You didn't watch the presidential debate last night

I thought it was pretty good

Trump - The Whiner in Chief (if elected)

~

I also like how he claims to be a victim all the time, currently, he's talking about how he's "a victim of one of the great political smear campaigns in the history of our country." It's literally how gamers justify their own lack of ability - always blame the game, blame other players, blame developers, blame blame blame.

All the while ignoring the fact that his opponent has been under attack for years, including Congress spending tax payer money on BS like Benghazi (investigating it longer and spending more on it than 9/11) when Chaffetz himself voted to cut funding for embassies and said it was not a priority (note that the funding was never actually reduced, but it still speaks to the fact that these people don't operate on consistent principles).

PS - Chaffetz is in my top list of politicians I despise the most.

 

WTF, I just heard a woman describe Trump as "humble."

 

I wanted to address this (along with the people who are upset at the DNC wanting Clinton).

What did people expect? Two outsiders coming in trying to usurp the party for their own gain?

Personally, as I have said before, I think the primaries are dumb and a sham, but one thing I did like about Trump is that he managed to turn the system against them.

(Of course, now that he's losing, he's whining about that same system...)

 

Trump claims that this election will determine if Americans live in a free country or "the illusion of democracy."

His supporters are planning to intimidate Clinton voters, and have openly discussed assassination and revolution if the election doesn't go their way. How is this democracy exactly?

Note that I don't have a problem with people freely choosing to vote/support Trump. It is a perfectly valid choice, IMO, especially if your primary concerns are ideologically focused such as the Supreme Court nomination and issues like abortion.

 

Trump literally said: "“You’ve got to get everybody to go out and watch, and go out and vote, and when I say ‘watch,’ you know what I’m talking about, right?”

Anyway, I am going to be quoting a bunch of stuff in regards to my post, not just the specific section you quoted.

~
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ll-your-neighbors-if-you-vote-democratic.html

"The New Mexico Republican Party admits sending fliers to residents warning them that when “Democrats win the election and you didn’t do your part… your neighbors will know.”"

"“It sounded pretty damn sinister, honestly. He said there was a map on it with a bunch of question marks around local houses,” he said. “I'm glad it's getting some attention because holy Bane Shift.”"

~

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c7223c-617f-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html

"Anyone who fills out the form is added to a list of people who will be used to staff as many polling places as possible. Monitors will report any irregularities they observe to the strike force of lawyers, who, according to Evans, would be able to judge what was and was not a problem."

"“It’s very common to have people at the polls,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert and professor at the University of California at Irvine’s School of Law. “What’s different is that he is couching it in an incendiary way by saying ‘crooked Hillary’ wants to steal the election. That seems to be an invitation to go and make trouble.”"

"For Democrats, the worry comes not from the specter of voter fraud, which is rare, but from Trump supporters intimidating legitimate voters. They have seen True the Vote, an outgrowth of the tea party movement, train poll watchers to challenge voters in every election since 2012, and preemptively challenge voters who listed commercial addresses or dormitories as their homes. In 2012, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) speculated that True the Vote was involved in “a criminal conspiracy to deny legitimate voters their constitutional rights,” a view that many Democrats still hold about election challenges."

~

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-monitoring-polls-alarms-voting-rights-groups

"An online movement called Operation Red is encouraging Trump supporters to wear red to the polls so people “will have no choice but to acknowledge the visible truth in a sea of red,” according to the group’s website."

"Most states allow at least one observer from each party to monitor voting activity, though rules vary about whether they can go into the polling places or must stay outside. Some states, including Georgia and South Carolina, require poll watchers to wear a badge indicating their name and organization. In Texas, people aren’t allowed to carry firearms into polling sites, but in Pennsylvania they are. In Tennessee and other states, to prevent intimidation, law enforcement officers aren’t allowed in polling centers.

Pennsylvania state Representative Rick Saccone, a Republican, is trying to pass a bill before Election Day that would loosen rules restricting poll watchers to their own counties. Critics say letting observers travel anywhere in the state raises the possibility of white election monitors intimidating voters in minority areas, but Saccone dismisses that: “The notion that there will be roving bands of poll watchers disrupting elections is just nonsense.”"

"An Ohio federal court found in 2004 that “the presence of vast numbers of challengers inexperienced in the electoral process” imposes a “severe burden” on the right to vote. The suit was filed by a couple in a mostly black Cincinnati neighborhood who challenged a state GOP plan to put representatives in “as many precincts as possible.”"

~

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/alex-jones-infowars-organizes-trump-poll-watchers

"Far-right radio host and Donald Trump fan Alex Jones posted a message to YouTube Monday urging InfoWars viewers to sign up as election observers for Trump’s campaign, alleging that Hillary Clinton is bent on stealing the presidential election.

While polls show Trump trailing in swing states and losing to Clinton by massive margins in states like New York and California, two states that Trump has said in the past he could win in the general election, Jones said such polls are simply “fake polls” fabricated by the liberal media. (A poll by the conservative Breitbart and Gravis Marketing also found Trump losing to Clinton.)

Jones claimed that “Donald Trump is doing his own internal polling with some of the top, bipartisan pollers in the country.”

Jones explained: “So he’s announcing, ‘Hey, I’ve got my own internal polling showing I’m ahead in Ohio by seven points; showing I’m ahead in Pennsylvania by about 10 points; showing I’m ahead in Florida in some internal polls by 15, and these are real random polls; showing in some polls Trump is three points ahead in California, margin of error, dead heat…. Ladies and gentlemen, internal polls, not by just the Trump campaign but by other major institutions, show Trump on average, seven points ahead in basically California strongholds for the Democrats, New York, that’s why they are crapping their pants.”"



http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...CY6e0QOcfH8VdeK9UdsM/story.html?event=event25

“If she’s in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That’s how I feel about it,” Dan Bowman, a 50-year-old contractor, said of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. “We’re going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that’s what it takes. There’s going to be a lot of bloodshed. But that’s what it’s going to take. . . . I would do whatever I can for my country.”

~

"Trump has recently started encouraging his mostly white supporters to sign up online to be “election observers” to stop “Crooked Hillary from rigging this election.” He’s urging them to act as posses of poll watchers in “other” communities to ensure that things are “on the up and up.”

“Watch your polling booths,” he warned.

His supporters are heeding the call.

“Trump said to watch your precincts. I’m going to go, for sure,” said Steve Webb, a 61-year-old carpenter from Fairfield, Ohio.

“I’ll look for . . . well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American,” he said. “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”"

~

"Some Trump supporters say that if he doesn’t win, they figure the United States government will be no better than dictatorships where elections cannot be trusted.

“We’re heading toward North Korea, without a doubt,” said Grant Reed, a Trump supporter wearing a shirt that said, “If you’re offended, I’ll help you pack.”"

~

"“If Hillary wins, it’s rigged,” said Judy Wright, who is from Illinois but took off work recently to come volunteer for Trump in Ohio.

She sighs at what seems to her an unfathomable outcome.

“All I know is our country is not going to be a country anymore,” she added. “I’ve heard people talk about a revolution. I’ve heard people talk about separation of states. I don’t even like to think about it. But I don’t think this movement is going away. We don’t have a voice anymore, and Donald Trump is giving us a voice.”"

~

This one takes the cake. Do you understand how the EC works? I wonder if he thought it was "corruption" when Bush won in 2000 without winning the popular vote...

“This is my prediction: Trump is going to win the popular vote by a landslide, and the Electoral College will elect Hillary, because of all the corruption,” he said.

~

Now, obviously, simply observing is fine (and most states have laws allowing for certain number of people from each party to observe), but the problem is once again, Trump's words and the effect they have on people, and the consequences which may arise - whether he meant for that to happen or not.

I want people to feel free to vote - whether they are voting D or R or whatever. No one should feel intimidated, coerced, or otherwise be restricted in their ability to exercise their voting rights. At the same time, what's going to happen if one of these "observers" sees something they don't like? And how do these people know who is "illegal" and who isn't?

Keeping in mind that observers are already allowed, this type of incitement just seems like it's going to cause trouble rather than solve any problems, so this type of rhetoric (claiming/accusing people of stuff before there's any evidence of it, and riling up his support base) seems fundamentally dangerous. (Aside: I find it amusing he thinks its ok for him to call people names and attack them without evidence, but gets all uppity when anyone even questions him in any way.)

That said, I am sure there are people who signed up who will perform their duty:



Though this implies, at least, he's only concerned about one side of the equation:

 

Nope. A number of people even in this very forum would say that it is better for people not to get to vote in order to prevent ANY amount of voter fraud (real or imagined). Many here support onerous Voter ID and other such efforts and don't see to have a problem with Republican efforts to rig the vote in many red states via voter ID laws, reducing polling locations/hours, and general gerrymandering.

Have YOU seen any Trump supporters speak out against gerrymandering? Onerous voter ID laws? Reduced polling location/hours? I haven't.

Oh, let's not forget the whole "repeal the 19th" thing.

Ann Coulter: "“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen."

I think pretending that Trump's words aren't incendiary is being irresponsible. Pretend for a moment this was about anything else and think about the kind of things these types of words incite. I mean, some people literally have said "there will be bloodshed."

I find this statement funny. The things you claim barely have any evidence or factual backing (and if there is, I am 100% against such efforts), while it is public record how much gerrymandering the Republican party has done, and Republican politicians have admitted that Voter ID laws are intended to help their party - while you can SPECULATE that the Democrats are attempting to rig elections (and it's quite possible they are), Republicans have been doing it on a much greater level out in the open and no one on the right cares (True the Vote, Red the Map, etc.).

 

Um... nothing yet? We are talking about the FUTURE here.

But yea, I guess we'll see on election if they had no effect on people, but I suspect there'll be at least SOME incidents - but I am sure people will find a way to excuse Trump or his supporters from any responsibility.

And these "morons" are exactly the kind of people I am afraid of being "incited."

I am glad you acknowledge they exist. The problem is it only takes one crazy to cause a tragedy.

Gerrymandering rigs elections by changing the proportions of votes and who wins - there is no way not to call it rigging, IMO when it can LITERALLY change the outcome. Why do you not see it as rigging, exactly?


Voter ID I will discuss below, but in short, Republican politicians have literally come out and said why they did it.

Lastly, True the Vote is more of a conspiracy level thing, but I believe the true purpose of the organization is vote suppression.

I never acted like they don't. But if you look at the evidence I have presented on the issue in the past, you can clearly which side has accomplished more with it. The fact of the matter is, Republicans care more about implementing Voter ID then gerrymandering - why? Not because Voter Fraud is a bigger problem than gerrymandering, but because it helps them.

Not in this thread, and I don't feel like searching through people's post history right now, but I might later, but suffice to say, I have met many conservatives who would trade disenfranchising some amount of voters in order to fight voter fraud - I'd find it strange if you somehow felt this is not a stance people have.

And yea, by itself, Voter ID laws aren't an issue. Which is why I specifically said ONEROUS Voter ID laws. The fact is, unless the Voter IDs are easily obtainable, it WILL disenfranchise voters. If you care about people's voting rights aren't restricted, you should care about these kinds of laws and at least CONSIDER that they may cause issues for people.

It is true that the cost of the ID is generally low or even free - the problem is that not everyone has the documents available to GET the ID, and THOSE supporting document costs more, often MUCH more... and for the elderly and other minorities, this can be quite a difficult process to get through to try and get an ID.

~

There are DOZENS upon DOZENS of stories about how hard it can be for people to obtain valid IDs or how states appear to be deliberately making it more difficult for people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

"Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly."

"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."

"After Texas implemented its new law, Randall went to the Department of Public Safety (the Texas agency that handles driver’s licenses and identification cards) three times to try to get a photo ID to vote. Each time Randall was told he needed different items. First, he was told he needed three forms of identification. He came back and brought his Medicaid card, bills and a current voter registration card from voting in past elections.

“I thought that because I was on record for voting, I could vote again,” Randall said.

But he was told he still needed more documentation, such as a certified copy of his birth certificate.

Records of births before 1950, such as Randall’s, are not on a central computer and are located only in the county clerk’s office where the person was born.

For Randall, that meant an hour-long drive to Huntsville, where his lawyers found a copy of his birth certificate.

But that wasn’t enough. With his birth certificate in hand, Randall went to the DPS office in Houston with all the necessary documents. But, DPS officials still would not issue him a photo ID because of a clerical mistake on his birth certificate. One letter was off in his last name — “Randell” instead of “Randall” — so his last name was spelled slightly different than on all his other documents."

"But Myrtle Delahuerta, 85, who lives across town from Randall, has tried unsuccessfully for two years to get her ID. She has the same problem of her birth certificate not matching her pile of other legal documents that she carts from one government office to the next. The disabled woman, who has difficulty walking, is applying to have her name legally changed, a process that will cost her more than $300 and has required a background check and several trips to government offices."

Of course, you can see how these problems are largely going to affect the poor, elderly or minorities... so yes, in theory, IDs are cheap/easy to obtain. But we have to deal with reality here.

~

There are also states like Texas, which have just been misleading or lying to voters:

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/10/49332...texas-voter-id-rules-are-misleading-to-voters
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/20/judge-orders-texas-re-write-voter-id-materials/

"A federal judge has ordered Texas to issue new voter education materials, siding with those who accused state officials of misleading voters about identification requirements for the November elections."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...court_supervision_for_flouting_id_ruling.html

"As voting rights expert Ari Berman has documented, some Texas election officials are simply deceiving voters and poll workers, informing them that photo ID is still required to cast a ballot."

I can't find the article now, but I also read one last week about how they weren't telling people they can get a temporary ID for the purposes of voting despite one being available, or that they also allow secondary identification methods if you don't have a primary one (passport, driver's license, etc.).

This is an article that mentions said tempoary ID:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...-a-receipt-to-vote-b99723492z1-378987281.html

"Voters who are seeking a photo ID card but not yet received it will be able to use a Division of Motor Vehicles receipt to vote in more cases, under a new rule Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker approved Wednesday just ahead of Monday's federal trial on the state's voting laws."

https://www.thenation.com/article/s...ns-voter-id-law-is-working-just-fine-its-not/

" She had an Illinois driver’s license and proof of Wisconsin residency, but not a Wisconsin-issued photo ID. “I looked at my husband and said, ‘I don’t think I’ll be able to vote,’” she told me. “And he said, ‘no, no, no, it’ll be fine.’”

When she went to get a Wisconsin driver’s license, the DMV in Sun Prairie said she’d need a copy of her birth certificate to prove her citizenship. But she wasn’t born in the United States and her childhood passport had expired. The DMV said she needed to get her naturalization papers instead.

She called the DMV a month later and said her father couldn’t find her naturalization papers and asked if there was another way she could get a Wisconsin ID for voting. They wouldn’t budge. She then called Immigration and Naturalization Services, who said it would cost $345 and take up to two years to get a copy of her naturalization papers.

Despite working for the state and having a driver’s license, a Social Security card, and a marriage certificate, she can’t vote in Wisconsin in 2016."

~

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/10/13159/voter-id-in-Wisconsin-train-wreck

“The state fell short of its obligations by September 22, the very date I was assured by the state that things were going smoothly that was plainly not the case,” Peterson said referencing a glowing 40 page report submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Justice. Further he said, “the problems were entirely predictable, the ID process was not understood by intended beneficiaries and the service provided by DMV was manifestly in adequate.”

“If I were a person that did not have the standard documentation I would be at a loss, the DMV website does not provide information. Even now if I went to DMV, I would be relying entirely on the assistance of the counter, no written hand out even now,” said Petersen. “The DMV might have a lot of competencies but communication with voters is not one of them.”


~


And all this to solve a problem that seems non-existent...

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/21/review-states-voter-id-laws-found-no-voter-imperso/

"Politicians and voting rights advocates continue to clash over whether photo ID and other voting requirements are needed to prevent voter fraud, but a News21 analysis and recent court rulings show little evidence that such fraud is widespread.

A News21 analysis four years ago of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases in 50 states found that while some fraud had occurred since 2000, the rate was infinitesimal compared with the 146 million registered voters in that 12-year span. The analysis found only 10 cases of voter impersonation, the only kind of fraud that could be prevented by voter ID at the polls.

This year, News21 reviewed cases in Arizona, Ohio, Georgia, Texas and Kansas, where politicians have expressed concern about voter fraud, and found hundreds of allegations but few prosecutions between 2012 and 2016. Attorneys general in those states successfully prosecuted 38 cases, though other cases may have been litigated at the county level. At least one-third of those cases involved nonvoters, such as elections officials or volunteers. None of the cases prosecuted was for voter impersonation."

~

Here in Arizona, reduced stations were a huge problem during the primary:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...na-primary-voter-turnout-long-lines/82125816/

These are problems we should ALL get behind fixing, but Republicans seem to only care about maintaining the integrity of voting rights if those rights are being used to vote Democrat.

~

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/st...s-in-federal-court-b99726100z1-379657961.html



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/u...eraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html

"Also in Wisconsin, Todd Allbaugh, 46, a staff aide to a Republican state legislator, attributed his decision to quit his job in 2015 and leave the party to what he witnessed at a Republican caucus meeting. He wrote on Facebook:

I was in the closed Senate Republican Caucus when the final round of multiple Voter ID bills were being discussed. A handful of the GOP Senators were giddy about the ramifications and literally singled out the prospects of suppressing minority and college voters. Think about that for a minute. Elected officials planning and happy to help deny a fellow American’s constitutional right to vote in order to increase their own chances to hang onto power."



~

And what are the actual effects?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hajnal-voter-id-research-20160908-snap-story.html

"Our research shows that the racial turnout gap doubles or triples in states that enact strict ID laws.

Latinos are the biggest losers. Their turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 percentage points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws lower African American, Asian American and multi-racial American turnout as well. In fact, where these laws are implemented, white turnout goes upmarginally, compared with non-voter ID states."

https://thinkprogress.org/students-...sins-new-voter-id-law-336bd412ae27#.pcut4cddz

"Though the law’s implementation was mostly smooth, some students and veterans were unable to cast regular ballots, because the state doesn’t recognize a federal veterans’ benefits card or a state university ID for voting purposes.

After few overall complaints came in, Gov. Scott Walker (R) tweeted that all was well in the Badger State.

Yet local media reported that turnout was extremely low — in the single digitsin some counties.

Dane County Executive Joe Parisi, whose county includes the University of Wisconsin’s tens of thousands of students, strongly disagreed with Governor Walker that all is well with the new ID law.

“We did hear of one veteran who was turned away because all he had was his military ID,” Parisi told ThinkProgress. “Student participation was also very low, and among those who turned out, some didn’t have the proper ID. About 15 or 16 young people had to cast provisional ballots in Dane County.” Such ballots are often never counted."

~

I have brought this up before in previous discussions, but there's also the fact that Voter ID laws often don't target ABSENTEE ballots - which have empirically been shown to have a greater risk of fraud.

You can review the actual laws by state here.
https://www.vote.org/voter-id-laws/

You can see there the states that have some form of Voter IDs laws for in person voting, but don't require one for Absentee ballots... and there are many of them.

So why aren't Voter ID laws as stringent or comprenhensive when it comes to absentee ballots? One might speculate it is because Absentee ballots typically lean Republican... but that's just speculation. But honestly, how many Republicans have you seen calling for Voter ID on absentee ballots lately?

~

Anyway, point is, Voter ID in of itself is not a problem - it is WHY they are doing it, and HOW they are doing it, that I have a problem with.

If these politicians actually cared about the integrity of the vote and people's right to vote, I feel like they would (or at least SHOULD) go about it much differently, and they would be trying to fight gerrymandering, not spending money to make sure they can do it again in 2020.

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/capitolinq/PA-illustrates-Obama-call-gerrymandering.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-look-like-without-gerrymandering/?tid=sm_tw

http://billmoyers.com/story/real-way-2016-election-rigged/

"If that doesn’t convince you, here are some more powerful numbers: if the Republicans are heavily favored in 226 districts, and the Democrats look likely in 193, that only leaves a handful of toss-ups. Sabato sees 16 legitimate toss-ups. The problem for Democrats? Fourteen of those 16 seats are currently held by Republicans. In the highly unlikely circumstance that the Democrats manage to take just half of those 16 remaining “toss-up” seats, the Republicans would come out of 2016 with a 234-201 advantage in Congress.

If that sounds familiar, it should: 234-201 is the exact majority the Republicans had after 2012, when Barack Obama won re-election in a landslide but failed to take the House despite those 1.4 million more votes. That was the first time since 1972 – 40 years — that the party with the most votes did not come away with the most seats. It is now likely to happen again in 2016, for the second presidential cycle in a row. This should terrify anyone who cares about representative democracy. This is not politics as usual."

Couple interesting articles on gerrymandering. ONE HAS COMPUTERS

Second one has a good video on it - which also points out how it leads to partisanship.

Honestly, if a politician ran for office as "anti-gerrymandering" and "election reform" I'd vote for him even if he was Republican (and I could vote). The fact is this is a bigger problem than almost anything else because it undermines the fabric of democracy.

When Trump says it is rigged... I agree with him, except that I don't think it's rigged against HIM so much as it is rigged against democracy itself.

 

Note: I don't even like Jill Stein.