The Great Liberal Freakout of 2016

[knapplc]

Yep. Heck, isn't California still counting?

[BigRedBuster]

I'm fine with it.

 

 

PS....Actually, I think actual "recounts" are a waste of time. We need to somehow be looking for evidence of tampering or hacking into the system. If that didn't happen....forget about it.

 

I would however, like to know what evidence Trump has of voter fraud.

[Enhance]

So, the response to liberals being upset about the outcome of the election is to then get on social media/message boards and insult them?

 

Oh, right, but everybody needs to "get over it." Maybe take some of your own advice, OP.

 

It's all cyclical. Eight or 12 years from now, it's likely a Democrat will be elected into office and they could also hold the majority of power in Congress/Senate. Maybe some of my fellow Republicans should grow up and stop gloating.

[commando]

with something as important as a presidential election....why wouldn't every election be double checked to make sure everything is correctly counted and not manipulated? heck....ALL sides are saying this election was crooked....maybe an audit/recount/whatever you want to call it is more than justified.

[TGHusker]

This is partially tangent to the topic at hand, but wasn't North Carolina trying to pass voting laws that would have a disproportionate effect on African-American voters, or put another way, that were deliberately targeting African-American voters? Thankfully that law was struck down to prevent its use on Election Day.

 

Regarding the recounts, I think the integrity of the vote matters, and if either side has cause to doubt the results, they should be contested. Especially when the results are so close. For example, it wouldn't make sense for Hillary to contest Alabama where she lost by 600,000 votes. In the same vein, it wouldn't make sense for President-elect Trump to contest California where he lost by 3.4 million votes. So, if recounts are going to become a thing, how big of a gap is too wide to contest? 70,000? 100,000? 250,000?

 

About the integrity of the vote, Republicans introduce legislation to protect the integrity of the vote in the name of preventing voter fraud, which depending on the source is either a big problem, or hardly a problem at all. From a costs and benefits perspective, it doesn't make sense for the individual voter to commit voter fraud. The benefit is one additional, non-impact vote at the cost of a $10,000 fine and 5 years in jail. It's hard for me to imagine voter fraud being a major threat to vote integrity.

 

On the other hand, voter suppression presents a very real threat to the integrity of the vote, and the GOP has become master manipulators at voter suppression. The GOP knows it doesn't do well with African-American voters, so rather than comprising their party platform to win their support, they find ways to prevent them from voting in the first place, through gerrymandering, voting ID legislation, etc... And don't think Democrats are innocent from voter suppression either.

 

Therein lies the problem: the parties are too focused on introducing legislation that restricts members of the other team from voting rather than introducing legislation that wins the support of the other team's constituents.

 

One last thing, I think Election Day should be a national holiday. Don't go to work, don't take your children to school. Get out there, do your civic duty that might take at most half the day, and vote. I'm sick of seeing more people shopping on Black Friday (coincidentally not a work day for most people) than voting.

100% agree wt the bold. Good post. The RED heighted is the 'quote of the election' as far as I'm concerned. Great observation. However, I still don't see how a voter ID is suppressive by itself. Gerrymandering is another story. We use voter IDs for so many less important things. Most citizens have a gov't issued photo id in the form of a driver's license. If they don't then a one time issuance of the ID when they register to vote. If the vote is a 'sacred' thing in which we should have a national holiday as you note, then it is important to protect the integrity of the vote by making sure those who are not eligible are not allowed to vote. Please explain how that creates a burden on the voter. However, as you state, one person's voter fraud seems very irrational in consideration of the consequences. A few get caught each year regardless. I don't think it is wide spread, regardless of Trump's claims to the contrary. Of greater concern is systematic vote count manipulation - like what happened in the Minn Senate recount back in 2008 or 10 when the comedian got 'elected'.. When one party controls all of the oversight to the process. That is just one example - I'm sure it happens on both sides. Again Gerrymandering has been a tool used by both parties over the decades. The dems led the way for decades and then it started to turn wt in the 1980s wt landslide elections for Ronald Reagan influencing the local and state elections. Now the repubs have a huge upper hand wt the control of so many governorships and state legislatures.

[TGHusker]

I'm fine with it.

 

 

PS....Actually, I think actual "recounts" are a waste of time. We need to somehow be looking for evidence of tampering or hacking into the system. If that didn't happen....forget about it.

 

I would however, like to know what evidence Trump has of voter fraud.

None

See this article

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-report-voter-fraud-no-evidence/2016/11/28/id/761022/

 

President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said Monday there is evidence that voter fraud existed in the election, but the evidence it cited says otherwise.

According to USA Today, spokesman Jason Miller said on a media conference call the evidence behind Trump's claim over the weekend that millions of people voted illegally lies in a Pew Charitable Trusts study mentioned in a 2014 Washington Post article.

The study's author, however, responded on Twitter and said the figures in the Post report had been misrepresented.

.

[BigRedBuster]

Every journalist in America should be absolutely hounding him and everyone in his circle of people about what evidence they have.

 

They should not even start any interview or press conference without having to answer about 30 minutes of questions about what voter fraud happened.

 

The integrity of the election is way too important.

 

In fact, I think every person in America should be tweeting every single one of them about what evidence they have and do it every single day till they give it.

[Danny Bateman]

 

This is partially tangent to the topic at hand, but wasn't North Carolina trying to pass voting laws that would have a disproportionate effect on African-American voters, or put another way, that were deliberately targeting African-American voters? Thankfully that law was struck down to prevent its use on Election Day.

 

Regarding the recounts, I think the integrity of the vote matters, and if either side has cause to doubt the results, they should be contested. Especially when the results are so close. For example, it wouldn't make sense for Hillary to contest Alabama where she lost by 600,000 votes. In the same vein, it wouldn't make sense for President-elect Trump to contest California where he lost by 3.4 million votes. So, if recounts are going to become a thing, how big of a gap is too wide to contest? 70,000? 100,000? 250,000?

 

About the integrity of the vote, Republicans introduce legislation to protect the integrity of the vote in the name of preventing voter fraud, which depending on the source is either a big problem, or hardly a problem at all. From a costs and benefits perspective, it doesn't make sense for the individual voter to commit voter fraud. The benefit is one additional, non-impact vote at the cost of a $10,000 fine and 5 years in jail. It's hard for me to imagine voter fraud being a major threat to vote integrity.

 

On the other hand, voter suppression presents a very real threat to the integrity of the vote, and the GOP has become master manipulators at voter suppression. The GOP knows it doesn't do well with African-American voters, so rather than comprising their party platform to win their support, they find ways to prevent them from voting in the first place, through gerrymandering, voting ID legislation, etc... And don't think Democrats are innocent from voter suppression either.

 

Therein lies the problem: the parties are too focused on introducing legislation that restricts members of the other team from voting rather than introducing legislation that wins the support of the other team's constituents.

 

One last thing, I think Election Day should be a national holiday. Don't go to work, don't take your children to school. Get out there, do your civic duty that might take at most half the day, and vote. I'm sick of seeing more people shopping on Black Friday (coincidentally not a work day for most people) than voting.

However, I still don't see how a voter ID is suppressive by itself. Gerrymandering is another story. We use voter IDs for so many less important things. Most citizens have a gov't issued photo id in the form of a driver's license. If they don't then a one time issuance of the ID when they register to vote. If the vote is a 'sacred' thing in which we should have a national holiday as you note, then it is important to protect the integrity of the vote by making sure those who are not eligible are not allowed to vote. Please explain how that creates a burden on the voter.

 

They then close places for people to get new IDs, creating a barrier to getting what they require you to have to vote. Coincidentally, they happened to close down ID issuance offices in 8 of the 10 counties with highest minority registration.

 

You can't tell people they need an ID to vote and then make that process harder to do at the same time.

 

Or in some cases, they can make IDs prohibitively expensive.

 

 

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.

“It has been a bureaucratic nightmare,” said Settles, 65, a retired engineer. “The intent of this law is to suppress the vote. I feel like I am not wanted in this state.”

I don't know what people's finances are. No one should have to pay $250 for a silly bureaucratic reason to get the specific ID required to vote when they have numerous other ones. Shoot, with poor folks scraping by paycheck to paycheck, who's to say even a $15-25 charge for a new basic ID wouldn't be too much for them if they're struggling to pay rent, bills, and keep food on the table?

 

It doesn't seem like there's much cooperation on the parts of these states passing voter ID legislation to meet disadvantaged citizens halfway.

[NM11046]

Every journalist in America should be absolutely hounding him and everyone in his circle of people about what evidence they have.

 

They should not even start any interview or press conference without having to answer about 30 minutes of questions about what voter fraud happened.

 

The integrity of the election is way too important.

 

In fact, I think every person in America should be tweeting every single one of them about what evidence they have and do it every single day till they give it.

I'm in.

[TGHusker]

 

 

This is partially tangent to the topic at hand, but wasn't North Carolina trying to pass voting laws that would have a disproportionate effect on African-American voters, or put another way, that were deliberately targeting African-American voters? Thankfully that law was struck down to prevent its use on Election Day.

 

Regarding the recounts, I think the integrity of the vote matters, and if either side has cause to doubt the results, they should be contested. Especially when the results are so close. For example, it wouldn't make sense for Hillary to contest Alabama where she lost by 600,000 votes. In the same vein, it wouldn't make sense for President-elect Trump to contest California where he lost by 3.4 million votes. So, if recounts are going to become a thing, how big of a gap is too wide to contest? 70,000? 100,000? 250,000?

 

About the integrity of the vote, Republicans introduce legislation to protect the integrity of the vote in the name of preventing voter fraud, which depending on the source is either a big problem, or hardly a problem at all. From a costs and benefits perspective, it doesn't make sense for the individual voter to commit voter fraud. The benefit is one additional, non-impact vote at the cost of a $10,000 fine and 5 years in jail. It's hard for me to imagine voter fraud being a major threat to vote integrity.

 

On the other hand, voter suppression presents a very real threat to the integrity of the vote, and the GOP has become master manipulators at voter suppression. The GOP knows it doesn't do well with African-American voters, so rather than comprising their party platform to win their support, they find ways to prevent them from voting in the first place, through gerrymandering, voting ID legislation, etc... And don't think Democrats are innocent from voter suppression either.

 

Therein lies the problem: the parties are too focused on introducing legislation that restricts members of the other team from voting rather than introducing legislation that wins the support of the other team's constituents.

 

One last thing, I think Election Day should be a national holiday. Don't go to work, don't take your children to school. Get out there, do your civic duty that might take at most half the day, and vote. I'm sick of seeing more people shopping on Black Friday (coincidentally not a work day for most people) than voting.

However, I still don't see how a voter ID is suppressive by itself. Gerrymandering is another story. We use voter IDs for so many less important things. Most citizens have a gov't issued photo id in the form of a driver's license. If they don't then a one time issuance of the ID when they register to vote. If the vote is a 'sacred' thing in which we should have a national holiday as you note, then it is important to protect the integrity of the vote by making sure those who are not eligible are not allowed to vote. Please explain how that creates a burden on the voter.

 

They then close places for people to get new IDs, creating a barrier to getting what they require you to have to vote. Coincidentally, they happened to close down ID issuance offices in 8 of the 10 counties with highest minority registration.

 

You can't tell people they need an ID to vote and then make that process harder to do at the same time.

 

Or in some cases, they can make IDs prohibitively expensive.

 

 

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.

“It has been a bureaucratic nightmare,” said Settles, 65, a retired engineer. “The intent of this law is to suppress the vote. I feel like I am not wanted in this state.”

I don't know what people's finances are. No one should have to pay $250 for a silly bureaucratic reason to get the specific ID required to vote when they have numerous other ones. Shoot, with poor folks scraping by paycheck to paycheck, who's to say even a $15-25 charge for a new basic ID wouldn't be too much for them if they're struggling to pay rent, bills, and keep food on the table?

 

It doesn't seem like there's much cooperation on the parts of these states passing voter ID legislation to meet disadvantaged citizens halfway.

 

I agree wt you Dude. I think IDs are a good thing but to obtain one, there should be minimal cost or none and easy access. So if those games are being played, I think they are in violation of voter rights acts. It is shameful for anyone to go thought what Mr Settles has. I hope it is not wide spread but one person is one too many.

[BigRedBuster]

Make them free and flood the market with places you can get one. This is another issue that neither side really wants to address. Republicans like being able to suppress votes. Dems like to act like they are the moral high all mighty.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Make them free and flood the market with places you can get one. This is another issue that neither side really wants to address. Republicans like being able to suppress votes. Dems like to act like they are the moral high all mighty.

 

And [mostly] everyone suffers.

 

Everyone, myself included, needs to become more proactive in writing/phoning their congressmen.

[knapplc]

Republicans like being able to suppress votes. Dems like to act like they are the moral high all mighty.

This is a pretty apt description.

 

One of these ideologies is an asshole.

 

The other suppresses Constitutional freedoms.

 

We have to have our priorities straight on which one of these we sort out first.

[Moiraine]

Since cornstar never replied:

 

"Millennials are the generation born between 1982 and sometime in the early 2000's. However, these boundaries aren't set in stone. Some definitions have the Millennial Generation starting as early as 1978 and starting as late as 1985."

 

I'm a millenial. I started working a minimum wage job when I was 16. I taught myself how to write html and make websites and worked for my favorite band for 5 years. They broke up, so I got a couple college degrees, which my mom didn't pay for, and I landed a good job.

 

I've voted in 5 presidential elections and the person I voted for lost in 3 of them.

 

I can't say I did any breakthrough research while getting my M.S. but some of the things my fellow awful, whiny millenials were doing:

 

Creating fuel from algae by inhibiting certain genes in their DNA

Creating/improving drought-resistant crops

Studying diseases that are prevalent in cows and how to prevent them (using genetics somehow - but that was over my head)

 

 

The problem with making dumb ass generalizations about a whole group of people is it only takes one anecdote to prove them wrong.

[BigRedBuster]

The definition I have found of a "Millennial" is someone who is becoming a young adult around the year 2000. To me, that would mean someone who was born in 1980 - 1970. So, that would put this group in the 36 - 46 age range.

 

mil·len·nial

miˈlenēəl/

noun

1. 1.

   a person reaching young adulthood around the year 2000; a Generation Yer.

   "the industry brims with theories on what makes millennials tick"