against a valid ID to vote would be just as useful in countering complaints about stupid people who vote, but we all complain about ill-informed voters! Informing yourself about political issues costs you in time, usually more time than it takes to go to the DMV for an afternoon.
Anyhow, shouldn't we instead be arguing that a more streamlined process for getting a valid ID is the solution? Or proposing alternate solutions? It seems obvious that we have a public interest in asking voters to prove they are citizens.
Here's a solution. Hold the entire election as vote-by-mail.
You say that with some authority, but I'm not aware of any Supreme Court decisions to that effect... and as we all know, something isn't unconstitutional until Justice Kennedy says it is.
Not aware of any SCOTUS cases saying that Voter ID laws are, in effect, a Poll Tax, or that the SCOTUS has never ruled that a poll tax is unconstitutional? 'Cause the latter's easy: Harper v Virginia Board of Elections. If the former, then, yeah, Voter ID laws have been being held up as A-OK from my understanding.
Only when there is a free ID option.
Which is, of course, retarded because "free" here only really deals with "did the BMV* ask you for $X for your ID?" It ignores lost income from having to take time off work, income to get to and from the BMV, time lost providing/assisting your children, etc etc etc. Yay, for taking things as literally as possible!
* Or wherever one might get an ID in their state.
There is an opportunity cost for participation in the political life of the nation. Arguments like these against a valid ID to vote would be just as useful in countering complaints about stupid people who vote, but we all complain about ill-informed voters! Informing yourself about political issues costs you in time, usually more time than it takes to go to the DMV for an afternoon.
Anyhow, shouldn't we instead be arguing that a more streamlined process for getting a valid ID is the solution? Or proposing alternate solutions? It seems obvious that we have a public interest in asking voters to prove they are citizens.
Here's a solution. Hold the entire election as vote-by-mail.
Seriously. Oregon has this shit figured out. It would be one of the better examples of the old "laboratories of democracy" thing.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Clarification: What I meant was that by passing a law meant to keep illegal immigrants from voting they are trying to make it seem like they are doing so in large numbers, thereby framing the immigration debate in a different way.
The whole voter suppression thing goes down when you look at the fact that rural poor would be hardest hit by this law and they vote Republican.
There are no urban poor?
There are lots of urban poor in places like Virginia, Florida, California, and Nevada, whereas the rural poor are mostly concentrated in areas like Mississippi, Alabama, Utah, Wyoming, and West Virginia.
i.e. places where it won't matter have rural poor, places where it does matter have urban poor.
Well yes.
What I found objectionable was his notion that we're only concerned that people who lean democratic won't be able to vote.
That was not my intention.
I was just saying that vote suppresion thing is secondary to the "scary mexicans" thing.
Assuming there's a clear interest (real or perceived) for non-citizens in supporting one candidate over another, and assuming they know they won't get asked to prove their citizenship
And you complained about our assumptions.
One of those assumptions IS the anti-ID assumption.
Styro: Thanks for the link.
AngelHedgie: Who's pushing voter IDs? Not me. Isn't it enough that I clearly, unambiguously said "I don't believe we should act."? What the fuck more do you want to hear?
For someone who doesn't think we should act, you did an awful lot of water carrying for voter ID laws.
It seems obvious that we have a public interest in asking voters to prove they are citizens.
Well yeah it would seem obvious, and on its face it doesn't seem a bad idea. But it is, one, because id laws hurt the poor, as you've seen argued here, and two, there really isn't any evidence that voter fraud that could be prevented via ID is a serious issue.
The voter suppression us just a side effect to the real idea here.
If there is a law to keep Illegal Immigrants from voting that means that illegal immigrants ARE voting.
Really?
What we really need is a law banning me from getting massages from Swedish supermodels while watching movies on my new 80" LED TV.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Now, I'm considered a card-carrying commie by most who know me, and I think that voter ID laws are stupid and should be chastised for the disenfranchising efforts that they are.
That having been said, after several pages where it's been "shown" that these efforts suppress voter turnout, only one single link has been posted. While I'm sure that lady's thoughts are a valuable commentary on the topic, it's hardly a convincing preponderance of evidence. Does anyone have any actual data to demonstrate the negative effects of these measures?
Now, I'm considered a card-carrying commie by most who know me, and I think that voter ID laws are stupid and should be chastised for the disenfranchising efforts that they are.
That having been said, after several pages where it's been "shown" that these efforts suppress voter turnout, only one single link has been posted. While I'm sure that lady's thoughts are a valuable commentary on the topic, it's hardly a convincing preponderance of evidence. Does anyone have any actual data to demonstrate the negative effects of these measures?
Now, I'm considered a card-carrying commie by most who know me, and I think that voter ID laws are stupid and should be chastised for the disenfranchising efforts that they are.
That having been said, after several pages where it's been "shown" that these efforts suppress voter turnout, only one single link has been posted. While I'm sure that lady's thoughts are a valuable commentary on the topic, it's hardly a convincing preponderance of evidence. Does anyone have any actual data to demonstrate the negative effects of these measures?
And even if there wasn't data supporting the suppression thing, there is also no data showing that this kind of voter fraud is a significant issue. It, at the very least, creates an additional hassle for a fair number of people in pursuit of solving an imaginary problem.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
God damn it, Democrats. You've got to get serious about this shit. Ha ha, it's funny, Republicans want to end Medicare! They'll have to do shit like mow lawns and dance at parties!
Stop trying to make a viral video that will catch on with the internet crowd - aim for the old folks...
Actually, you know what, maybe I'm wrong. I was about to suggest playing on their very real fears, and that's exactly the kind of reprehensible emotional-appeal bullshit I hate about the GOP.
God damn it, Democrats. You've got to get serious about this shit. Ha ha, it's funny, Republicans want to end Medicare! They'll have to do shit like mow lawns and dance at parties!
Stop trying to make a viral video that will catch on with the internet crowd - aim for the old folks...
Actually, you know what, maybe I'm wrong. I was about to suggest playing on their very real fears, and that's exactly the kind of reprehensible emotional-appeal bullshit I hate about the GOP.
I don't know what to make of that ad.
Dude, it ends with an octogenarian doing a striptease routine. That thing's going to stick in people's minds
Lanz on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
God damn it, Democrats. You've got to get serious about this shit. Ha ha, it's funny, Republicans want to end Medicare! They'll have to do shit like mow lawns and dance at parties!
Stop trying to make a viral video that will catch on with the internet crowd - aim for the old folks...
Actually, you know what, maybe I'm wrong. I was about to suggest playing on their very real fears, and that's exactly the kind of reprehensible emotional-appeal bullshit I hate about the GOP.
I don't know what to make of that ad.
Dude, it ends with an octogenarian doing a striptease routine. That thing's going to stick in people's minds
Yeah, but it's a web only ad. This is not the time to fuck around. The message ought to be "hey old people, the GOP is ready to throw you under the bus", not "ha ha, what will those wacky old people do for their heart meds?"
God damn it, Democrats. You've got to get serious about this shit. Ha ha, it's funny, Republicans want to end Medicare! They'll have to do shit like mow lawns and dance at parties!
Stop trying to make a viral video that will catch on with the internet crowd - aim for the old folks...
Actually, you know what, maybe I'm wrong. I was about to suggest playing on their very real fears, and that's exactly the kind of reprehensible emotional-appeal bullshit I hate about the GOP.
I don't know what to make of that ad.
Dude, it ends with an octogenarian doing a striptease routine. That thing's going to stick in people's minds
Yeah, but it's a web only ad. This is not the time to fuck around. The message ought to be "hey old people, the GOP is ready to throw you under the bus", not "ha ha, what will those wacky old people do for their heart meds?"
Presumably they can do both.
And will probably do the later closer to an actual election.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
How illuminating. What states is it the BMV in? Is this some kind of east coast west coast thing?
I dunno. Did I say something silly and you're teasing me? It's the BMV in Indiana. Do you guys have DMV's instead?
Georgia has the "Department of Driver Services". Always make me think I'm going to the dentist
It's "R(egistry)MV" up hear.
MVD in Arizona, if I remember correctly.
If not Arizona, then somewhere else. Montana, maybe? I definitely remember going to an MVD for a license.
It is MVD here in AZ.
ProtoSound on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
Funny thing relating to motor vehicle places.
While working 411, we often had to look up the DMV/etc numbers for customers all over the US. The ONLY state that our database did not translate DMV into the proper government agency was Michigan.
We could type in DMV for anywhere in the country, but Michigan. We could type in MOTO VEH for anywhere but Michigan. We HAD to type in SECR STA for Michigan and give out the generic number or the Secretary of State's phone tree.
I can't tell you how many times I got screamed at because of that being the way Michigan was set up. I hate you Michigan SoS. (but not as much as I hated the USPS going to that 1800 number. Seriously. Fuck you USPS)
While working 411, we often had to look up the DMV/etc numbers for customers all over the US. The ONLY state that our database did not translate DMV into the proper government agency was Michigan.
We could type in DMV for anywhere in the country, but Michigan. We could type in MOTO VEH for anywhere but Michigan. We HAD to type in SECR STA for Michigan and give out the generic number or the Secretary of State's phone tree.
I can't tell you how many times I got screamed at because of that being the way Michigan was set up. I hate you Michigan SoS. (but not as much as I hated the USPS going to that 1800 number. Seriously. Fuck you USPS)
I was gonna say, I've never been to a _MV, just the Sec o' State
wait, you need to personally get the permission of the secretary of state to drive? That must be one hard working guy.
Void Slayer on
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
Assuming there's a clear interest (real or perceived) for non-citizens in supporting one candidate over another, and assuming they know they won't get asked to prove their citizenship
And you complained about our assumptions.
One of those assumptions IS the anti-ID assumption.
Styro: Thanks for the link.
AngelHedgie: Who's pushing voter IDs? Not me. Isn't it enough that I clearly, unambiguously said "I don't believe we should act."? What the fuck more do you want to hear?
For someone who doesn't think we should act, you did an awful lot of water carrying for voter ID laws.
So the rest of you don't have to be tortured by the wall of quotes:
Anyhow, shouldn't we instead be arguing that a more streamlined process for getting a valid ID is the solution? Or proposing alternate solutions? It seems obvious that we have a public interest in asking voters to prove they are citizens.
Well yeah it would seem obvious, and on its face it doesn't seem a bad idea. But it is, one, because id laws hurt the poor, as you've seen argued here, and two, there really isn't any evidence that voter fraud that could be prevented via ID is a serious issue.
I can see the law inconveniencing a lot of people, financially and otherwise, but harm to the poor seems overstated here. Have the suggested harms been proven? It doesn't seem they have been, any more convincingly than the possibility of fraud prevention has been.
Do we even know how many people there are who a) work all day, on every day the DMV is open, and b) don't have a valid ID already?
Also, it seems like one hell of a challenge to estimate how much fraud by non-citizens is happening when the only way to measure it would be to ask foreign nationals to be honest about something likely to get them deported.
Absent solid numbers on how much fraud we think might be happening, and how much harm a change might cause, how do we decide whether to make this change?
Absent solid numbers on how much fraud we think might be happening, and how much harm a change might cause, how do we decide whether to make this change?
It seems if we don't know if its going to harm anyone or not and aren't sure if its needed or not the responsible thing is to not do it.
Just my 2 cents.
That should be the conservative position, and I like that metric very much. Now, are there any non-ideological studies that might shed some light for us in either direction?
People seem to be making all sorts of gratuitous assumptions here. Is there any good evidence? In thinking about balancing the possible harms and the possible goods, it seems to me that if financial harm and deterrence in participation by citizens cannot be demonstrated, the case against action is very much weakened. I still believe the conservative position should be to avoid action when the causes and effects are largely unknown.
spool, you're just claiming we haven't proven that stricter requirements for voting don't hurt the poor, but you've presented no case for why these requirements would be at all good.
I'm not - I'm saying that neither the good nor the harm is proven, and that in the absence of any proof on either side, a conservative should argue for inaction.
It seems sensible that only our citizens should be able to vote for our leaders, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that illegal aliens should get a vote, or that we should turn a blind eye to fraud. It seems unproven that a voter ID requirement is an effective way to prevent non-citizens from voting, and it seems unproven that a voter ID would harm the poor.
Therefore, I don't believe we should act.
Also, I think it's wrong to suggest that widespread voter fraud by non-citizens is hard or unlikely. Assuming there's a clear interest (real or perceived) for non-citizens in supporting one candidate over another, and assuming they know they won't get asked to prove their citizenship, getting them to vote would be a lower hurdle than some are suggesting.
I'm not - I'm saying that neither the good nor the harm is proven, and that in the absence of any proof on either side, a conservative should argue for inaction.
Just conservatives?
I don't believe a progressive position on an issue requires as a pre-requisite that some good is proved - only that some good might be possible. I also don't believe a progressive position requires that the harm be disproved - only that potential harm is outweighed by the potential good.
So yes, since neither the harm nor the good is proved conservatives should choose inaction, but other political leanings might arrive at different conclusions.
Also, I think it's wrong to suggest that widespread voter fraud by non-citizens is hard or unlikely.
And yet its been shown to be the case that they aren't.
I've been asking for proof of the harm, or proof that the harm does not exist - care to offer some? "It's been shown"... who showed? Where? When?
In short, I most emphatically have NOT been carrying water for Voter ID laws. I've said exactly the opposite of that! The reasons for them seem unproved, therefore action should be avoided. Look, I get that you disagree with me as your default position - if I said the sky was blue you'd get up to go check if I was lying... but I said data supporting voter ID was missing 3 different times, and that we shouldn't act 4 different times, and then you accuse me of supporting action! Can you maybe stop making stuff up?
Yes, spool, you paid lip service to that. You also kept trying to defend the idea that the jury is still out on whether the specific type of voter fraud that voter ID laws would combat actually occurs to any significant degree, even in the face of proof to the contrary.
In short, you shouldn't be opposed to voter ID laws because "the jury is still out", you should be opposed because it's a solution to a nonexistent problem. That is where you were carrying water for the voter ID side.
Democrats and Republicans are joining to oppose one of the most important features of President Obama’s new deficit reduction plan, a powerful independent board that could make sweeping cuts in the growth of Medicare spending.
But not only do Republicans and some Democrats oppose increasing the power of the board, they also want to eliminate it altogether. Opponents fear that the panel, known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, would usurp Congressional spending power over one of the government’s most important and expensive social programs.
Under the law, spending cuts recommended by the presidentially appointed panel would take effect automatically unless Congress voted to block or change them. In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations. The impact of the board’s decisions could be magnified because private insurers often use Medicare rates as a guide or a benchmark in paying doctors, hospitals and other providers.
Last week, in his speech on deficit reduction, Mr. Obama said he wanted to beef up the board’s cost-cutting powers in unspecified ways should the growth of Medicare spending exceed certain goals. Supporters say the board will be able to make tough decisions because it will be largely insulated from legislative politics.
Lawmakers do not agree. Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, called it “a rationing board” and said Congress should not “delegate Medicare decision-making to 15 people appointed by the president.” He said Mr. Obama’s proposal would allow the board to “impose more price controls and more limitations on providers, which will end up cutting services to seniors.”
Democrats and Republicans are joining to oppose one of the most important features of President Obama’s new deficit reduction plan, a powerful independent board that could make sweeping cuts in the growth of Medicare spending.
But not only do Republicans and some Democrats oppose increasing the power of the board, they also want to eliminate it altogether. Opponents fear that the panel, known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, would usurp Congressional spending power over one of the government’s most important and expensive social programs.
Under the law, spending cuts recommended by the presidentially appointed panel would take effect automatically unless Congress voted to block or change them. In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations. The impact of the board’s decisions could be magnified because private insurers often use Medicare rates as a guide or a benchmark in paying doctors, hospitals and other providers.
Last week, in his speech on deficit reduction, Mr. Obama said he wanted to beef up the board’s cost-cutting powers in unspecified ways should the growth of Medicare spending exceed certain goals. Supporters say the board will be able to make tough decisions because it will be largely insulated from legislative politics.
Lawmakers do not agree. Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, called it “a rationing board” and said Congress should not “delegate Medicare decision-making to 15 people appointed by the president.” He said Mr. Obama’s proposal would allow the board to “impose more price controls and more limitations on providers, which will end up cutting services to seniors.”
That's a shame, the one decent part of the ACA was that the board would get more power to cut down on the things Medicare paid for.
FPA20111 on
The paranoid man believes that everyone is out to get him. The intelligent man knows that everyone is out to get him.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Democrats and Republicans are joining to oppose one of the most important features of President Obama’s new deficit reduction plan, a powerful independent board that could make sweeping cuts in the growth of Medicare spending.
But not only do Republicans and some Democrats oppose increasing the power of the board, they also want to eliminate it altogether. Opponents fear that the panel, known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, would usurp Congressional spending power over one of the government’s most important and expensive social programs.
Under the law, spending cuts recommended by the presidentially appointed panel would take effect automatically unless Congress voted to block or change them. In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations. The impact of the board’s decisions could be magnified because private insurers often use Medicare rates as a guide or a benchmark in paying doctors, hospitals and other providers.
Last week, in his speech on deficit reduction, Mr. Obama said he wanted to beef up the board’s cost-cutting powers in unspecified ways should the growth of Medicare spending exceed certain goals. Supporters say the board will be able to make tough decisions because it will be largely insulated from legislative politics.
Lawmakers do not agree. Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, called it “a rationing board” and said Congress should not “delegate Medicare decision-making to 15 people appointed by the president.” He said Mr. Obama’s proposal would allow the board to “impose more price controls and more limitations on providers, which will end up cutting services to seniors.”
That's a shame, the one decent part of the ACA was that the board would get more power to cut down on the things Medicare paid for.
I just came from the Wisconsin thread, so it's kind of amusing that here, collective bargaining is great, but there it isn't.
Man, if congress didn't work so hard to make sure the government had to ask 'what would you like us to pay you for that?!' instead of actually negotiating drug prices, he wouldn't have even needed to suggest such a board.
It's a huge amount of money, with a large subscriber pool. Medicare should be the most effective freaking collective bargaining agreement on the planet, except it's forbidden from actually trying to strike a fair deal.
Man, if congress didn't work so hard to make sure the government had to ask 'what would you like us to pay you for that?!' instead of actually negotiating drug prices, he wouldn't have even needed to suggest such a board.
It's a huge amount of money, with a large subscriber pool. Medicare should be the most effective freaking collective bargaining agreement on the planet, except it's forbidden from actually trying to strike a fair deal.
I heard a great piece on NPR the other day where a very pleasant-sounding woman who happened to run an insurance company in New York explained how they try to keep their own expenses down by negotiating prescriptions drug prices. It was a fairly illuminating description of the pricing war between big pharma and the the insurance industry in general. I'll try to find it.
edit: It was from This American Life, so there's not a transcript (at least not yet), but they put the entire program up online. Fast-forward to 6:21 and listen to act one: "One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill."
Posts
edit: I think we both mean mainstream conservatism
And they vote for both parties republicans and the gop.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Reposted for Spool.
I'm just going to let the progressive thing go because I don't feel like digging into that particular can of random.
You have yet to make a case for vote fraud being an issue. In fact, people here have shown, over and over, that it is not. Considering this, there is no point to enacting voter ID laws in the first place. Which then leads into the question of, if there is no evidence of the problem these laws are supposed to solve, why are you continuing to push them?
i.e. places where it won't matter have rural poor, places where it does matter have urban poor.
Well yes.
What I found objectionable was his notion that we're only concerned that people who lean democratic won't be able to vote.
Styro: Thanks for the link.
AngelHedgie: Who's pushing voter IDs? Not me. Isn't it enough that I clearly, unambiguously said "I don't believe we should act."? What the fuck more do you want to hear?
Here's a solution. Hold the entire election as vote-by-mail.
Seriously. Oregon has this shit figured out. It would be one of the better examples of the old "laboratories of democracy" thing.
Democrats turn guns on GOP over Medicare
Also, watch the video.
Good, hit them where it hurts, their older voter base.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That was not my intention.
I was just saying that vote suppresion thing is secondary to the "scary mexicans" thing.
For someone who doesn't think we should act, you did an awful lot of water carrying for voter ID laws.
Really?
What we really need is a law banning me from getting massages from Swedish supermodels while watching movies on my new 80" LED TV.
That having been said, after several pages where it's been "shown" that these efforts suppress voter turnout, only one single link has been posted. While I'm sure that lady's thoughts are a valuable commentary on the topic, it's hardly a convincing preponderance of evidence. Does anyone have any actual data to demonstrate the negative effects of these measures?
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Swire%20Butts%20Issue%20Brief.pdf
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/wmitch34&div=19&id=&page=
http://brennan.3cdn.net/74978e15d83a92d20f_c3m6bhza7.pdf
There are some, you do have to buy access, or be at a college, to fully read the second link.
Thanks :^:
God damn it, Democrats. You've got to get serious about this shit. Ha ha, it's funny, Republicans want to end Medicare! They'll have to do shit like mow lawns and dance at parties!
Stop trying to make a viral video that will catch on with the internet crowd - aim for the old folks...
Actually, you know what, maybe I'm wrong. I was about to suggest playing on their very real fears, and that's exactly the kind of reprehensible emotional-appeal bullshit I hate about the GOP.
I don't know what to make of that ad.
Dude, it ends with an octogenarian doing a striptease routine. That thing's going to stick in people's minds
and why..
man, that gets posted on facebook.....
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Yeah, but it's a web only ad. This is not the time to fuck around. The message ought to be "hey old people, the GOP is ready to throw you under the bus", not "ha ha, what will those wacky old people do for their heart meds?"
Presumably they can do both.
And will probably do the later closer to an actual election.
It's "R(egistry)MV" up hear.
MVD in Arizona, if I remember correctly.
If not Arizona, then somewhere else. Montana, maybe? I definitely remember going to an MVD for a license.
It is MVD here in AZ.
While working 411, we often had to look up the DMV/etc numbers for customers all over the US. The ONLY state that our database did not translate DMV into the proper government agency was Michigan.
We could type in DMV for anywhere in the country, but Michigan. We could type in MOTO VEH for anywhere but Michigan. We HAD to type in SECR STA for Michigan and give out the generic number or the Secretary of State's phone tree.
I can't tell you how many times I got screamed at because of that being the way Michigan was set up. I hate you Michigan SoS. (but not as much as I hated the USPS going to that 1800 number. Seriously. Fuck you USPS)
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I was gonna say, I've never been to a _MV, just the Sec o' State
Gal, at the moment.
So the rest of you don't have to be tortured by the wall of quotes:
In short, you shouldn't be opposed to voter ID laws because "the jury is still out", you should be opposed because it's a solution to a nonexistent problem. That is where you were carrying water for the voter ID side.
Seriously, he agrees with you. Calm down.
That's a shame, the one decent part of the ACA was that the board would get more power to cut down on the things Medicare paid for.
I just came from the Wisconsin thread, so it's kind of amusing that here, collective bargaining is great, but there it isn't.
It's a huge amount of money, with a large subscriber pool. Medicare should be the most effective freaking collective bargaining agreement on the planet, except it's forbidden from actually trying to strike a fair deal.
I heard a great piece on NPR the other day where a very pleasant-sounding woman who happened to run an insurance company in New York explained how they try to keep their own expenses down by negotiating prescriptions drug prices. It was a fairly illuminating description of the pricing war between big pharma and the the insurance industry in general. I'll try to find it.
edit: It was from This American Life, so there's not a transcript (at least not yet), but they put the entire program up online. Fast-forward to 6:21 and listen to act one: "One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill."