U.S. 2012 Election

[Redeye]

So....

You're okay with people not showing proof that they are who they say they are? 

(Just curious)...

That's actually not the issue. In Canada, for example, there are a large number of ways you can identify yourself to vote - to help ensure everyone can do so. In the cases that have raised hackles in the US, identification requirements have gotten to be so restrictive as to be prohibitive, especially combined with the registration process which can be much more onerous.

Couple that with the fact that despite claims of some major voter fraud potential, there are no examples of any such problems existing on a large scale, and of course, that at least one politician has openly stated that the whole concept is being pushed to disenfranchise voters, and I find it rather disturbing. There's been comparisons to a poll tax which are reasonable in cases where the ID required to vote must be purchased. Make the ID required readily available, easy to obtain, and above all free and maybe I'll have less of an issue. But the optics otherwise are all bad - they're being touted (solely by the right) as a means to fix a problem that does not exist, and the side effects are disturbing.

Good write up here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

 

[Edward Campbell]

Voter registration and identification is, or ought to be an issue.

I'm inclined towards favouring compulsory voting à la Australia and, equally, towards compulsory government photo ID (I would prefer a dozen of so provincial/territorial systems to one national one). The ID should record citizenship status - obviously one will need to update it every so often - amongst other things.

We should, also, make voting easier - especially for students, transients and so on, but we should take pains ensure that only citizens vote and the onus ought to be one the voter to prove his/her status.

 

[Sythen]

You really want to invoke Zimmerman into the presidential race?

If you do, you're no better than the birthers and their conspiracies.

And God knows we're getting lots of examples of conspiracies this election cycle.

So, I could make some big money investing in aluminum products, specifically  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

I see what you meant now. However, I disagree. When the president, almost anytime something happens in the news cycle with race related issues, tries to weigh in when he has no information at all.. That does and should reflect very badly on him. And reminding the American people of his CONSTANT failures in every aspect of leadership should be a priority of the Romney campaign/supporters.

And I don't see how holding him accountable for what he publicly says is a conspiracy theory.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>From David Frum

David Frum is the guy who decided to draw a box around the neo-conservative elements of Bush 43's team and exclude everyone else as unworthy of being conservative.  A neo-conservative is a Democrat, disaffected with Democratic foreign and fiscal policy, who crossed lines to join Republicans.  Of course Frum is going to lack sympathy with the people he defines to be unworthy of being conservative, but the fact he is in the left-leaning middle doesn't make him the most objective observer.

Upthread someone noted than Condi Rice might not want to go through the wringer.  Which wringer would that be?  The one Obama and Biden were wrung through, or the one reserved for Republican vice-presidential candidates?

I am not sure why the party (or its supporters) which conveniently wins close elections by the grace of "misplaced" boxes of ballots after initial results are counted* thinks its opinion on trivial measures to prevent voter fraud matters at all.  (*How many times should that happen before your bullsh!t detector kicks in?)

That the 112th Congress is stalled is a reflection of the fact that one party tried very hard to push the country in a direction that arguably > 50% of the electorate did not want to go, at the opportunity cost of dealing with the crisis of the day.  It is an indicator of the US system working admirably and exactly as designed: the push ain't going any further until the electorate decides to support it, and may be turned back if the electorate decides to oppose it.  The first large leap taken is not automatically entitled to be the starting point for the next negotiation.

 

[cupper]

Bringing in more onerous rules for voter eligibility are fine and well.

But don't claim you are doing it to correct rampant voter fraud when there is little evidence to back up that claim.

And when bringing in requirements to present a government issued (or accepted) ID, you do not, at the same time, institute policies that make obtaining said ID more difficult to obtain.

Scott Walker and the GOP bring in a requirement to show a government issued ID in order to vote, and at the same time closed close to half of the DMV outlets though out the state. Anyone care to guess in which districts the majority of closures occured?

 

[ModlrMike]

There is a Supreme Court challenge over that very issue in Canada right now.  So which is it- ID or no ID to vote?

Buried in the case is another contention that could disenfranchise scores of rural voters.

Taken from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/10/pol-live-supreme-court-etobicoke-centre-appeal.html?cmp=rss

Wrzesnewskyj is challenging Lederer's contention that voters can cast their ballots at any polling station in the riding as long as they are qualified.

Rural ridings can be huge and one can easily find oneself many hundreds of KM away from one's regular polling station. Should you lose your vote because of it (think living in Yellowknife, working in Inuvik on voting day)? I know there's advance polls, but that shouldn't be the answer, no matter how much onus is on the voter to vote.

Back to the question at hand though, I think voter ID is important, and agree that govt issue ID should be freely/easily available.

 

[cupper]

Interesting stats about just where the money is coming from during this election cycle.

Big Campaign Spending: Government by the 1%

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/big-campaign-spending-government-by-the-1/259599/

A tiny number of Americans -- .26 percent -- give more than $200 to a congressional campaign. .05 percent give the maximum amount to any congressional candidate. .01 percent give more than $10,000 in any election cycle. And .000063 percent -- 196 Americans -- have given more than 80 percent of the super-PAC money spent in the presidential elections so far.

 

[cupper]

And Romney couldn't carry a tune in a bucket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IpIuOmDihA

I've only heard this add twice, but it's already driving me insane (and not because of the headlines slagging Romney's Bain record).

I can't wait for Nov. 6th to come and go. I hate being in a swing state.

k:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>And when bringing in requirements to present a government issued (or accepted) ID, you do not, at the same time, institute policies that make obtaining said ID more difficult to obtain.

Why not?  The more freely and easily available government-issued ID is, the easier it is to forge and the more worthless it is for the purposes for which it was created in the first place.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Interesting stats about just where the money is coming from during this election cycle.

It would be more interesting if it could explain where all of the money spent to support candidates, directly or indirectly, were exposed.

"None can simply buy a congressman, or dictate the results they want."

Is that a fact?  Apparently the author has never heard of lobbyists, special interest groups, or labour unions.

And the thesis that "the rich" can block change is disproven by the 2006 and 2008 results.  If "the rich" could block change, there would not be very much of it at any time.  The article is just another example of the "America is ungovernable" drumbeat.  We hear it whenever the Democrats have anything less than a veto-proof legislative capability, because partisan fart-catchers can't distinguish between "govern" and "transform".  Strangely, the obstructionist mechanisms are vital to democracy when the Republicans hold the initiative.

 

[Redeye]

>And when bringing in requirements to present a government issued (or accepted) ID, you do not, at the same time, institute policies that make obtaining said ID more difficult to obtain.

Why not?  The more freely and easily available government-issued ID is, the easier it is to forge and the more worthless it is for the purposes for which it was created in the first place.

If there was any reason to believe that actually was happening, that there was in fact some pervasive voter fraud happening, then maybe this argument would hold some water. But as was discussed at length, no such fraud is occurring. I don't have an issue with some ID requirements being in place, but they must be designed so that they are easily obtained without cost.

 

[GAP]

Some of the stuff coming out of these guys mouths' just make you want to  :facepalm:

Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that'
Published July 16, 2012
Article Link



President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects -- saying “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”
Obama’s comment Friday during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Va., came just days after he urged Congress to extend tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration only to families earning less than $250,000 annually -- part of his argument that top earners have an obligation to pay more to trim the deficit.

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back,” the president said. “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” he said. “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has pledged a vote on the Obama plan before Congress’ August recess, but whether he has the votes remains unclear. A handful of Democrats – include several facing a tough re-election bid – don’t want to vote on a proposal that would result in a tax increase for some Americans.

Senate Democrats and Republicans wrangled Wednesday over the tax cut extensions, which have emerged as a major campaign issue as GOP candidate Mitt Romney attempts to upend Obama’s re-election bid.

Leaders of the GOP-controlled House want to extend the cuts for all Americans and will almost assuredly reject any plan capping them at the $250,000 income level, or $200,000 for individuals.

The cuts will expire in January.
end

 

[Redeye]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's facepalmworthy here? He's correct. They didn't build the infrastructure that they use. They didn't educate the workers that have become the human capital that is crucial to their success. Things like the Interstate Highway System, universal public education, the Internet, etc did not in fact materialize out of thin air nor were they products of the free market. They were things that the government had a key hand in, and they weren't free. Of course, there's also the fact that this clip is misrepresenting what he said. The "that" is referring to all that infrastructure, not to the businesses. That's a common technique that Fox is rather famous for. You may recall that a couple of years ago, President Obama discussed the importance of investing in civilian national security forces in addition to purely military organizations. He was, to any rational person, discussing the importance of funding police forces and the like. It was quickly spun by the tinfoil hat set into him wanting to raise some kind of army of his own (and other variations of the same nonsense.

See, what he actually said was this:

OBAMA: Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own.  You didn't get there on your own.  I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you've got a business -- you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn't get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That's how we funded the GI Bill.  That's how we created the middle class.  That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That's how we invented the Internet.  That's how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that's the reason I'm running for President -- because I still believe in that idea.  You're not on your own, we're in this together. (quote ends)

So, slightly misrepresented, no? I've highlighted one of the key points of the statement - about the importance individual initiative.

I had an interesting conversation with one of the Americans I work with about the ideals of rugged individualism as Americans see themselves, and the reality of how they actually act - it was rather prescient of this very situation.

Here's my suggestion to you: when you see something on Fox that makes you angry at President Obama, flip to snopes.com or mediamatters.org or politifact.org or factcheck.org and get the actual story. The reason they cannot be considered "news" is because they do not actually tell you the whole story, but what they want you to hear. This is a perfect example. And it's especially true if you heard it on Fox & Friends in particular.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/07/17/bolling-uses-foxs-deceptively-edited-obama-rema/187164

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/16/fox-amp-friends-deceptively-edits-obamas-commen/187146

Some of the stuff coming out of these guys mouths' just make you want to  :facepalm:

Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that'
Published July 16, 2012
Article Link



President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects -- saying “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”
Obama’s comment Friday during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Va., came just days after he urged Congress to extend tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration only to families earning less than $250,000 annually -- part of his argument that top earners have an obligation to pay more to trim the deficit.

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back,” the president said. “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” he said. “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has pledged a vote on the Obama plan before Congress’ August recess, but whether he has the votes remains unclear. A handful of Democrats – include several facing a tough re-election bid – don’t want to vote on a proposal that would result in a tax increase for some Americans.

Senate Democrats and Republicans wrangled Wednesday over the tax cut extensions, which have emerged as a major campaign issue as GOP candidate Mitt Romney attempts to upend Obama’s re-election bid.

Leaders of the GOP-controlled House want to extend the cuts for all Americans and will almost assuredly reject any plan capping them at the $250,000 income level, or $200,000 for individuals.

The cuts will expire in January.
end

 

[vonGarvin]

Revisionist history at work:

Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The internet wasn't "created", but rather evolved out of a series of government and private ventures starting back in the early days of computing, dating more than 50 years ago.

Here is a quick list of significant events.

By the way, "ARPANET" was the first "internet" of sorts.  And its purpose wasn't commercial or economic; rather, it was to safeguard information in the event of nuclear attack by the Soviet Union on the United States.

 

[vonGarvin]

I just won the internet.

 

[Redeye]

I just won the internet.

If there's a prize for quotemining, you sure did.  :facepalm:

 

[vonGarvin]

If there's a prize for quotemining, you sure did.  :facepalm:

Thanks for that.

Anyway, if you knew the story of the Wright brothers, you would see the idiocy in Mr. Obama's assertion that "you didn't build that".  The Wrights, you see, were up against some pretty heavy hitters.  Contemporaries were also trying to be the first with powered flight.  Their rivals had heavy financing and "support"; however, the Wrights were first because of their own ingenuity and in spite of not receiving much in the way of external support.

 

[Redeye]

Thanks for that.

Anyway, if you knew the story of the Wright brothers, you would see the idiocy in Mr. Obama's assertion that "you didn't build that".  The Wrights, you see, were up against some pretty heavy hitters.  Contemporaries were also trying to be the first with powered flight.  Their rivals had heavy financing and "support"; however, the Wrights were first because of their own ingenuity and in spite of not receiving much in the way of external support.

If you read the post above, which actually puts "you didn't build that" in the proper (vice Fox News) context, you'd see that that has pretty much no relevance whatsoever to what the President said.

 

[vonGarvin]

If you read the post above, which actually puts "you didn't build that" in the proper (vice Fox News) context, you'd see that that has pretty much no relevance whatsoever to what the President said.

I read the post above.  I don't even know where to begin with your post, so I'll just leave this here:

(subtext: I get it, no person is an island; however, his meme of "you aren't alone" is part of his socialist agenda.)

 

[Redeye]

I read the post above.  I don't even know where to begin with your post, so I'll just leave this here:

(subtext: I get it, no person is an island; however, his meme of "you aren't alone" is part of his socialist agenda.)

Name me a business that doesn't make any use whatsoever of infrastructure that exists because of government intervention. Name me a business that has not in some way benefited from public education. Name me a business that hasn't benefited from the provision of police, fire services, or national defence in some way no matter how remote.

And on top of that, FFS, he didn't say business owners didn't build their businesses. He said they didn't build those things listed above.

His message has nothing to do with this nonsensical rhetoric about "socialism", which is complete crap. It does, however, address the fact that the right's vilification of government as somehow useless and any sort of government activity as manifestly evil is patently wrong. And a good chunk of Americans believe that - and more might be rational enough to see it.