ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th June 2018, 07:58 AM   #201
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
We really do need more justices, don't we? As soon as the Democrats take control of Congress, let's all push our representatives for more SCOTUS justices.

YES, push them.

McConnell thinks he's so clever using his power to steal a justice from Obama. Well fudge, let's outsmart the bastard.
You have learned nothing. Democrats destroyed the judicial filibuster, and now face the consequences of doing so. Mitch warned them they would regret it, and now they do.

Now you're thinking about expanding the court next time you get power. Are you naive enough to believe that you'll hold on to power forever? Or that the court can't be expanded again, once you've set that precedent?

Trump has broken you.

Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
We might have to consider taking the stuggle out of politics an dinot the streets.
Yes! Let's identify Republican-supporting businesses and smash their windows! What could possibly go wrong?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:05 AM   #202
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,977
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Even so, it would be very awkward for Democrats in the Legislature to be seen voting against a woman of color just before the midterms. The question is whether the Republicans could find a jurist who was willing to participate in that bit of political theater, and whether they'd be smart/cynical/organized enough to even try it in the first place. Consider also that it would require Trump to play along.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:05 AM   #203
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,281
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Quote:
No. That is not voter suppression. It is merely campaigning. (Although I doubt many people didn't go to the polls just because of what as racist orangutan said.)

Voter suppression involves the government making it comparatively harder for potential voters of one party to vote Even though they want to on voting day.
It was sarcasm.
No, it was an idiotic comment that belittled the rather amoral actions of the republicans to get rid of the ability to vote for thousands of people in an attempt to maintain power.

Rather than trying to be sarcastic, maybe you should, you know, understand the problem.

Quote:
I just think 'voter suppression' is being misapplied
You are welcome to think whatever you want... but there have been multiple studies done (and some have been posted on this forum) of studies that show the effects.

Quote:
...using it as the reason someone didn't vote, instead of a candidate giving a voting block a legitimate reason to not vote for his opponent.
Requiring a person spend hundreds of dollars that they may not have to get the required ID in order to exercise their right to vote is not just some lame excuse... its an actual hardship, a significant barrier to people who may want to vote but can't.

Its not like someone deciding "Shall I go vote? Nah... I'll watch TV instead". Its a case of "I really want to vote. Wait, I have to spend hundreds of dollars to vote?"
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:07 AM   #204
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,095
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
If he nominates a minority/woman Justice, then I would think they will try to force a vote before the midterms, attempting to show that the Dems don't want a person of color, or woman in such a powerful position.
May as well run ads about "the democrat plantation", while they're at it - or Dolt 45's love of Puerto Rico.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:11 AM   #205
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Requiring a person spend hundreds of dollars that they may not have to get the required ID in order to exercise their right to vote is not just some lame excuse... its an actual hardship, a significant barrier to people who may want to vote but can't.
I'm curious about your math. How do you figure hundreds of dollars?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:14 AM   #206
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,281
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You have learned nothing. Democrats destroyed the judicial filibuster, and now face the consequences of doing so. Mitch warned them they would regret it, and now they do.
Correction.... The Democrats removed the judicial filibuster on lower court appointments. And they did so after the republicans had stated that their only goal was to obstruct, regardless of quality of candidate.

The removal of the filibuster on the supreme court was 100% completely and totally the responsibility of the republicans.
Quote:
Yes! Let's identify Republican-supporting businesses and smash their windows! What could possibly go wrong?
I thought we established (thanks to comments made by Trump about 'second amendment people' taking care of Hillary, and by him inviting Nugent to the white house after Nugent told Obama and Hillary to 'suck on his machine gun') that the promotion of violence was now an acceptable part of the American political discourse.

Or are you now saying that calling for violence is only acceptable if its done on the republican side and not on the democrat side?
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:17 AM   #207
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,977
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm curious about your math. How do you figure hundreds of dollars?
Voter ID: Free
Four hours of lost (minimum) wages to go to the DMV and do the paperwork: $29.
The same again in bus fares, opportunity costs, etc: $29
Poster child for "voter suppression": Priceless.

So about $60, but then you add in that last item and "hundreds of dollars" seems like a really lowball figure.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:23 AM   #208
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25,965
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Voter ID: Free
Four hours of lost (minimum) wages to go to the DMV and do the paperwork: $29.
The same again in bus fares, opportunity costs, etc: $29
Poster child for "voter suppression": Priceless.

So about $60, but then you add in that last item and "hundreds of dollars" seems like a really lowball figure.
Keep in mind the ID is useful for more than just voting, hell the one in Chicago is a valid, government-issued ID, a library card, and transit card. That way the poors can go and vote for exactly how their precinct captain tells them to vote.
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:24 AM   #209
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,281
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
We have forgotten that despite having someone in an office that a large segment of the population doesn't like, we always have the power to fix this. Our constitution has us reelect the Executive every 4 years...
Yes, elections which:

- Don't necessarily reflect the will of the people when it comes to the president, because the electoral college is not based on popular vote (so voters in heavily rural states get more influence based on where they live.) So much for the idea of equality

- Elections that have been influenced by gerrymandering and voter suppression. Which, thanks to the increasingly conservative supreme court, will be allowed to continue giving more and more skewed results

Remember, the U.S. is no longer considered a full democracy. Instead, it is now classified as a 'flawed democracy'.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8195121.html

I also find it extremely ironic that Trump supporters and republicans would say "Just vote", considering they are pretty much in bed with the gun nuts who claim they don't want gun regulations because they really need an unlimited number of machine guns in order to prevent government from being too powerful.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:24 AM   #210
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Correction.... The Democrats removed the judicial filibuster on lower court appointments. And they did so after the republicans had stated that their only goal was to obstruct, regardless of quality of candidate.

The removal of the filibuster on the supreme court was 100% completely and totally the responsibility of the republicans.
And you don't recognize the precedent? Or understand how packing the court could set another one?

Quote:
I thought we established (thanks to comments made by Trump about 'second amendment people' taking care of Hillary, and by him inviting Nugent to the white house after Nugent told Obama and Hillary to 'suck on his machine gun') that the promotion of violence was now an acceptable part of the American political discourse.
Funny, but it's the leftists who are actually practice political violence.

As for whether or not it's accepted, well, that's partly up to you.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:24 AM   #211
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,331
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
....

So about $60

....
There was an article a few years ago on the hidden costs of voter ID cards that got to similar numbers as above, but then added in "legal fees" to get to "hundreds of dollars." $1500 IIRC.

Last edited by carlitos; 28th June 2018 at 08:26 AM.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:25 AM   #212
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,423
Hmmm that's it. Rub that Whataboutism all over...
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:30 AM   #213
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,882
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And you don't recognize the precedent? Or understand how packing the court could set another one?



Funny, but it's the leftists who are actually practice political violence.

As for whether or not it's accepted, well, that's partly up to you.
The only one responsible for republican actions are republicans. It doesn't matter what the other side did. It is either an action that stands on its own merit, or it doesn't.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:32 AM   #214
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,154
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You have learned nothing. Democrats destroyed the judicial filibuster, and now face the consequences of doing so. Mitch warned them they would regret it, and now they do.
Yep they should have resigned themselves to no judges unless you control both the senate and the white house. That was of course the republican policy they had to get around.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:36 AM   #215
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The only one responsible for republican actions are republicans. It doesn't matter what the other side did. It is either an action that stands on its own merit, or it doesn't.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Because this isn't in any way a defense of SG's proposal. She's advocating for the Dems to do what she would be horrified of if the Republicans did it. The whole point of mentioning Republicans in that context is to demonstrate that the proposed action (packing the court) DOESN'T stand on its own merit.

Nor is it a defense of dudalb's call to take it to the streets, for the same reason.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:36 AM   #216
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,154
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Funny, but it's the leftists who are actually practice political violence.
Unite the Right and the fun of driving into protestors doesn't count, add in the long list of other nazi attacks and voilence, they clearly don't count either.

How does attacking a pride parade count in your political violence scale?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/four-fa...parade-attack/

How about about the hate crimes when the perpetrator specifically cites Trump when attacking gays or ethnic minorities?

Clearly none of those terrorist acts counts as political violence now. Just like the attack on Gabrielle Giffords doesn't count either for what ever reason you are coming up with.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:37 AM   #217
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
There was an article a few years ago on the hidden costs of voter ID cards that got to similar numbers as above, but then added in "legal fees" to get to "hundreds of dollars." $1500 IIRC.
So it's a made-up figure then. Got it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:38 AM   #218
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,882
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Because this isn't in any way a defense of SG's proposal. She's advocating for the Dems to do what she would be horrified of if the Republicans did it. The whole point of mentioning Republicans in that context is to demonstrate that the proposed action (packing the court) DOESN'T stand on its own merit.

Nor is it a defense of dudalb's call to take it to the streets, for the same reason.
Removing the filibuster on lower court nominations simply doesn't set a precedent. The republicans were not any more justified in their actions because it occurred.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:38 AM   #219
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,154
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
There was an article a few years ago on the hidden costs of voter ID cards that got to similar numbers as above, but then added in "legal fees" to get to "hundreds of dollars." $1500 IIRC.
Legal fees are not the real issue in many cases, but add in taking time off work and not getting paid and transportation costs and a few hundred is pretty easy to get to.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:39 AM   #220
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,095
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
It was sarcasm.

I just think 'voter suppression' is being misapplied, using it as the reason someone didn't vote, instead of a candidate giving a voting block a legitimate reason to not vote for his opponent.
THe big problem is, the main reason suppression measured didn't work were two-fold

First, judges who said "Oh that's just obvious!"

Second, en extensive Get out the Vote campaign in black neighborhoods. Didn't mean people weren't waiting in line for hours on end, didn't mean that republicans weren't shutting down ID and polling locations in black communities, just means that it was fought back, this time.

And in the end, black voters only went back to what would be historically expected without a black person on the presidential ballot - and black women in particular voted almost unilaterally against the orange idiot. The idea that Dolt 45's push alone did anything is risible - although some fool that worked with white nationalists like Bannon may have had some effect.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:47 AM   #221
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,470
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You have learned nothing. Democrats destroyed the judicial filibuster, and now face the consequences of doing so. Mitch warned them they would regret it, and now they do.

Now you're thinking about expanding the court next time you get power. Are you naive enough to believe that you'll hold on to power forever? Or that the court can't be expanded again, once you've set that precedent?

Trump has broken you.



Yes! Let's identify Republican-supporting businesses and smash their windows! What could possibly go wrong?
Democrats might decide cyclical court-packing schemes are better than living with a conservative SCOTUS for decades. The number of justices has been changed before.

And has been pointed out, Republicans did away with the filibuster for SCOTUS judges.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:49 AM   #222
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,281
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Quote:
Requiring a person spend hundreds of dollars that they may not have to get the required ID in order to exercise their right to vote is not just some lame excuse... its an actual hardship, a significant barrier to people who may want to vote but can't.
I'm curious about your math. How do you figure hundreds of dollars?
The cost will vary, depending on the particular voter ID law in the state and the person's personal circumstances. But you have:
- The direct cost of the ID itself as well as any required supporting documents (which may or may not be free)
- Secondary costs such as transportation to whatever government offices need to be visited, time taken off work

From: https://newrepublic.com/article/1196...courage-voting
...a report... from Harvard Law School’s Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice. Researchers there complied published articles and legal testimony, in order to calculate the cost of obtaining a government-issued identification....Their conclusion? The costs can range anywhere from $75 to $400 per person.

From: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know...id-laws/14358/
Obtaining photo ID can be costly and burdensome, with even free state ID requiring documents like a birth certificate that can cost up to $25 in some places.
It should be noted that many people don't have birth certificates. This is particularly an issue in poorer minority areas where there have been many home births.

And from: http://www.brennancenter.org/publica...identification
In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws:
•Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week....1.2 million eligible black voters and 500,000 eligible Hispanic voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week....Many ID-issuing offices maintain limited business hours....In other states — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas — many part-time ID-issuing offices are in the rural regions with the highest concentrations of people of color and people in poverty.
These voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20


So if you're a married woman without a birth certificate you may need to shell out $45 just to get the basic supporting documents for a photo ID. Plus, take time off work to visit the government office (if you're working at some minimum wage job that could end up being half a day's pay).

And of course this is just suppression through the voter ID laws. You also have various restrictions on early voting (many black churches organized trips for their members for early voting).
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:50 AM   #223
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Removing the filibuster on lower court nominations simply doesn't set a precedent.
Yes, actually, it did.

And in case you forgot, plenty of Democrats were calling for a total removal of the filibuster.

Quote:
The republicans were not any more justified in their actions because it occurred.
And does that bring you any comfort?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:50 AM   #224
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,470
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Good god, really?
Sure, it's just that the center got apathetic in 2016, the deplorables were fired up, and our system once again let a popular vote loser win.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:52 AM   #225
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,882
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes, actually, it did.

And in case you forgot, plenty of Democrats were calling for a total removal of the filibuster.



And does that bring you any comfort?
And I support the total abolition of the filibuster. But I don't arrive at that position because I'm some child blaming others for setting a precedent.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:54 AM   #226
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The cost will vary, depending on the particular voter ID law in the state and the person's personal circumstances. But you have:
- The direct cost of the ID itself
The direct cost of the ID is always zero for any state with voter ID requirements.

Quote:
- Secondary costs such as transportation to whatever government offices need to be visited, time taken off work
That's true of voting itself.

Quote:
So if you're a married woman without a birth certificate you may need to shell out $45 just to get the basic supporting documents for a photo ID.
Democrats should campaign to make such documentation free, which would solve that problem. I bet they could get a lot of popular support for it, and it would be politically very hard for Republicans to oppose it.

Strangely, I don't hear any of them trying to. Which makes me wonder if they actually want to solve the problem.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:55 AM   #227
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And I support the total abolition of the filibuster. But I don't arrive at that position because I'm some child blaming others for setting a precedent.
Nobody cares why you hold any of your positions. Or what those positions are.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:57 AM   #228
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,882
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Nobody cares why you hold any of your positions. Or what those positions are.
I didn't say anyone should. It is a demonstration of how ethical behaviour should not rely on precedent set by others.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:58 AM   #229
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Democrats might decide cyclical court-packing schemes are better than living with a conservative SCOTUS for decades.
And Republicans might decide that court-packing schemes are better than living with a liberal SCOTUS for decades.

Do you really think continual escalation is the path of wisdom?

And do you not see the irony in complaining about Trump discarding Democratic norms when advocating for doing exactly that?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:06 AM   #230
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I didn't say anyone should. It is a demonstration of how ethical behaviour should not rely on precedent set by others.
It's not a demonstration, it's a claim. And a claim that you're wrong about. See, for example, what happens in iterated prisoner's dilemma games. Tit for tat is not only a winning strategy for individual players, it actually makes the game ecology more moral as well.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:08 AM   #231
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Do you really think continual escalation is the path of wisdom?
Your alternative is the status quo. A non-starter.

You people should hold on to your hats if Democrats win in 2018 - it ain't gonna be pretty, this payback you've been begging for.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:10 AM   #232
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Your alternative is the status quo.
False dichotomy. Things are always changing.

Quote:
You people should hold on to your hats if Democrats win in 2018 - it ain't gonna be pretty, this payback you've been begging for.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by zooterkin; 29th June 2018 at 02:48 PM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:17 AM   #233
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
False dichotomy. Things are always changing.



Your lack of self-awareness is a sight to behold.
Is it now?

I suppose you can point to an example of that? Like when a democrat stole a Supreme court seat from a sitting president?

OH WAIT

You don't do "supporting **** I say"

Nevermind.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:25 AM   #234
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,882
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's not a demonstration, it's a claim. And a claim that you're wrong about. See, for example, what happens in iterated prisoner's dilemma games. Tit for tat is not only a winning strategy for individual players, it actually makes the game ecology more moral as well.
You presume it is moral to win or produce good outcomes. I vehemently disagree.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:34 AM   #235
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,154
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's true of voting itself.
So all polling places need to be also open regularly to issue ID.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:43 AM   #236
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You presume it is moral to win or produce good outcomes. I vehemently disagree.
Your disagreement is irrelevant.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:45 AM   #237
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,882
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your disagreement is irrelevant.
Your agreement with the tit for tat producing moral results is equally irrelevant. You are the one assigning moral weight to those results.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:45 AM   #238
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,568
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Is it now?

I suppose you can point to an example of that? Like when a democrat stole a Supreme court seat from a sitting president?
Presidents don't own Supreme court seats. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

And your lack of self-awareness isn't about Supreme Court seats. It's about this idea of punishing your political opponents.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:46 AM   #239
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,977
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Is it now?

I suppose you can point to an example of that? Like when a democrat stole a Supreme court seat from a sitting president?
Nobody can steal a Supreme Court seat from the President, because Supreme Court seats don't belong to the President. What belongs to the President is the authority to nominate someone to sit on the Court.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 09:49 AM   #240
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,423
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Democrats should campaign to make such documentation free, which would solve that problem. I bet they could get a lot of popular support for it, and it would be politically very hard for Republicans to oppose it.
None of this would be an issue if American would just get over their paranoid kneejerk objection to a national ID.

By resisting anything resembling a national ID card we've forced a situation where things which were never meant to be used as an ID card have to be used as one.

We're so scared of a "You vill show me your papers Sir" scenario that we've created the worst of both worlds where we have to "show our papers" but don't have papers to show.

I have a Florida State Drivers License (issued by the State of Florida's Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle Department), a US Passport (issued by the United State's Department of State), a Social Security Card (Issued by the Social Security Administration), an official stamped copy of my birth certificate (issued by the county in NC where I was born), a United States Navy retiree ID card (issued by the Department of Defense),and a loose smattering of other various things (A Florida concealed carry permit, a Florida Salt and Fresh Water fishing license, a library card, a university ID, a couple of different work security badges...) none of which are an ID in every possible scenario. Some are an ID in some cases, some are in ID in other cases, some are an ID when combined with another one but not this other one and so forth and so on. Due to the RealID act some states drivers license don't count as anything outside the state they were issued in so they are useless for dealing with the Federal government. Most Americans don't have a passport and fewer still have a military ID for obvious reason.

The only two documents pretty much everybody is going to have issued to them in some manner; a birth certificate and a Social Security card, are useless for identification because they contain no identifying information, generally aren't carried on your person and in many cases not even retained by the individual.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.