Mourning in America - Trump Year One: November '16 to

we haven't even started yet

He should also look into how many of his voters host illegal off-highway tiger zoos.

i have been to to the tiger truck stop in louisiana and can confirm that there is one sad tiger in a concerte box there. also the jambalaya sucked

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/962/640/658.png

i don't think congress has the constitutional authority to pass a nationwide voter ID law, thank god

i don't think congress has the constitutional authority to pass a nationwide voter ID law, thank god

OTOH, proposals for national ID cards have been kicking around for awhile - especially in the 9/11 fallout. I certainly expect to see them again.

If there was a national ID (realizing the issues with hassle, threat of authoritarian rule, etc) that was enacted and in force years before an election, could it prevent some of the voter supression that has been a regular issue for a couple of decades?

In other words, we've had the issue of Republican secretaries of state disenfranchising hundreds of thousands in the weeks immediately preceding every election. An ID mandate, if issued a year or two before the next election, would be an equal hassle to all, but would prevent thousands from being turned away as they reached the ballot box.

Frankly, I don't have strongly informed opinions on the issue. I just want a way to prevent the sorts of voter list manipulation that has become the norm, especially in swing states, to stop. I understand voter/citizen ID is intended to disenfranchise, but perhaps if effectively countered at the local level it could backfire. We have the GOTV volunteers, they don't.

Imagine the uproar if senior citizens who got their news from racist nephews on Facebook were turned away, while people of all ethnicities who duly wasted an hour or two to get their national ID walked past to cast their vote. This is the sort of poetic justice I seek.

There would be no more than one office in every MSA unless you pay a fee to skip the line or something equally disenfranchising, but rural gas stations would be able to process the paperwork.

Again, we have the GOTV volunteers. They're shitheads relying upon Facebook for their worldview.

how would theoretical national id laws play out in vote by mail only states (which imo the entire country should be vote by mail bc it works and is easy)

Sanpaku wouldn't you just be offsetting the disenfranchisement from the weeks before the election to whenever it is that people are supposed to get these IDs?

No one can respond to the late period disenfranchisement. I just think there's ample opportunity for these measures to backfire, especially if they're in law for many months before a vote.

I trust that we are smarter and more committed. If some neo-nazi thinks posting Pepe memes is more important than getting their fucking diabetic uncle out to vote, too bad.

Sorry about that, but I've got a lot of contempt issues around the electorate, right now.

I guess I'm not following your argument completely, Sanpaku, since state-level voter ID is a device of disenfranchisement, and the arguments you're putting forward for how people would have plenty of time to get it taken care of in advance, are the same as those put forward by defenders of state voter ID measures. It leads rapidly to "If you can't be bothered to fill out a form you have no business voting!" in defiance of how things actually play out in reality, vis-a-vis disproportionate effects on certain populations. And yeah, unless a whole new federal voter-registration bureaucracy sprung into existence, with outposts and offices and sign-up vans in ever town, the actual implementation would fall to state-level agencies so it'd be the same old shit, as milo z suggests.

how would theoretical national id laws play out in vote by mail only states (which imo the entire country should be vote by mail bc it works and is easy)

― Clay, Sunday, November 27, 2016 4:24 PM (twenty-five minutes ago)

There are states that require you to vote by mail? That seems like it has more opportunity for fraud, as well as disenfranchising people that move.

overview here, I am in the "pro" camp:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon

i don't think congress has the constitutional authority to pass a nationwide voter ID law, thank god

actually looks like congress can under the elections clause

so trump is gonna use this recount effort to lie about voter fraud, setting the stage for a nationwide voter ID law

Frankly, I'd be pretty happy to have a multiple choice test on the effects of climate change sponsored by the NSF be part of voter registration.

Our problem now is we're playing by the rules, and Republican secretaries of state are disenfranchising voters in the weeks just prior to elections. The problem isn't rules, its changing them before anyone has a chance to react.

They enact voter ID in early 2017, and we can react. In fact, we can win this contest of disenfranchisement, because we are smarter and have more grassroots support. I'll drive people from my neighborhood, but maybe not the Trump worshippers from the nursing home. If they enact voter ID in late 2018, then we're fucked.

^selectively disenfranching

Frankly, I'd be pretty happy to have a multiple choice test on the effects of climate change sponsored by the NSF be part of voter registration.

yeah no

Fundamental rights don't get tested

everything about that post is ridiculous

i saw a person with a bumper sticker today reading "TYSON/NYE 2016". basically made me want to become a trump supporter. i suspect it was on sanpaku's car???

xp:

Obv my post was in jest.

That said, while voting tests served to disenfranchise, they also mostly kept demagogues out. How many of us would pray for a Romney right now...

?

you know Andrew Jackson right

Also, there's no issue that matters as much to me as climate change, as there's no other issue as likely to kill billions by the end of the century. I'd vote for Satan if he had a better green energy plan. Sorry, that's where I am.

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

seems like my suspicions about that wapo article were warranted and that this propornot site lacks any credibility

reading their twitter account i actually think fred is their leader

Glenn Greenwald also lacks credibility

i see

I mean like I also lack credibility, who am I, what is true

http://i.imgur.com/8xOhIqO.png

Romney would be no different on climate change than Trump will be.

why the need to clown on glenn greenwald and thom yorke? honest question

bored tbh

i was just riffing on "what is true" in the previous post idk

I mean that Thom Yorke tweet's very good

why the need to clown on glenn greenwald and thom yorke? honest question

Greenwald's a posturing shit and every bit as much a hysteric as Andrew Sullivan, albeit on different issues; Yorke is a dumb rock star who thinks he's smart.

Greenwald's a better reporter.

Greenwald's a better reporter.

radiohead plays a key role in neoliberal globalisation

There are few prominent Republicans in I'd consider in the "sane" camp re: climate change. Jon Huntsman was the last gasp for the party, really. Romney is smart enough to understand the science, and maybe persuade other moderates to join with the Dem caucus on minor measures. A Romney presidency would have been mostly a hiatus in progress.

This Trump presidency threatens to overturn 30 years of climate change diplomacy. I won't be surprised if the US leaves the Rio framework. This election was a fucking disaster for anyone who knows the score on how awful climate change impacts will be. A handful of votes turn this election., and if Paris falls apart, that reduces the Earth's carrying capacity for human life by hundreds of millions, for the next 2-7 thousand years.

It doesn't inspire respect in democracy, frankly. Like I said above, Satan, bring on the windmills.

lol john huntsman made no apologies for trump. sorry

Jon Huntsman -- Sane? Romney -- smart?

Reagan won.

a Romney presidency would've been the Ryan budget four years before Trump; the best we can say about 2016 is averting disaster by four years.

Can anyone make the case to me that anything substantively positive would have happened on climate change under a Clinton presidency?

I think we can all make the case that voting is stupid and a waste of time right fellas?

Sanpaku doing a good job reminding me why being a single-issue voter is untenable

her CC policy seemed to be basically, 'everything I can without Congress'