Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

112th Congress: Everybody's Angry At Everybody

1363739414244

Posts

  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Tea Party fave and former Senate candidate from Nevada Sharron Angle is so inspired that she breaks out into impromptu song. "God Bless the USA"
    Tragic rendition or homage to Borat? We report, you decide.
    The mic on the camera is of mercifully poor quality

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Getting something done at the DMV can easily take an entire (non-weekend) day.
    That's horrible. I don't think I've ever spent more than two hours in a DMV for any reason.
    You probably have never lived in a state that decided to repeal its vehicle tab fees without replacing the revenue to the DMV either.

    Washington State? I've never had serious issues.
    You also don't live where there are people.

    Spokane has a fair number of people.

    sig.jpg
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    rockrnger wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    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.
    No, it doesn't. It's unconstitutional for someone who isn't a natural-born citizen to be president, but that doesn't mean that any of ours haven't been.

  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo wawing a note with the cinema code Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    No, it doesn't. It's unconstitutional for someone who isn't a natural-born citizen to be president, but that doesn't mean that any of ours haven't been.

    You're forgetting about Barrock HUSSEIN NObama.

    Check and mate!

    /Poe

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Thanatos wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, and much like getting a driver's license, you have to educate yourself on the issues between the hours of 9-5, M-F. Oh, wait...

    There's still an opportunity cost, and possibly a higher one than a day's lost wages. It depends on how you value your non-work time, or at least on how you believe non-work time should be valued.
    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?

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • dojangodojango Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Preacher wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    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.

    Not neccessarily. Again the kind of fraud they are alledging has never happened to a signifigant extent. Its the tiger rock concept except their solution will only work to suppress voters, which is the point, they don't want the poor to vote because they don't tend to vote republican outside of trailer parks.

    This is very much like the bear patrol issue; people are more upset at a perceived threat than an actual one. In fact, the whole immigration policy debate is a lot like that episode.

    Using them as a scapegoat for other problems is pretty common.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    There were plenty of anecdotal cases of Indiana's law preventing the poor from voting in 2008. The one I remember specifically was an elderly woman who no longer had valid ID.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    enc0re wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Getting something done at the DMV can easily take an entire (non-weekend) day.

    Good Gods! I live in Michigan and have never waited for more than 10 minutes at the SoS. What could possibly take that long?

    Poor areas rarely have DMV offices. And even if they do, they are often understaffed.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    dojango wrote: »
    This is very much like the bear patrol issue; people are more upset at a perceived threat than an actual one. In fact, the whole immigration policy debate is a lot like that episode.

    Using them as a scapegoat for other problems is pretty common.

    Which is funny because the only real voter fraud issue I'm aware of occured in wisconsin, but because it helped a republican its a ohmotherfucking k!

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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.

    sig.jpg
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    No, we have to fight voter fraud ceaselessly, despite not having any evidence that it actually occurs.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, and much like getting a driver's license, you have to educate yourself on the issues between the hours of 9-5, M-F. Oh, wait...

    There's still an opportunity cost, and possibly a higher one than a day's lost wages. It depends on how you value your non-work time, or at least on how you believe non-work time should be valued.
    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?
    Considering we had a pretty massive scandal where several US Attorneys were fired because they found no evidence of the specific kind of vote fraud ID laws combat, I think the onus is on you to prove this is an actual problem, and not just a made up scandal.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Voter fraud on any measurable scale has to be a inside job, otherwise there is just too much risk of getting caught.

    Recruiting people to walk in to a polling station and cast votes in other peoples name? You would need dozens if not hundreds of people to do it at seperate polling stations. Checking that somebody was registered but not voting that day? The risk of the poll officals actually knowing the person you are impersonating? Then getting everybody to shut up afterwards? It only takes for one of these things to happen for the entire thing to unravel.

    Or having 1 county offical "find" the votes you need to win?

    Which one would you try for? Hint: There is a reason the dead voted for Kennedy in 60.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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?

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    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?

    Occams razor: The simplest solution is usually the right one. Vast voter fraud conspiracy involving hundreds of people or a few old men trying to keep their guys in office.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    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?

    Sorry, that's not how it works.

    Since you're the one so sure we need voter ID laws, it's your job to find proof.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    No, we have to fight voter fraud ceaselessly, despite not having any evidence that it actually occurs.

    It must be entirely a coincidence that the ways in which we fight voter fraud tend to disenfranchise the poor and minorities!

    wbBv3fj.png
  • s7apsters7apster Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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

    link

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    s7apster wrote: »
    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

    link

    Lorraine C. Minnite is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Barnard College and a Senior Fellow at Demos. She is coauthor of Keeping Down the Black Vote: Race and the Demobilization of American Voters.

    He said objective and non partisan this lady is a hyper partisan Obambi follower!

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Hint: There is a reason the dead voted for Kennedy in 60.
    Although I don't believe any of those allegations was proven.

  • s7apsters7apster Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I wasn't sayin nothin just putting it out there.

    A google search for voter fraud site:.edu comes up with almost nothing else.

  • dojangodojango Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Hint: There is a reason the dead voted for Kennedy in 60.
    Although I don't believe any of those allegations was proven.

    but nixon was so suave and charming, how else could he have lost?

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    dojango wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Hint: There is a reason the dead voted for Kennedy in 60.
    Although I don't believe any of those allegations was proven.

    but nixon was so suave and charming, how else could he have lost?

    Lets not change history, there were voting irregularities that could have been fraud, Nixon actually did the reasonable thing and chose not to challenge it.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    rockrnger wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    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.
    No, it doesn't. It's unconstitutional for someone who isn't a natural-born citizen to be president, but that doesn't mean that any of ours haven't been.

    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.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Hint: There is a reason the dead voted for Kennedy in 60.
    Although I don't believe any of those allegations was proven.

    Oh they never where, but as a conspiracy to commit voter fraud its the only one that could actually work.

    Get the poll watchers to go through the graveyard and add the names to the voting rolls. Then stuff the ballot box with votes of your choosing when the polls close.

    If you want to be carefull, only add the recently deceased to the voter roll and pretend they cast a absente ballot before their death.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Hint: There is a reason the dead voted for Kennedy in 60.
    Although I don't believe any of those allegations was proven.

    Conservatives delegitimizing the election of a so-called liberal to office? Why, I've never heard of such a thing.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    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?

    Occams razor: The simplest solution is usually the right one. Vast voter fraud conspiracy involving hundreds of people or a few old men trying to keep their guys in office.
    Occam's razor is effective only to the extent you can fairly describe the possible explanations. I don't think you have in this case.

    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.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    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.
    No, it doesn't. It's unconstitutional for someone who isn't a natural-born citizen to be president, but that doesn't mean that any of ours haven't been.

    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?

    sig.jpg
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    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?

    Occams razor: The simplest solution is usually the right one. Vast voter fraud conspiracy involving hundreds of people or a few old men trying to keep their guys in office.
    Occam's razor is effective only to the extent you can fairly describe the possible explanations. I don't think you have in this case.

    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.

    Occams razor. Apply it to everything you just said.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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?
    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.

    sig.jpg
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I thought the default conservative position was less intrusive government unless there's a good reason

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I thought the default conservative position was less intrusive government unless there's a good reason

    Yeah less intrusive like abortion legislation, increased immigration enforcement, and warrantless wiretaps.

  • s7apsters7apster Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I think he means ideologically.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    s7apster wrote: »
    I think he means ideologically.

    When their ideology doesn't line up with their actions, I think you can toss the ideology. The modern conservative movement is anything but.

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    There were plenty of anecdotal cases of Indiana's law preventing the poor from voting in 2008. The one I remember specifically was an elderly woman who no longer had valid ID.
    12 nuns from South Bend were unable to vote in the '08 Dem primary because of it.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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?

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    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.

  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I think he means ideologically.

    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.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
This discussion has been closed.