Re: POTUS-DONALD TRUMP-Already making America Great Again!
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:34 am
They could just sort their shit out when it comes to voter registration
The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
To be fair Roe v Wade, at this point in time is pretty much settled law. And there’s really no compelling reason for SCOTUS to look at it again in the near future.shanky wrote:So, Donald has said he ‘won’t ask’ any of his SCOTUS nominees about their position on Roe V Wade, but will, nonetheless, be nominating ‘a conservative’.
The uber-populist in action. Can’t blame him really. Removing people’s abortion rights sounds great in theory, but political-suicide in practice.
Even ‘cocaine Mitch’ is probably sweating on that one.
As an aside, Roe v Wade should be over-turned. It was judicial activism in the extreme. Asking Congress to make an actual Law to once-and-for-all decide the issue would be a laughable concept though. So, it stays.
That’s just not true.Saint wrote:The only serious, credible research performed on the subject points to there being very little (almost zero) cases of illegal voting by non-citizens or illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, you can find significant numbers of people denied voting due to being incorrectly removed from the voter rolls.
Agreed. The problem is political, not judicial.zt1903 wrote:shanky wrote:So, Donald has said he ‘won’t ask’ any of his SCOTUS nominees about their position on Roe V Wade, but will, nonetheless, be nominating ‘a conservative’.
The uber-populist in action. Can’t blame him really. Removing people’s abortion rights sounds great in theory, but political-suicide in practice.
Even ‘cocaine Mitch’ is probably sweating on that one.
As an aside, Roe v Wade should be over-turned. It was judicial activism in the extreme. Asking Congress to make an actual Law to once-and-for-all decide the issue would be a laughable concept though. So, it stays.
To be fair Roe v Wade, at this point in time is pretty much settled law. And there’s really no compelling reason for SCOTUS to look at it again in the near future.
I don’t really get why people are concerned about Trump nominating a conservative as conservatives on the court trend away from the judicial overreach that you mention. Conversely it is the more liberal justices that have tended towards the idea of SCOTUS as a super-legislature.
The closest thing to any research which proved illegal voting was the Harvard study which seemed to indicate a fairly significant percentage (as high as 4 to 5 percent). However, further study discovered that the basic questionnaire was so badly written that US citizens were identifying themselves as illegal immigrantszt1903 wrote:That’s just not true.Saint wrote:The only serious, credible research performed on the subject points to there being very little (almost zero) cases of illegal voting by non-citizens or illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, you can find significant numbers of people denied voting due to being incorrectly removed from the voter rolls.
At best the case is unproven, mostly because it’s not really been seriously looked at.
For example, Nate Silver has shown that where voter id is introduced then registered voters drop by 2.5%. It doesn’t make sense for this to be disenfranchised legal voters given how easy it is to have a valid form of id so some, most or all of this could be illegal voting.
The reality is that there is a significant risk of illegal voting, given the many millions of them that are in the US, and that it is fairly easy for people to do so.
FYI, you don't have to be a citizen to vote in "local" electionsRinkals wrote:Before I applied for UK citizenship I was contacted by a Tory official about my vote. When I explained that I wasn't a citizen he told me that I was on the voter's roll.
I don't know what the voter registration is like in the USA but It is conceivable that non citizens got to vote
I'm pretty sure it was for a general election, but I remember specifically being told that I was on the voter's roll.shereblue wrote:FYI, you don't have to be a citizen to vote in "local" electionsRinkals wrote:Before I applied for UK citizenship I was contacted by a Tory official about my vote. When I explained that I wasn't a citizen he told me that I was on the voter's roll.
I don't know what the voter registration is like in the USA but It is conceivable that non citizens got to vote
You may qualify as a commonwealth citizen automaticallyRinkals wrote:I'm pretty sure it was for a general election, but I remember specifically being told that I was on the voter's roll.shereblue wrote:FYI, you don't have to be a citizen to vote in "local" electionsRinkals wrote:Before I applied for UK citizenship I was contacted by a Tory official about my vote. When I explained that I wasn't a citizen he told me that I was on the voter's roll.
I don't know what the voter registration is like in the USA but It is conceivable that non citizens got to vote
Possibly: I had right of abode through my mother who was born in Windsor, but I never registered or applied to be on the roll.Taffia wrote:You may qualify as a commonwealth citizen automaticallyRinkals wrote:I'm pretty sure it was for a general election, but I remember specifically being told that I was on the voter's roll.shereblue wrote:FYI, you don't have to be a citizen to vote in "local" electionsRinkals wrote:Before I applied for UK citizenship I was contacted by a Tory official about my vote. When I explained that I wasn't a citizen he told me that I was on the voter's roll.
I don't know what the voter registration is like in the USA but It is conceivable that non citizens got to vote
There's a single electoral register which includes information as to.your citizenship, which is then.used to determine your eligibility to vote in different elections. The local Tory party would just see you on the register without your citizenship info, so they wouldn't know themselves whether you were or weren't eligibleRinkals wrote:I'm pretty sure it was for a general election, but I remember specifically being told that I was on the voter's roll.shereblue wrote:FYI, you don't have to be a citizen to vote in "local" electionsRinkals wrote:Before I applied for UK citizenship I was contacted by a Tory official about my vote. When I explained that I wasn't a citizen he told me that I was on the voter's roll.
I don't know what the voter registration is like in the USA but It is conceivable that non citizens got to vote
Eh? Gives him what power?Seneca of the Night wrote:Not sure that is true. He's not really beholden to the funides. That's what gives him much of his power. The long list looks sort of reasonable. I think he might surprise all and go fairly moderate. After all he's not a hard line Conservative himself and this might not be his last appointment.shanky wrote:Agreed. The problem is political, not judicial.zt1903 wrote:shanky wrote:So, Donald has said he ‘won’t ask’ any of his SCOTUS nominees about their position on Roe V Wade, but will, nonetheless, be nominating ‘a conservative’.
The uber-populist in action. Can’t blame him really. Removing people’s abortion rights sounds great in theory, but political-suicide in practice.
Even ‘cocaine Mitch’ is probably sweating on that one.
As an aside, Roe v Wade should be over-turned. It was judicial activism in the extreme. Asking Congress to make an actual Law to once-and-for-all decide the issue would be a laughable concept though. So, it stays.
To be fair Roe v Wade, at this point in time is pretty much settled law. And there’s really no compelling reason for SCOTUS to look at it again in the near future.
I don’t really get why people are concerned about Trump nominating a conservative as conservatives on the court trend away from the judicial overreach that you mention. Conversely it is the more liberal justices that have tended towards the idea of SCOTUS as a super-legislature.
The fundies will be expecting just such an appointment. Trump will be doing well to avoid having to give them one
Apt.c69 wrote:Trump blows hot about the FART act
Attila the Stockbroker wrote:F.A.R.T.
(Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act)
As the latest trump
exploded from the febrile rectum
of the loathsome demagogue
enveloping all before him
in another stinking fog
of bigotry and hatred
he turned to the cameras
and spoke.
‘My fellow Americans:
During my election campaign
I made you a promise:
AMERICA FIRST.
I am following through on that promise.
I repeat:
I am following through.
if his logic was in an excel file it would just be one big circular reference (...for all the excel nerds out here)Kiwias wrote:I think the point is that it is not the same.zt1903 wrote:Well your strawman was never my argument.Kiwias wrote: So on one hand Obama is being accused of being this brutal president deporting more illegal immigrants than any president before him, while on the other hand the Democrats are accused of wanting an open border and free entry to anyone.
Make your minds up, kiddies.
Rather my view was that the media, and many politicians, are hypocritical to attack Trump when the previous guys were doing much the same.
Further, the hypocrisy of the Democrats is accentuated insofar as they clearly have no intention of resolving the immigration issues through the legislative branch, they appear to believe that it helps them politically.
hang on, the study is based on a people filling out a questionnaire ?...Saint wrote:The closest thing to any research which proved illegal voting was the Harvard study which seemed to indicate a fairly significant percentage (as high as 4 to 5 percent). However, further study discovered that the basic questionnaire was so badly written that US citizens were identifying themselves as illegal immigrantszt1903 wrote:That’s just not true.Saint wrote:The only serious, credible research performed on the subject points to there being very little (almost zero) cases of illegal voting by non-citizens or illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, you can find significant numbers of people denied voting due to being incorrectly removed from the voter rolls.
At best the case is unproven, mostly because it’s not really been seriously looked at.
For example, Nate Silver has shown that where voter id is introduced then registered voters drop by 2.5%. It doesn’t make sense for this to be disenfranchised legal voters given how easy it is to have a valid form of id so some, most or all of this could be illegal voting.
The reality is that there is a significant risk of illegal voting, given the many millions of them that are in the US, and that it is fairly easy for people to do so.
The trouble with voter I'd laws is that they tend to require very specific forms of I'd which voters may not carry with them - hence the drops in voting rates
My post had no gist. It's a bit of research. I have no idea of its provenance or quality. Frankly I don't give a s.hit about whether or not illegal immigrants vote.Rinkals wrote:The gist of Santa's post seems to be that Obama was only able to unfairly defeat the gallant Republican filibuster by the illegal use of a non citizen voting bloc.
Voter id is usually something like a social security card and a driving license, which is not particularly onerous.Saint wrote:The closest thing to any research which proved illegal voting was the Harvard study which seemed to indicate a fairly significant percentage (as high as 4 to 5 percent). However, further study discovered that the basic questionnaire was so badly written that US citizens were identifying themselves as illegal immigrantszt1903 wrote:That’s just not true.Saint wrote:The only serious, credible research performed on the subject points to there being very little (almost zero) cases of illegal voting by non-citizens or illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, you can find significant numbers of people denied voting due to being incorrectly removed from the voter rolls.
At best the case is unproven, mostly because it’s not really been seriously looked at.
For example, Nate Silver has shown that where voter id is introduced then registered voters drop by 2.5%. It doesn’t make sense for this to be disenfranchised legal voters given how easy it is to have a valid form of id so some, most or all of this could be illegal voting.
The reality is that there is a significant risk of illegal voting, given the many millions of them that are in the US, and that it is fairly easy for people to do so.
The trouble with voter I'd laws is that they tend to require very specific forms of I'd which voters may not carry with them - hence the drops in voting rates
It varies state by state, but what you've just described is what voter id proponents have described as too lax. proponents of new voter id laws (bearing in mind that there is some sort of voter id requirement already in 33 US states) are arguing for much stricter proof of id, as well as regular and repeated re-registration.zt1903 wrote:Voter id is usually something like a social security card and a driving license, which is not particularly onerous.Saint wrote:The closest thing to any research which proved illegal voting was the Harvard study which seemed to indicate a fairly significant percentage (as high as 4 to 5 percent). However, further study discovered that the basic questionnaire was so badly written that US citizens were identifying themselves as illegal immigrantszt1903 wrote:That’s just not true.Saint wrote:The only serious, credible research performed on the subject points to there being very little (almost zero) cases of illegal voting by non-citizens or illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, you can find significant numbers of people denied voting due to being incorrectly removed from the voter rolls.
At best the case is unproven, mostly because it’s not really been seriously looked at.
For example, Nate Silver has shown that where voter id is introduced then registered voters drop by 2.5%. It doesn’t make sense for this to be disenfranchised legal voters given how easy it is to have a valid form of id so some, most or all of this could be illegal voting.
The reality is that there is a significant risk of illegal voting, given the many millions of them that are in the US, and that it is fairly easy for people to do so.
The trouble with voter I'd laws is that they tend to require very specific forms of I'd which voters may not carry with them - hence the drops in voting rates
But it does not bestow any direct benefits. In appears that all you can actually prove is that at least 2.5 percent of eligible citizens are self interested and lazy.zt1903 wrote:Voter id is usually something like a social security card and a driving license, which is not particularly onerous.Saint wrote:The closest thing to any research which proved illegal voting was the Harvard study which seemed to indicate a fairly significant percentage (as high as 4 to 5 percent). However, further study discovered that the basic questionnaire was so badly written that US citizens were identifying themselves as illegal immigrantszt1903 wrote:That’s just not true.Saint wrote:The only serious, credible research performed on the subject points to there being very little (almost zero) cases of illegal voting by non-citizens or illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, you can find significant numbers of people denied voting due to being incorrectly removed from the voter rolls.
At best the case is unproven, mostly because it’s not really been seriously looked at.
For example, Nate Silver has shown that where voter id is introduced then registered voters drop by 2.5%. It doesn’t make sense for this to be disenfranchised legal voters given how easy it is to have a valid form of id so some, most or all of this could be illegal voting.
The reality is that there is a significant risk of illegal voting, given the many millions of them that are in the US, and that it is fairly easy for people to do so.
The trouble with voter I'd laws is that they tend to require very specific forms of I'd which voters may not carry with them - hence the drops in voting rates
True. It's also indicative of a fundamentally flawed system, with inadequate separation of party from officialdom.houtkabouter wrote:The democrats win illegal votes and the republicans deny prisoners the vote.
The system is so dirty, I don't see either side doing anything productive about it because it's in their interest to leave it alone. They just make noise over it blaming each other.
Gerrymandering is a much, much bigger problem than both of the above.
LOL.zt1903 wrote:Interesting (aka deeply troubling) piece in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/p ... court.html
And to be clear, troubling because the NYT is advocating against the first amendment.
Jesus Christzt1903 wrote:Interesting (aka deeply troubling) piece in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/p ... court.html
And to be clear, troubling because the NYT is advocating against the first amendment.
against abuse of it, you disingenous slime-weasel...zt1903 wrote:Interesting (aka deeply troubling) piece in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/p ... court.html
And to be clear, troubling because the NYT is advocating against the first amendment.
Go back to posting gifs fuckwit.Taranaki Snapper wrote:against abuse of it, you disingenous slime-weasel...zt1903 wrote:Interesting (aka deeply troubling) piece in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/p ... court.html
And to be clear, troubling because the NYT is advocating against the first amendment.
The recent examples they are holding up as “abuse” of the 1st amendement are anything but.houtkabouter wrote:He might have gone a little far in the name calling, but he’s right.
Clearly that’s your interpretation.
You feel that if someone posts disingenuous crap it should be allowed to stand?Seneca of the Night wrote:PR, where the 'virtue' is in being part of the pack.guy smiley wrote:zt1903 wrote:Go back to posting gifs fuckwit.Taranaki Snapper wrote:against abuse of it, you disingenous slime-weasel...zt1903 wrote:Interesting (aka deeply troubling) piece in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/p ... court.html
And to be clear, troubling because the NYT is advocating against the first amendment.![]()
![]()
the bark of a lonesome weasel
guy smiley wrote:Not anymore and I think you harmonise beautifully. Your tenor sits well with his contralto.Seneca of the Night wrote:So, he's not a lonesome weasel anymore?guy smiley wrote:ZT has a habit of being a disengenuous shit weasel on this thread but because he's part of your shit weasel side of this madhouse you'd rather wave your walking cane vaguely at the middle distance and accuse others of being...Seneca of the Night wrote:I haven't read that article closely, but I get the point about the flip in use of the first amendment. When I first went to LA in 1991 I remember mooching around the Los Feliz area and going into grubby looking bookstores that had basements where you might expect a gimp to be kept and where they kept books on how to build a nuclear bomb and hardcore NAMBLA literature, and worse. It was incredible. But it all seemed to pop out of a blend of 60s hippiedom and the gay rights movement. There was a controversy still raging in San Francisco about whether NAMBLA should be able to use a public library for their weekly meeting. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-01-17/ ... -francisco
well, others.
Tasmanian hyenas love huntin lonesome shitweasels. They’re a delicacy. Their skins are thin and they have fleshy chops.Seneca of the Night wrote:The hyenas are out to play I see. When I say hyenas I guess I mean a sort of low range Tasmanian creature, like a shitweasel. The Tasmanian shitweasels, pack animals of the PR day (night), hunt in packs, after half a bottle of Jacob's Creek.
go back to whatever the fuck you do when you're not being an oleaginous shit-weasel...zt1903 wrote:Go back to posting gifs fuckwit.Taranaki Snapper wrote:against abuse of it, you disingenous slime-weasel...zt1903 wrote:Interesting (aka deeply troubling) piece in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/p ... court.html
And to be clear, troubling because the NYT is advocating against the first amendment.
Yes, you are.zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
Pretty much.Taranaki Snapper wrote:Nail. Head.AD345 wrote:J Man wrote:I'm about one third through the article (it's bloody massive!). I don't see how Trump is in any way the answer to the problems highlighted in the article. What is the answer? Get rid of assortive mating? How?Seneca of the Night wrote:This is really really long and I haven't come close to reading it all yet, but it might be the most important article yet written in the Trump era, not the least for the fact that it is a target aimed right at the only people likely to read it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... cy/559130/
The article makes it reasonably clear, Trump is not the answer, he is the inevitable result.
The answer is to resist the “obviously” best outcome for yourself and your family and instead take a wider perspective for a greater part of the populace, even if that works against your inter generational interests.
But who wants to do that?