Irom posted:Presentation of a state photo ID Lots of states make you pay money for those. Plus they limit the hours of the DMV offices to make it even more difficult, stuff like being open 4 hours a day one day a week is not unheard of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Clark is a Democratic time traveler from 1905 Also, Trumps main thing is loyalty and that's what he learned from Roy Cohn so if you don't think he's not going to reward someone with a powerful post then you are wrong. I'm pretty sure he is going to put Clark in charge of Immigration and watch Democrats devour themselves
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
The requirements to actually get the ID card in Wisconsin are ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Irom posted:I'd be fine to make it free. I don't agree with poll taxes, even though the argument paying for an ID to vote equates to a poll tax is a bit rich. Mnoba posted:They were free already http://www.bringitwisconsin.com/, but ya make voting day a national holiday would help. The time it takes is the annoying bit. Having them get printed out at the polling place if you don't have one seems like the thing to do. citybeatnik posted:Perhaps some kind of test to accompany it. Blood test. Can't have people high on the pot voting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Irom posted:I'd be fine to make it free. I don't agree with poll taxes, even though the argument paying for an ID to vote equates to a poll tax is a bit rich. You are specifically arguing that in order to vote, people should have to get an id. Under the current system, getting an ID costs money in most areas. You are requiring people to pay money for a vote. How is that any different from a poll tax?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
bebaloorpabopalo posted:The requirements to actually get the ID card in Wisconsin are ridiculous. What are they? Isn't it just a drivers or state id?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Blood test. Can't have people high on the pot voting. Seems legit. And of course we'll bill the state if it turns out that we were wrong and nobody's actually, you know, doing that poo poo. *EDIT* Monaghan posted:You are specifically arguing that in order to vote, people should have to get an id. Under the current system, getting an ID costs money in most areas. You are requiring people to pay money for a vote. How is that any different from a poll tax? It's almost as if they are not, in fact, arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
lol that we're all still fighting the same fight i get that minorities are worried that white people will sell them out the minute they have their economic security. i can totally see that but it also needs to be said that the working class is equally worried about the Democrats because we've been promising economic reform and instead actually became comically more and more corporatist. both vital groups are distrustful of the democratic party for the same reason and they're both right to be. but no one wants one or the other. we want BOTH. and REAL policy that is actually fought for for BOTH. this can't be economic populism with "oh yeah, minorities too i guess" but it also can just be pluralism with a light sprinkling of "lets lie to the racists about bringing their jobs back, lol" we need both and they both need to be equally real. the Democrats have very little credibility with anyone especially the same populations whose suffering has only increased over the last 30 years. strength in unity. real policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Number Two Stunna posted:I think we need to make life for white men a living hell until Trump is no longer president. Next time you see a white man, get in his face, tell him that he's about to hear the voice of the people he's oppressed, and scream as loud as you can. If white men are confronted by screaming POC, womxn, and LGBT+ at every turn, they will be forced to face our pain and reconsider their own oppressive behaviour. Jesus I almost fell for this, i need to get off the forums for a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i get that minorities are worried that white people will sell them out the minute they have their economic security. i can totally see that They're worried about it because that's literally happened in the past. But, yeah, something LBJ-esque where you're out pitching the Great Society to the hillbillies/rednecks without saying 'yeah this'll help POC too' too loudly might be a good start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Seems legit. And of course we'll bill the state if it turns out that we were wrong and nobody's actually, you know, doing that poo poo. To be clear, I think the state ID requirement is stupid, but if states require one then either the feds or the state need to be the ones that ensure that everyone has one free of cost, rather than people having to seek them out to get one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:You are specifically arguing that in order to vote, people should have to get an id. Under the current system, getting an ID costs money in most areas. You are requiring people to pay money for a vote. How is that any different from a poll tax? I'll tell you how it's different: a poll tax would be legit a lot less hassle than voter id is. That's what's so hosed up about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Are we basing this off of actual reality or off of joke posts from Twitt-oh gently caress you got me. didn't we agree? you should have to prove your identity to vote. voter fraud is easy to prevent and we should prevent it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:Jesus I almost fell for this, i need to get off the forums for a bit. I'm dead serious. It's the only way they will hear our voice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Irom posted:didn't we agree? you should have to prove your identity to vote. voter fraud is easy to prevent and we should prevent it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYMD_W_r3Fg
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Number Two Stunna posted:I think we need to make life for white men a living hell until Trump is no longer president. Next time you see a white man, get in his face, tell him that he's about to hear the voice of the people he's oppressed, and scream as loud as you can. If white men are confronted by screaming POC, womxn, and LGBT+ at every turn, they will be forced to face our pain and reconsider their own oppressive behaviour. In Milwaukee, no less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Irom posted:I mean, what % of people would honestly struggle to get a state photo ID? Probably fewer than the number of people who voted multiple times in states with lax voter ID laws Considering you there's no proof that the latter even happens outside of an insignificant number of cases I'd say the former is many orders of magnitude larger. Irom posted:didn't we agree? you should have to prove your identity to vote. voter fraud is easy to prevent and we should prevent it. Every investigation of voter fraud shows it's not actually a problem though. Ergo there is no reason to prevent it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Number Two Stunna posted:I think we need to make life for white men a living hell until Trump is no longer president. Next time you see a white man, get in his face, tell him that he's about to hear the voice of the people he's oppressed, and scream as loud as you can. If white men are confronted by screaming POC, womxn, and LGBT+ at every turn, they will be forced to face our pain and reconsider their own oppressive behaviour. I guess I'll just have to buy some earplugs. Thanks for the advice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Irom posted:didn't we agree? you should have to prove your identity to vote. voter fraud is easy to prevent and we should prevent it. we already do, in non voter id states at least
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:They're worried about it because that's literally happened in the past. see, but this response right here is part of the problem. YES, minorities HAVE ABSOLUTELY been taken advantage of in the past and it has RIGHTFULLY made them skeptical. but the working class HAS ALSO been lied to by the Democrats FOR DECADES and they are EQUALLY RIGHT to be skeptical. they've BOTH been lied to, BOTH been taken advantage of, and BOTH seen their quality of life plummet. stop pretending that either one has a monopoly on suffering or betrayal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
We won in 2006 and 2008 and the Republicans gerrymandered in 2000 , didn't they? Is the 2010 gerrymander worse than that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:see, but this response right here is part of the problem. What? That was literally LBJ's strategy for the Great Society. I wasn't smack talking it, I was applauding it. It set up a societal safety net that helped everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:see, but this response right here is part of the problem. Yes but the difference is the white working class would eagerly poo poo on their plate and eat it as long as that meant they could make black Americans eat it too. That and, you know, the systematic suffering of people of color being way, way worse than anything white people have ever dealt with. What is your proposal for helping both while also keeping that from happening?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:What? That was literally LBJ's strategy for the Great Society. I wasn't smack talking it, I was applauding it. It set up a societal safety net that helped everyone. sorry, i was mostly railing against your first sentence. the need to keep bringing up "minorities don't trust whites!" as though the answer is "ok, we'll gently caress over whites to show how serious we are" especially after statements about how we need to focus on BOTH. but you're right. lets make that clear, YOU'RE RIGHT that last part is totally true citybeatnik posted:But, yeah, something LBJ-esque where you're out pitching the Great Society to the hillbillies/rednecks without saying 'yeah this'll help POC too' too loudly might be a good start. this part. is right. sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:Yes but the difference is the white working class would eagerly poo poo on their plate and eat it as long as that meant they could make black Americans eat it too. That and, you know, the systematic suffering of people of color being way, way worse than anything white people have ever dealt with. Pulling an LBJ and lying to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:We won in 2006 and 2008 and the Republicans gerrymandered in 2000 , didn't they? It's is the post election panic where the party that lost is DOOMED and can never win again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Pulling an LBJ and lying to them. But then we just get reamed in the following midterms and have to deal with 2010 all over again, except worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:Yes but the difference is the white working class would eagerly poo poo on their plate and eat it as long as that meant they could make black Americans eat it too. That and, you know, the systematic suffering of people of color being way, way worse than anything white people have ever dealt with. i don't believe anyone has a monopoly on suffering. qualifying people's suffering is hosed up and wrong. the poor west virginian whites who are watching their communities crumble around them and their friends die from drugs, crime, and poverty are just as suffering as people of color experiencing the same thing. and its ALSO systematic. the key is leadership. packaging both together and having the party guide its constituents. strength and commitment. you know, all the things the democrats are good at (lol)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i don't believe anyone has a monopoly on suffering. qualifying people's suffering is hosed up and wrong. the poor west virginian whites who are watching their communities crumble around them and their friends die from drugs, crime, and poverty are just as suffering as people of color experiencing the same thing. and its ALSO systematic. The point is not that one particular group has a monopoly on suffering. It's that one group would rather keep suffering than let someone possibly do as well as they are. It's the whole "in the north, they don't care how far you rise as long as you don't get too close, in the south they don't care how close you get as long as you don't rise too far" thing in action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
In 2008, McCain tried to present himself as against illegal immigration, but his words were hollow, because he had supported the "path to citizenship" strategy. In 2012, Mitt Romney presented himself as against illegal immigration, but he argued that if we just make sure that illegal immigrants are banned from applying from jobs, they'll self-deport. People knew he came from the pro-illegal immigration establishment wing of the Republican party and was just saying that as election rhetoric. So, people could vote for those elections with illegal immigration off the table as an issue to consider. In 2016, Hillary Clinton acted like she just found out about the problem with H1B visa and pretended for a little bit that she might do something about it. This has been the only year that illegal immigration has been a major issue, without a candidate with a background that looks like the issue might be moot. People against illegal immigration haven't ever gotten the opportunity to vote against it while voting for president. That is very strange in a country where 55% believe police should arrest illegal immigrants they encounter who have not broken any laws, and 63% believe businesses with illegal immigrant employees should be fined, among many other anti-illegal immigration statistics. As a progressive when it comes to every other issue, maybe next election cycle, Democrats won't defend it while openly listing "the demographics will favor our party" as a point in the "support" column. galenanorth fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:The point is not that one particular group has a monopoly on suffering. It's that one group would rather keep suffering than let someone possibly do as well as they are. i don't believe that things always remain static. things are considerably different than they were last time progressive policies were advocated/implemented. these day the working class struggle has never be more real/similar. everyone needs economic assistance. the people holding us down are nakedly visible. the targets are clear, the way forward never more illuminated. of course the day the Democratic party ACTUALLY pushes leftist policy seriously will be the day i shave my neck beard and get out of my mothers basement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:In 2008, McCain tried to present himself as against illegal immigration, but his words were hollow, because he had supported the "path to citizenship" strategy. In 2012, Mitt Romney presented himself as against illegal immigration, but he argued that if we just make sure that illegal immigrants are banned from applying from jobs, they'll self-deport. People knew he came from the pro-illegal immigration establishment wing of the Republican party and was just saying that as election rhetoric. So, people could vote for those elections with illegal immigration off the table as an issue to consider. In 2016, Hillary Clinton acted like she just found out about the problem with H1B visa and pretended for a little bit that she might do something about it. So how do you operate against a 63% majority that holds a morally bankrupt political opinion without selling out and betraying the people victimized by that opinion?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Number Two Stunna posted:I think we need to make life for white men a living hell until Trump is no longer president. Next time you see a white man, get in his face, tell him that he's about to hear the voice of the people he's oppressed, and scream as loud as you can. If white men are confronted by screaming POC, womxn, and LGBT+ at every turn, they will be forced to face our pain and reconsider their own oppressive behaviour. This is why I commute in the quiet car.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Possibly. I think it's two separate but very closely related arguments. If you care so much about Social Justice you need the votes of rural whites to get anything done. Is having everyone thinking pure thoughts more important than making actual progress on Social Justice issues?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
And how many of those 300,000 intended to vote let alone actually tried? Not nearly as many as people who just stayed home for no real reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:We won in 2006 and 2008 and the Republicans gerrymandered in 2000 , didn't they? The republicans had more statehouses in 2010, and the tools for demographic mapping for districts were significantly more advanced by 2010. Gerrymandering had always been an issue but 2010 and the tools available now have turned it into a loving art.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
axelord posted:If you care so much about Social Justice you need the votes of rural whites to get anything done. Is having everyone thinking pure thoughts more important than making actual progress on Social Justice issues? Not everything but it woulda been p. cool if Trump supporters wouldn't have voted for him over his wanting to ban Muslims entry into the US. Like they don't gotta have Pure Thoughts™ but little things like that would make it a bit better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:And how many of those 300,000 intended to vote let alone actually tried? Not nearly as many as people who just stayed home for no real reason. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/ You tell me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Dick Milhous Rock! posted:The republicans had more statehouses in 2010, and the tools for demographic mapping for districts were significantly more advanced by 2010. Gerrymandering had always been an issue but 2010 and the tools available now have turned it into a loving art. So it's very unlikely we'll be flipping the House in either 2018 or 2020?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:We won in 2006 and 2008 and the Republicans gerrymandered in 2000 , didn't they? No, they didn't gerrymander to the same degree (nor have the opportunity to do so) in 2000, Gore and Bush was close enough and at that point the country wasn't polarized anywhere near as much as it is today. 2000 was a presidential year while 2010 was not. 2000 (pre-election): http://www.ncsl.org/documents/statevote/legiscontrol_1990_2000.pdf 2002 (pre-election): http://www.ncsl.org/documents/statevote/legiscontrol_2002_2014.pdf 2010 pre-election: http://www.ncsl.org/portals/1/ImageLibrary/WebImages/Elections/2010_Leg_Party_Control_map.gif 2011 post-election: http://www.ncsl.org/portals/1/ImageLibrary/WebImages/Elections/2011_Leg_Party_Control_map_.gif 2010 was absolutely horrible, lost the Rust Belt and NC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:14
|
|
