Post Election

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Democratic party denial

 

Nancy Pelosi quote from the article:

She said the chief message she took from Tuesday’s election, which saw Democrats eviscerated at all levels, is that voter suppression was a problem.

 

Oh my friggen Lord.

 

That woman and Harry can't get thrown out of Washington fast enough.

 

 

 

 

"Voter suppression watch: In the North Carolina Senate race, Thom Tillis beat Senator Kay Hagen by 48,000 votes. North Carolina’s voters were, for the first time, voting under one of the harshest new election laws in the country — which Tillis helped craft. The Election Protection hotline reported widespread problems with voter registrations and voters being told they were in the wrong precinct. Numbers from recent elections suggest the magnitude of voter suppression is close to 45,000 to 50,000 votes.

Similarly, in Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback beat back challenger Paul Davis by fewer than 33,000 votes. The Kansas secretary of state says more than 24,000 Kansans tried to register this year but their registrations were held in “suspense” because they failed to present the documentary proof of citizenship now required by state law. And the Government Accountability Office found that Kansas’s voter ID law reduced turnout by 17,000 voters in 2012. You do the math."

 

So, let me get this straight. Now it's even soooo disastrous for someone to even have to prove who they are just to register?

[carlfense]

So, let me get this straight. Now it's even soooo disastrous for someone to even have to prove who they are just to register?

I don't think that disastrous is the right word. I keep going back to a quote that I read some time ago in Battle Cry of Freedom:

 

“We cannot know that all of this was part of a conspiracy to expand slavery," conceded Lincoln. "But when we see a lot of framed timbers . . . which we know have been gotten out at different times and places by different workmen—Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance—and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house . . . we find it impossible to not believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James . . . all worked upon a common plan.” (pg. 377)

 

The results that we're seeing from this war on (virtually non-existent) voter fraud is that it depresses turnout among minority, youth, and poor voters. Now, you can certainly argue that this isn't the intent . . . but it's more difficult to argue that it isn't the effect.

 

That in a vacuum is bad enough . . . but then combine it with a campaign to limit early voting, same day registration, Sunday voting, etc. . . . Those also depress turnout among minority, youth, and poor voters. Again . . . you could argue that this isn't the intent . . . but it's more difficult to argue that it isn't the effect.

 

What do those groups have in common? A tendency to vote Democratic. Which party is almost exclusively pushing for these changes? The Republican Party.

 

When I see those timbers joined together and see that they exactly make the frame of a house I find it very difficult to believe that it wasn't a common plan to build a house. Or in this case, a common plan to reduce turnout among Democratic voters.

[NUpolo8]

 

Sigh.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/06/362056737/boehner-says-rolling-back-obamacare-is-gop-priority

 

 

 

House Speaker John Boehner said approval of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline and the repeal of key parts of Obamacare are among Republicans' top priorities now that theGOP has won control of both houses of Congress.

 

"Obamacare is hurting our economy, it's hurting middle-class workers, and it's hurting the ability to create more jobs," Boehner said, adding that Republicans want to replace it with "common-sense reforms."

 

Among those reforms, according to the Ohio Republican, would be eliminating the individual mandate that requires individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

 

Facing reporters for his first post-election news conference, Boehner ticked off a list of items at or near the top of the GOP agenda. They also include reducing the nation's debt, overhauling the tax code and changing the legal and regulatory systems.

 

The speaker also warned that if Obama takes unilateral action on immigration, he risks losing a revolt by GOP lawmakers and the possibility of a comprehensive deal.

 

"I believe if the president acts on his own, he risks poisoning the well," Boehner said. "If you play with matches, you will get burnt."

 

It's a pretty good threat. If Obama acts, Boehner will continue to not act. Boehner's Charlie Brown/Foot ball scenario is getting a little tired, isn't it?

 

Go big, President Obama. Whatever he does will be labeled as tyranny . . . so he might as well accomplish something significant.

One of the more curious things I think exist about politics, (both sides) is the obsession to create new rules and guidelines. Wasn't quite exactly what a lot of the fathers and writers had in mind, methinks.

[carlfense]

One of the more curious things I think exist about politics, (both sides) is the obsession to create new rules and guidelines. Wasn't quite exactly what a lot of the fathers and writers had in mind, methinks.

What gives you that impression?

[NUpolo8]

 

One of the more curious things I think exist about politics, (both sides) is the obsession to create new rules and guidelines. Wasn't quite exactly what a lot of the fathers and writers had in mind, methinks.

 

What gives you that impression?

The "go big, Obama", or the "good we got back the senate now we can go do x" comments. There are more, and I could be wrong, but it just seems there are lots of people in a gigantic hurry to make -rules-

[zoogs]

So, let me get this straight. Now it's even soooo disastrous for someone to even have to prove who they are just to register?

It's exactly as carl said. On the one hand, the idea of having an airtight system ensuring all voters are identified is great. It's something to strive for.

 

On the other, there's no evidence that voter fraud happens or is attempted in even close to significant amounts.

 

And the burdens imposed by these new laws aren't trivial, either. Sometimes it's a matter of driving hours away to be able to secure a valid identification. There are hoops to jump through and the reality is, even if they are really easy hoops, the bottom line effect is that only a percentage of people affected will bother to go through with it. How hard is voting, for example, if you do have ID? Trivially easy. And yet only a percentage of people bother.

 

Raising the barrier even by what might seem insignificant measures turns a further percentage of people away. This time it's not insignificant. And this time the people most inconvenienced and most turned away by this are minorities, young people, women (change of last name!)

 

That's the simple reality of the situation. No procedure or process or regulation is ever really airtight or flawless. The only reason so much political effort is being expended to this end is because of what it will accomplish, and that is screen away percentages of a demographic that tends to be politically opposed.

[carlfense]

 

 

One of the more curious things I think exist about politics, (both sides) is the obsession to create new rules and guidelines. Wasn't quite exactly what a lot of the fathers and writers had in mind, methinks.

What gives you that impression?

The "go big, Obama", or the "good we got back the senate now we can go do x" comments. There are more, and I could be wrong, but it just seems there are lots of people in a gigantic hurry to make -rules-

 

No . . . what gave you the impression that creating new rules and guidelines wasn't what a lot of the fathers and writers had in mind?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

One of the more curious things I think exist about politics, (both sides) is the obsession to create new rules and guidelines. Wasn't quite exactly what a lot of the fathers and writers had in mind, methinks.

What gives you that impression?

The "go big, Obama", or the "good we got back the senate now we can go do x" comments. There are more, and I could be wrong, but it just seems there are lots of people in a gigantic hurry to make -rules-

 

No . . . what gave you the impression that creating new rules and guidelines wasn't what a lot of the fathers and writers had in mind?

 

Every time a rule is put in in some for or another, someone screams....OMG....it's hurting poor minority people.

 

That is unless it's the other side putting the rule in and then some other group is being hurt.

[NUpolo8]

 

 

 

One of the more curious things I think exist about politics, (both sides) is the obsession to create new rules and guidelines. Wasn't quite exactly what a lot of the fathers and writers had in mind, methinks.

 

What gives you that impression?

The "go big, Obama", or the "good we got back the senate now we can go do x" comments. There are more, and I could be wrong, but it just seems there are lots of people in a gigantic hurry to make -rules-

No . . . what gave you the impression that creating new rules and guidelines wasn't what a lot of the fathers and writers had in mind?

Oh! Sorry.

 

The constitutional delegates were (at least by my interpretation) very well to do men with jobs that still wield a lot of power today (obviously, as they framed a constitution with their interests at heart). As such, they created a document to run a country that had guidelines, but expressly framed what you could do, not what you couldn't.

 

It just seems to me that everyone wants to make more rules where, left or right, involves the government in more of your life. Also, everyone hates the amount of money in politics. Well, the two are related. The more the government is present in your life,the more people are going to pay to try and alter it. And the most money will win.

[BigRedBuster]

 

So, let me get this straight. Now it's even soooo disastrous for someone to even have to prove who they are just to register?

It's exactly as carl said. On the one hand, the idea of having an airtight system ensuring all voters are identified is great. It's something to strive for.

 

On the other, there's no evidence that voter fraud happens or is attempted in even close to significant amounts.

 

And the burdens imposed by these new laws aren't trivial, either. Sometimes it's a matter of driving hours away to be able to secure a valid identification. There are hoops to jump through and the reality is, even if they are really easy hoops, the bottom line effect is that only a percentage of people affected will bother to go through with it. How hard is voting, for example, if you do have ID? Trivially easy. And yet only a percentage of people bother.

 

Raising the barrier even by what might seem insignificant measures turns a further percentage of people away. This time it's not insignificant. And this time the people most inconvenienced and most turned away by this are minorities, young people, women (change of last name!)

 

That's the simple reality of the situation. No procedure or process or regulation is ever really airtight or flawless. The only reason so much political effort is being expended to this end is because of what it will accomplish, and that is screen away percentages of a demographic that tends to be politically opposed.

 

Here is the thing that drives me crazy about this entire issue.

One side acts like idiots putting rules in place in a way that it's easy for the other side to scream....RACISM.

 

The other side acts like these minorities are the most helpless invalid people who can't do anything for themselves. Heck, if I listened to this side and I was a black teen, I wouldn't think I could never accomplish anything because I am such a helpless poor person in such a dominatingly racist culture that no way in hell I can do anything.

[carlfense]

The constitutional delegates were (at least by my interpretation) very well to do men with jobs that still wield a lot of power today (obviously, as they framed a constitution with their interests at heart). As such, they created a document to run a country that had guidelines, but expressly framed what you could do, not what you couldn't.

But those same constitutional delegates convened to (and did!) significantly expand the scope and power of the federal government. They were doing the exact same thing that you're talking about.

 

It just seems to me that everyone wants to make more rules where, left or right, involves the government in more of your life. Also, everyone hates the amount of money in politics. Well, the two are related. The more the government is present in your life,the more people are going to pay to try and alter it. And the most money will win.

Eh. I don't usually think about it in such broad strokes. I don't think government should be larger for the sake of larger government. In fact, there are plenty of areas where I think that the government should be smaller.

 

I'd go so far as to say that the common belief about GOP = small government and the DNC = big government is a lazy fallacy. Both sides want bigger government in some areas and smaller government in other areas. The difference isn't over the overall size or influence of government but rather where the government exercises it's power.

[zoogs]

Here is the thing that drives me crazy about this entire issue.

One side acts like idiots putting rules in place in a way that it's easy for the other side to scream....RACISM.

 

The other side acts like these minorities are the most helpless invalid people who can't do anything for themselves. Heck, if I listened to this side and I was a black teen, I wouldn't think I could never accomplish anything because I am such a helpless poor person in such a dominatingly racist culture that no way in hell I can do anything.

No, this is not at all about racism or individual ability or doing things for yourself.

 

A rule that introduces requirements that weren't there before is going to lower the percentage of people who vote. This is simple cause & effect. There's nothing that will ever change that. You make it enough of a hassle that some people are going to say, "You know what? I'm not going to bother."

 

And everyone is not affected equally by this. It takes advantage of the fact that the extra bother is imposed not indiscriminately, but very clearly on certain people more than others.

 

The bottom line is that any group that has to take additional measures is going to turn out less, as a whole. Republicans are taking advantage of a convenient reality that the groups that happen to be hit hardest by these measures, also happen to vote the other way as a whole. There is nothing more to this than those in power changing the rules of the game so as to help themselves stay in power.

[NUpolo8]

 

The constitutional delegates were (at least by my interpretation) very well to do men with jobs that still wield a lot of power today (obviously, as they framed a constitution with their interests at heart). As such, they created a document to run a country that had guidelines, but expressly framed what you could do, not what you couldn't.

But those same constitutional delegates convened to (and did!) significantly expand the scope and power of the federal government. They were doing the exact same thing that you're talking about.

It just seems to me that everyone wants to make more rules where, left or right, involves the government in more of your life. Also, everyone hates the amount of money in politics. Well, the two are related. The more the government is present in your life,the more people are going to pay to try and alter it. And the most money will win.

Eh. I don't usually think about it in such broad strokes. I don't think government should be larger for the sake of larger government. In fact, there are plenty of areas where I think that the government should be smaller.I'd go so far as to say that the common belief about GOP = small government and the DNC = big government is a lazy fallacy. Both sides want bigger government in some areas and smaller government in other areas. The difference isn't over the overall size or influence of government but rather where the government exercises it's power.

Well they had to expand the federal power, right? It was brand new, (and many walked away from the first convention in protest, as they were more interested in states rights)

 

Other than that, you are correct about the lazy fallacy of right wing=less government. Boehner and McConnell don't believe any part of that, for example.

[tschu]

Are we really having the voter ID discussion again

[carlfense]

Well they had to expand the federal power, right? It was brand new, (and many walked away from the first convention in protest, as they were more interested in states rights)

Federal power wasn't brand new at the constitutional convention . . . it was just woefully inadequate. The federal government predated the constitutional convention by 8-12 years.