2016 Election
Quote: ams288Here's a new poll out today:
Polls Show Carson Running Nearly Even To Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/15/today-in-politics-in-new-poll-carson-pulls-up-alongside-an-idling-trump/
This could be what happened in 2012 all over again: each candidate gets their moment at the top of polls while voters try and figure out who they like best. Looks like it's about to be Carson's turn if the momentum keeps up...
I think it has been talked about before here--where does the support go when people like Perry drop out or when folks like Bush drop lower in the polls. It looks like most of it has been going to Carson but some to Trump also.
People haven't "examined" Trump yet; isn't he supposed to issue one of his "plans" for something soon after this debate? That was a good tactic to keep from alienating people who don't like his plan but like him a little bit before the debate...it helped keep him at the top.
He may win, it is at least possible, but the examination of his positions over time will have him do some up and down movement in the polls. Things that sound good as sound bites may not flesh out well into parts of the actual "plan" to get things done. I can say I will raise taxes on hedge fund managers and make a lot of friends and less enemies, but how do I do it in practical terms without impacting people I don't want to tax more?
Details. Then we'll find out how people go once they see details.
Quote: RonCI think it has been talked about before here--where does the support go when people like Perry drop out or when folks like Bush drop lower in the polls. It looks like most of it has been going to Carson but some to Trump also.
People haven't "examined" Trump yet; isn't he supposed to issue one of his "plans" for something soon after this debate? That was a good tactic to keep from alienating people who don't like his plan but like him a little bit before the debate...it helped keep him at the top.
He may win, it is at least possible, but the examination of his positions over time will have him do some up and down movement in the polls. Things that sound good as sound bites may not flesh out well into parts of the actual "plan" to get things done. I can say I will raise taxes on hedge fund managers and make a lot of friends and less enemies, but how do I do it in practical terms without impacting people I don't want to tax more?
Details. Then we'll find out how people go once they see details.
I really doubt we will see plans or details.
He has the clear lead without a plan or details.
If he continues to lead going into the primaries, which he will, there is no reason for him to release plans or details.
His plans are to just wing it if he becomes President
This cycle the two biggest front runners, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are running well back in the pack. Walker has sunk to like 2%, That is Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal type numbers and he appears all but done, having been thoroughly rejected. I wouldn't say Bush is all but done, but to date he has also been thoroughly rejected (so far) much more so that Romney ever was.
Quote: kewljSome people are comparing Trump and Carson as "having their moment in the sun", much as the pizzaman and even Michelle Bachman did in 2011. I see one big difference. Mitt Romney, the presumed and eventual nominee at the time was never running near the back of the pack. Romney was always second or third, while the electorate "kicked' The tires of other candidates early on.
This cycle the two biggest front runners, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are running well back in the pack. Walker has sunk to like 2%, That is Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal type numbers and he appears all but done, having been thoroughly rejected. I wouldn't say Bush is all but done, but to date he has also been thoroughly rejected (so far) much more so that Romney ever was.
I never thought Scott Walker had a chance.... Not sure why anyone did. He has no mainstream appeal and could never win a general.... And that face. Eek!
I was on record many times saying Jeb was the best bet in the general. But that was before he turned out to be such a low energy candidate (if I can borrow the phrase from Mr. Trump).
I'm still trying to figure out who their best bet is now. Kasich? If he can gain traction. Some people say Rubio. But his awful far-right abortion answer during the first debate doesn't scream "general election material!" to me...
Quote: ams288I never thought Scott Walker had a chance.... Not sure why anyone did. He has no mainstream appeal and could never win a general.... And that face. Eek!
I was on record many times saying Jeb was the best bet in the general. But that was before he turned out to be such a low energy candidate (if I can borrow the phrase from Mr. Trump).
I'm still trying to figure out who their best bet is now. Kasich? If he can gain traction. Some people say Rubio. But his awful far-right abortion answer during the first debate doesn't scream "general election material!" to me...
Walker was declared one of the front runners because he was the choice of the Koch brothers, although publically they say they haven't backed a candidate yet.
Jeb is very laid back and it does come across as low energy. He is also dry and pretty humorless. Much different than his brother. Just the way he holds his body looks very stiff. I have said before that I wonder if he has back issues and is wearing a back brace. Not that I would hold that against him, but that's what he looks like to me.
I don't think Kasich is the guy. I though maybe during and just after the last debate, as he gave good answers that made him sound reasonable. The gay marriage answer was a great answer. He said he was not in favor of gay marriage, but that he has attended the gay marriages of friends. I think that kind of seems reasonable to many people. But when you look a little deeper as I did just after the last debate, you find more of a career politician that doesn't seem so special.
I always thought Rubio had a real strong chance. He is young, energetic, good looking, intelligent and well spoken. I also thought he had an outstanding first debate. But that hasn't translated into any momentum. I suppose the repubs see him as too young and inexperienced, probably more of a VP candidate (unless Jeb win, which Rubio can't be VP being from the same state).
In the last 2 days there were two polls released by fairly creditable sources that had two VERY different results.
On Monday, the ABC/Wash post poll had Trump at 33%, and Carson at 20%, a 13 point lead.
Today, CBS/New York Times poll has Trump at 27% and Carson at 23%, a 4 point lead.
Now it's funny, the headlines on several different news stations, liberal leaning, MSNBC as well as Fox news are something to the effect that Carson has pulled almost even with Trump. CNN headline is "Carson surging!" lol
The way I would apply this data is averaging I get Trump at 30% and Carson at 21.5%. But I guess that is not as good a headline. lol
Quote: kewljThe way I would apply this data is averaging I get Trump at 30% and Carson at 21.5%. But I guess that is not as good a headline. lol
Because of Trumps style I could see the polls fluctuating just a day apart by several points. It's whatever he says in between two polls.
I think all the lower tier candidates hope for another Perry-type withdrawl. Perry ran out of money so soon, I wonder if he was running on wishful thinking?
Even better, let's see just who is supposed to be Clinton's inspirational guru. Why,it's none other than the redoubtable Kim Kardashian:Quote: EvenBobShe's already lining up a larger Ryder truck for when they leave the WH for good. She'll take everything this time.
"So I think all of us in our own ways can be inspirational or aspirational for people.. and I certainly think many people see her as someone who gets up every day and tries to figure out how to make that day successful," said Clinton." washington examiner
What a fantastic and amazing plateau to aspire to!!!! Sure beats the pants off Palin and Fiorina.
Quote: SanchoPanzaEven better, let's see just who is supposed to be Clinton's inspirational guru. Why,it's none other than the redoubtable Kim Kardashian:
"So I think all of us in our own ways can be inspirational or aspirational for people.. and I certainly think many people see her as someone who gets up every day and tries to figure out how to make that day successful," said Clinton." washington examiner
What a fantastic and amazing plateau to aspire to!!!! Sure beats the pants off Palin and Fiorina.
The full quote:
"You know I just met her for the first time, she came to one of my fundraisers in Los Angeles and I really enjoyed meeting her, I really found her to be warm and very personable, she had a nice way of introducing her husband, as if I didn't know who he was, right, and I enjoy seeing her with her daughter. So I think all of us in our own ways can be inspirational or aspirational for people.. and I certainly think many people see her as someone who gets up every day and tries to figure out how to make that day successful," said Clinton.
What is wrong with that...? What is the story here?
Could be the worst ratings in years.
Carly seems likely to attack him. I think that would be a huge mistake for her. That would open her up to criticism on her own record. Despite the way she paints it, her time as 'top dog' at HP was not very successful. 30,000 employees laid off. Stock fell by 50%. Pretty hostile termination.
Jeb isn't very effective at attacking. He comes off lame when he tries.
Rand Paul failed miserably when he tried to attack Trump in the first debate.
Maybe Christie or Walker will give attacking Trump a go. They need to try something.....almost anything. lol
Carson almost assuredly won't attack. He questioned Trumps religion last week and immediately apologized. Attacking isn't what he is about.
Quote: kewlj
Carson almost assuredly won't attack. \.
I don't get the appeal of Carson, he puts me
to sleep. He has zero experience that would
translate into presidential cred. Trump at
least has dealt with politicians for the last
30 years and brokered huge successful deals
in the private sector.
Quote: EvenBobI don't get the appeal of Carson, he puts me
to sleep. He has zero experience that would
translate into presidential cred. Trump at
least has dealt with politicians for the last
30 years and brokered huge successful deals
in the private sector.
He may cause you to snooze but he's got a decent resume' besides being a neurosurgeon.
Quote:After graduation, Ben would work as an X-ray technician, a bank teller, a school bus driver, a supervisor for highway cleanup crews, and a crane operator in a steel factory, before being accepted into The University of Michigan School of Medicine.
He sat on the board of directors of numerous entities, including Kellogg Company, Costco Wholesale Corporation, the Academy of Achievement, and is an Emeritus Fellow of the Yale Corporation, the governing body of Yale University.
In 2001, Dr. Carson was named by CNN and TIME Magazine as one of the nation’s 20 foremost physicians and scientists. That same year, he was selected by the Library of Congress as one of 89 “Living Legends.”
He is also the recipient of the 2006 Spingarn Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the NAACP. In June, 2008, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bush, the highest civilian honor in the land.
Dr. Carson holds 67 honorary doctorate degrees. He is a member of the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society, the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Science, the Horatio Alger Society of Distinguished Americans, and many other organizations.
https://www.bencarson.com/meet-ben
Quote: rxwineHe may cause you to snooze but he's got a decent resume' besides being a neurosurgeon.
So he's ran nothing in the real world,
then. Perfect, another Obama, just
what we need. Are you kidding me?
Quote: EvenBobSo he's ran nothing in the real world,
then. Perfect, another Obama, just
what we need. Are you kidding me?
Trump has no real experience working with politicians in ways that don't involve him giving them lots of cash in order to gain influence over what they do. Take his comment about Hillary and his wedding--she came because he gave them money and she was obligated to do some things he asked. He is just the opposite side of politicians who take money and give someone else control instead of working for their voters at every moment.
The amount of money it takes to run a campaign kind of forces people to accept money and "owe' people; liberal try to hide behind it being "the people" donating when the union's support a candidate but the candidate they support is often not the one supported by the majority of their union. They chastise corporations acting the same way; they can't see the double standard. Same way with Soros and the Koch Brothers. The ones that have more money are some how more wrong.
So we have a bunch of career politicians, a guy who has been successful in business but has a bit of a head start from his daddy, a lady who has been somewhat successful in business (HP was not a great thing for her), and a guy who was taught the right things by his mom, does the right thing by all accounts, has brought himself from nothing to being very successful and you think he is the same as Obama?
Ridiculous. Did you even bother to consider his resume?
He's not a great talker. That is a positive to me at this point. Most politicians and Trump say a whole lot but say nothing. President Obama is the same. I think politicians learn how to say nothing early on; if I write a Congressman and disagree with him, he sends back a form letter than doesn't acknowledge my position and tells me how good his position is without exactly calling me a nut case. They talk the same way--I care but I really don't.
Trump is different. He talks loud, fires people right and left, does some great business deals and a few bad ones, but everything is about what he can do for himself. He's a great caricature of himself on stage, but is he Presidential? Can he be Presidential? I've accused Obama of not acting like a President; I wonder about Trump.
I like Ben Carson. I may even vote for him. I would vote for Trump over a lot, if not all, of the other candidates. I just have more questions about him than I do Carson.
I'd like to double down on that statement in regards to Ben Carson. That dude has zero chance of ever becoming President. He's obviously a very intelligent person (being a neurosurgeon and all...) but some of the stuff he says is just flat out idiotic. And his performance in the last debate was abysmal. He was a deer in the headlights the whole time. Imagine him in a debate with whoever the Democratic nominee is.... Good luck! lol
Sometimes I feel like Republican primary voters want their candidate to lose so they can just complain and whine about "wanting their country back!" for another 4 or 8 years.
Quote: ams288I've said many times that Trump could never win a general election if he somehow becomes the nominee.
I'd like to double down on that statement in regards to Ben Carson. That dude has zero chance of ever becoming President. He's obviously a very intelligent person (being a neurosurgeon and all...) but some of the stuff he says is just flat out idiotic. And his performance in the last debate was abysmal. He was a deer in the headlights the whole time. Imagine him in a debate with whoever the Democratic nominee is.... Good luck! lol
Sometimes I feel like Republican primary voters want their candidate to lose so they can just complain and whine about "wanting their country back!" for another 4 or 8 years.
You are right, as usual. No Republican candidate, vetted through the primaries and backed by the party, could ever win the general election. Why? It is easy--Democrats will vote for anyone with a "D' by their name. Hillary has said and done some trashy things, Biden has no idea what he is talking about half the time, and Sanders is a socialist. If that is what the country aspires to, so be it.
Quote: RonCYou are right, as usual.
Yeah, I know.
Quote:No Republican candidate, vetted through the primaries and backed by the party, could ever win the general election. Why?
Because they say stupid things and alienate major chunks of the electorate.
And they have far right social positions that the majority of the country does not agree with.
But if you actually read my comment, it was only in regards to Carson and Trump, so I'm not really sure what inspired this "no Republican candidate" hissy fit....
Quote:Hillary has said and done some trashy things
What trashy things has Hillary said?
Quote: ams288Yeah, I know.
Because they say stupid things and alienate major chunks of the electorate.
And they have far right social positions that the majority of the country does not agree with.
Your party has uber-extreme nutjob positions on everything from undisguised racism to prosperity through trillions in debt to the suicidal dual positions of an expanding welfare state coupled with open borders (No Human Is Illegal) to the billions of the Third World. Oh and lets not forget you want to take away the gun rights of working people many of them in your base---or used to be.
In case you missed it your party got all of 45.5% of the vote in last years national election. There are fewer Democrats in the Senate, House, Governorships and state legislatures than any time in almost 100 years. That's landslide territory baby.
Quote: bobsimsIn case you missed it your party got all of 45.5% of the vote in last years national election. There are fewer Democrats in the Senate, House, Governorships and state legislatures than any time in almost 100 years. That's landslide territory baby.
Dems always do bad on the midterms when the voter turnout is low. That's why righties work so hard to disenfranchise voters.
The electoral map favors the Dems big time in 2016. They will take the Senate back easily.
drives me nuts. He sounds like a HS music
teacher, not the president of anything. He
may be the smartest man on earth, he has
the personality of a wet towel.
Quote: ams288The electoral map favors the Dems big time in 2016. They will take the Senate back easily.
The first part of the statement is true. Dems have an advantage in the electoral map. That can change when you get away from the generics and insert actual candidates though. A weak or damaged democratic candidate could still lose. That 'advantage; we speak of is really only a very slight advantage in a very few states. Just a couple percentage points in a couple key states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and that electoral advantage is gone.
The 2016 senate map also does favor the democrats big time. If a democrat wins the white house, the dems will likely take back the senate. If a democrat loses the presidency in a close race, the democrats could still win the senate, with vulnerable republican seats in democratic strongholds like Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
But Harry Reid's open seat in Nevada complicates things. Nevada has been 'trending democrat' in presidential elections, but it is basically a toss up state and it looks like the republicans are likely to have a stronger and better known senate candidate. All in all, I would say the democrats are favored to take back the senate in anything but a big republican presidential win. BUT, I most definitely would not say EASILY win the senate.
Quote: ams288I've said many times that Trump could never win a general election if he somehow becomes the nominee.
People need to stop looking at the Trump candidacy through 'traditional' glasses. Trump is basically like a third party candidate appealing to those that are fed up with Washington, the lobbyists and the status quo of the two party gridlock and corruption. If he gets to the general election there are some democrats and independents that share this same 'fed up' mentality that he will also appeal to. And when you get into policies, some of his actual positions ARE in line with some democratic positions, as the republicans are trying to point out. If He wins the republican nomination, I think he might just win the presidency.
And now there is talk of the republican establishment breaking off and running a third party candidate if they can't stop Trump. It is funny, just a month ago these very establishment people were afraid he would break off, now they are talking about it. I think that is not likely but if it did occur, I would have to put Trump as the favorite in a three way race with a weakened Hillary and an establishment republican candidate like Bush or Walker running third party without the republican backing.
Either way, people better start taking Trump seriously. He is appealing to those that are sick and tired of Washington, politicians, lobbyists and the status quo, and that appears to by a strong majority that goes well beyond party lines.
Quote: ams288Dems always do bad on the midterms when the voter turnout is low. That's why righties work so hard to disenfranchise voters.
The electoral map favors the Dems big time in 2016. They will take the Senate back easily.
I have never understood why Dems do poorly when turnout is low and good when turnout is high. Whether 10% vote or 60% vote, if the electorate votes with same proportions it should not matter. Dems win if turnout is high almost suggests that Dems only win if fraud is involved, at least that is how I interpret that statement
Quote: Gabes22Dems win if turnout is high almost suggests that Dems only win if fraud is involved, at least that is how I interpret that statement
LOL
Quote: Gabes22Dems win if turnout is high almost suggests that Dems only win if fraud is involved, at least that is how I interpret that statement
Dems go screaming when any anti-fraud measure is proposed. All I'm saying.
Quote: AZDuffmanDems go screaming when any anti-fraud pro-voter suppression measure is proposed. All I'm saying.
Fixed.
Quote: ams288Quote: AZDuffmanDems go screaming when any anti-fraud pro-voter suppression measure is proposed. All I'm saying.
Fixed.
How is asking a voter to prove they are in fact who they say they are in any way shape or form, voter suppression? I, for one, would prefer to know that if I don't cast my vote, that nobody else casts it on my behalf, something I cannot be assured of under the current system.
Quote: Gabes22Quote: ams288Quote: AZDuffmanDems go screaming when any anti-fraud pro-voter suppression measure is proposed. All I'm saying.
Fixed.
How is asking a voter to prove they are in fact who they say they are in any way shape or form, voter suppression? I, for one, would prefer to know that if I don't cast my vote, that nobody else casts it on my behalf, something I cannot be assured of under the current system.
This issue has been debated to death on these boards. Maybe use the search function....
The simple fact remains that no one can ever point to any serious legitimate cases of voter fraud occurring in this country. Yet for some reason the righties keep insisting on pushing through measures that make it difficult for some older, poorer, and minority voters to actually vote.
Quote: ams288Quote: Gabes22Quote: ams288Quote: AZDuffmanDems go screaming when any anti-fraud pro-voter suppression measure is proposed. All I'm saying.
Fixed.
How is asking a voter to prove they are in fact who they say they are in any way shape or form, voter suppression? I, for one, would prefer to know that if I don't cast my vote, that nobody else casts it on my behalf, something I cannot be assured of under the current system.
This issue has been debated to death on these boards. Maybe use the search function....
The simple fact remains that no one can ever point to any serious legitimate cases of voter fraud occurring in this country. Yet for some reason the righties keep insisting on pushing through measures that make it difficult for some older, poorer, and minority voters to actually vote.
I, for one, was not allowed to vote in the 2008 election because when I got to the polls, my vote was already cast. And how does showing an ID, which you need to purchase OTC products such as allergy medicine, cold medicine Drano, alcohol or tobacco punishing older, poorer people. You can get a State ID for $5 in my state, which is one of the most over-fee'd and overtaxed states in the union.
Quote: AZDuffmanDems go screaming when any anti-fraud measure is proposed. All I'm saying.
If that's what they REALLY were, no one would have a problem with any such measure.....but that's not the case.
We know this because in most cases, these 'fixes' are for fraud cases that have never been found, or are found is such a minute number, even when republican bodies of legislature go looking for them.
These unnecessary 'fixes' are carefully calculated to effect certain segments, the elderly and poor, in an attempt to disenfranchise what is likely to be disproportionately democratic voters. We know this because there have been some republican operatives that have come out and blatantly, even proudly, admitted it.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/11/27/opinion-republicans-finally-admitting-to-voter-suppression-efforts/
Or how about the video of Pennsylvania GOP house leader stating "voter ID that will allow Mitt Romney to win Pennsylvania....done". You will note no mention of voter fraud as the reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
Just like things like eliminating certain early voting periods, or reducing voting locations. These aren't things that are just proposed out of the blue. They are carefully calculated to effect one side greater than the other.
I really hate that you are so partisan and refuse to look at anything objectively. It really is a form of dishonesty. You either are not being honest with us, or you are not being honest with yourself.
Quote: Gabes22Quote: ams288Quote: Gabes22Quote: ams288Quote: AZDuffmanDems go screaming when any anti-fraud pro-voter suppression measure is proposed. All I'm saying.
Fixed.
How is asking a voter to prove they are in fact who they say they are in any way shape or form, voter suppression? I, for one, would prefer to know that if I don't cast my vote, that nobody else casts it on my behalf, something I cannot be assured of under the current system.
This issue has been debated to death on these boards. Maybe use the search function....
The simple fact remains that no one can ever point to any serious legitimate cases of voter fraud occurring in this country. Yet for some reason the righties keep insisting on pushing through measures that make it difficult for some older, poorer, and minority voters to actually vote.
I, for one, was not allowed to vote in the 2008 election because when I got to the polls, my vote was already cast. And how does showing an ID, which you need to purchase OTC products such as allergy medicine, cold medicine Drano, alcohol or tobacco punishing older, poorer people. You can get a State ID for $5 in my state, which is one of the most over-fee'd and overtaxed states in the union.
It's definitely not $5 for an ID in every state.
I think I could support these voter ID laws if there were no fees involved. Make it totally free to obtain whatever ID the righties are trying to require in order to vote. And free to obtain all the documentation necessary to obtain that ID (i.e. Birth certificate, SS card, etc.). No one should have to pay ANYTHING in order to be able to vote. I don't care if it's $5 or 5¢.
Quote: kewljI really hate that you are so bi-partisan and refuse to look at anything objectively. It really is a form of dishonesty. You either are not being honest with us, or you are not being honest with yourself.
I think you meant "partisan" but I'm still gonna give this a
+100000
anyway...
Quote: ams288I think you meant "partisan" but I'm still gonna give this a
+100000
anyway...
You are correct, that is what I meant. Fixed. :)
Quote: ams288Quote: Gabes22Quote: ams288Quote: Gabes22Quote: ams288Quote: AZDuffmanDems go screaming when any anti-fraud pro-voter suppression measure is proposed. All I'm saying.
Fixed.
How is asking a voter to prove they are in fact who they say they are in any way shape or form, voter suppression? I, for one, would prefer to know that if I don't cast my vote, that nobody else casts it on my behalf, something I cannot be assured of under the current system.
This issue has been debated to death on these boards. Maybe use the search function....
The simple fact remains that no one can ever point to any serious legitimate cases of voter fraud occurring in this country. Yet for some reason the righties keep insisting on pushing through measures that make it difficult for some older, poorer, and minority voters to actually vote.
I, for one, was not allowed to vote in the 2008 election because when I got to the polls, my vote was already cast. And how does showing an ID, which you need to purchase OTC products such as allergy medicine, cold medicine Drano, alcohol or tobacco punishing older, poorer people. You can get a State ID for $5 in my state, which is one of the most over-fee'd and overtaxed states in the union.
It's definitely not $5 for an ID in every state.
I think I could support these voter ID laws if there were no fees involved. Make it totally free to obtain whatever ID the righties are trying to require in order to vote. And free to obtain all the documentation necessary to obtain that ID (i.e. Birth certificate, SS card, etc.). No one should have to pay ANYTHING in order to be able to vote. I don't care if it's $5 or 5¢.
Here are the costs in every state. none is too oppressive,
http://dmvanswers.com/questions/419/How-much-do-state-ID-cards-cost
The bare minimum to vote, you should be able to prove you are who you say you are. Who am I to know whether or not I am still on the voter registration logs from my previous addresses. How do I prevent people such as friend, neighbors, family from knowing I moved from there from casting a ballot in my name at that polling place? it all leaves me really uneasy.
And I guess it is a little more than $5 where I live, it's $20, it was $5 to get one with an updated address.
What was the outcome of that case? Did local or federal prosecutors become involved? Was any investigation ever done? Anyone brought to justice? Was there forgery in the sign-in book? None of those supposedly sitting judges ever get involved?Quote: Gabes22I, for one, was not allowed to vote in the 2008 election because when I got to the polls, my vote was already cast.
Quote: kewlj
These unnecessary 'fixes' are carefully calculated to effect certain segments, the elderly and poor, in an attempt to disenfranchise what is likely to be disproportionately democratic voters.
Why are the olds and poors and people who don't have the wherewithall to get something as simple as an ID "disproportionately democratic"?
You made my mind come out of gear. I read this as an insult, yet you're a Dem. Does not compute lol
What about letting people sell their vote? We should be able to walk up to the ballot box and collect money. The pols are already bought, at least they get something out of it. All we get is this cheap sticker that says, "I voted today".Quote: ams288Quote: Gabes22Quote: ams288Quote: Gabes22Quote: ams288Quote: AZDuffmanDems go screaming when any anti-fraud pro-voter suppression measure is proposed. All I'm saying.
Fixed.
How is asking a voter to prove they are in fact who they say they are in any way shape or form, voter suppression? I, for one, would prefer to know that if I don't cast my vote, that nobody else casts it on my behalf, something I cannot be assured of under the current system.
This issue has been debated to death on these boards. Maybe use the search function....
The simple fact remains that no one can ever point to any serious legitimate cases of voter fraud occurring in this country. Yet for some reason the righties keep insisting on pushing through measures that make it difficult for some older, poorer, and minority voters to actually vote.
I, for one, was not allowed to vote in the 2008 election because when I got to the polls, my vote was already cast. And how does showing an ID, which you need to purchase OTC products such as allergy medicine, cold medicine Drano, alcohol or tobacco punishing older, poorer people. You can get a State ID for $5 in my state, which is one of the most over-fee'd and overtaxed states in the union.
It's definitely not $5 for an ID in every state.
I think I could support these voter ID laws if there were no fees involved. Make it totally free to obtain whatever ID the righties are trying to require in order to vote. And free to obtain all the documentation necessary to obtain that ID (i.e. Birth certificate, SS card, etc.). No one should have to pay ANYTHING in order to be able to vote. I don't care if it's $5 or 5¢.
If you look at it abstractly there isn't a great deal of difference between say, Trump or whoever giving out C notes for a vote and the POTUS giving out EBT, is there? Everybody votes their pocketbook.
We are going to get monkey hammered either way. One lobbyist controlled candidate is pretty much the same as the other. IMO
Quote: kewljI can support showing ID to vote. But, acquiring ID MUST be free. If there is ANY cost, even a penny, associated with getting the proper ID to vote, it becomes a poll tax which is illegal under the 15th amendment.
I see this and I say "Yes. This is a reasonable argument." There is no room to argue.
Yet, when I want to mount a Ma Deuce to my truck, suddenly the same argument doesn't hold water.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhat was the outcome of that case? Did local or federal prosecutors become involved? Was any investigation ever done? Anyone brought to justice? Was there forgery in the sign-in book? None of those supposedly sitting judges ever get involved?
Who said I brought a case up? The legal fees alone weren't worth it.
Quote: kewljI can support showing ID to vote. But, acquiring ID MUST be free. If there is ANY cost, even a penny, associated with getting the proper ID to vote, it becomes a poll tax which is illegal under the 15th amendment.
There are many ways to show proof of residence without having to pay for an ID. For instance, you could show an unopened piece of mail, which is something the DMV uses as proof of residence.
Quote: kewljI can support showing ID to vote. But, acquiring ID MUST be free. If there is ANY cost, even a penny, associated with getting the proper ID to vote, it becomes a poll tax which is illegal under the 15th amendment.
I've said that your position is supportable in the past--everyone can get a free ID--but I haven't heard any Democrats in any position of power stand up and say that. I might have missed it, though...
Quote: RonCI've said that your position is supportable in the past--everyone can get a free ID--but I haven't heard any Democrats in any position of power stand up and say that. I might have missed it, though...
Well it's the Republicans who push the voter ID stuff - so why can't they be the ones to offer a free ID compromise?
Quote: kewljI can support showing ID to vote. But, acquiring ID MUST be free. If there is ANY cost, even a penny, associated with getting the proper ID to vote, it becomes a poll tax which is illegal under the 15th amendment.
This is silly. By this logic the gas to drive to the vote is a "poll tax."
Everyone needs ID to function in society. This has been proven over, over, and over. Yet lefties still think requiring ID is "voter suppression." It is not, it is just good security.
As to "vote fraud has not happened so why bother" let me ask if you wait for your house to be robbed before you put a lock on the door?
Quote: ams288Well it's the Republicans who push the voter ID stuff - so why can't they be the ones to offer a free ID compromise?
Because there is no need for it when people already have an ID.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is silly. By this logic the gas to drive to the vote is a "poll tax."
Everyone needs ID to function in society. This has been proven over, over, and over. .
Don't know anyone who has proven that.
Quote: rxwineDon't know anyone who has proven that.
Been proven here on the boards a dozen or more times. To sum up, you cannot have a legit job or open a bank account with no ID. That is just the biggest two.
Of course we will hear all the liberal excuses of someone living totally off the legal grid who does not work, drive, bank, smoke, drink, or any of the 100 other things you need an ID for. To that my answer is, "TOUGH! If you want to vote go and get an ID. Stick a crowbar in your wallet and pay the nominal fee. Or else don't vote. Life is not to be handed to you."
Meanwhile, Just one case of voter fraud proven.
The only reason to be against voter ID is to allow fraud.
Quote: rxwineDon't know anyone who has proven that.
You need an ID to open a bank account, to buy a cell phone, to purchase or rent a home, to purchase alcohol or tobacco, to purchase some household cleaning items like Drano or OTC medication, to apply for a job, to apply for unemployment, to apply for welfare or Medicaid, to purchase a car, to rent a car, to take a test drive on a car, to get on an airplane, to get married, to purchase a firearm, to adopt a pet, to rent a hotel room, to get a hunting/fishing license, to pick up a prescription, to apply for an application to protest voter suppression, to donate blood, to purchase nail polish at certain drug stores (CVS), yet for some strange reason we don't wish to make sure that the person at a poll coming to vote is the person who is actually casting said vote
Quote: AZDuffmanMeanwhile, Just one case of voter fraud proven.
LOL - she was a poll worker. Is now in jail. Forcing poor people to get an ID would not have stopped her.
Quote: ams288Quote: AZDuffmanMeanwhile, Just one case of voter fraud proven.
LOL - she was a poll worker. Is now in jail. Forcing poor people to get an ID would not have stopped her.
But the poor people already have an ID.
Tell you what, let compromise. Whatever the law is to show ID to purchase a firearm, a right in the Constitution, same process for voting.
So, we get same-day firearm purchases and no ID needed! No fees to register to purchase or even register any guns. Any restriction on firearms, such as a background check, same to vote. If your background check fails for one it fails for the other.
Can you go for that?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: ams288Quote: AZDuffmanMeanwhile, Just one case of voter fraud proven.
LOL - she was a poll worker. Is now in jail. Forcing poor people to get an ID would not have stopped her.
But the poor people already have an ID.
Tell you what, let compromise. Whatever the law is to show ID to purchase a firearm, a right in the Constitution, same process for voting.
So, we get same-day firearm purchases and no ID needed! No fees to register to purchase or even register any guns. Any restriction on firearms, such as a background check, same to vote. If your background check fails for one it fails for the other.
Can you go for that?
Nope. That's stupid.
