World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Blu]

There are many poor and minority citizens who do not have access to birth certificates, or who do not have the knowledge or time (because they work 2 or 3 unforgiving jobs) to navigate sometimes arcane documentation requirements for valid IDs. And in a stunning hypocrisy, some states allow firearms licenses, even though those often don't demand the same documentation rigor of other IDs. So basically, most voter ID laws are carefully crafted to favor white voters and the IDs they are most likely to have, and often exclude many federal forms of ID the poor and minorities are likely to carry.

Further, voter ID advocates have failed time and time again to demonstrate a real need for these laws. They can ably craft hypotheticals, but offer no evidence of actual harm. There are easier ways to practice voter verification and most places do so already.

+1

[Ack]

Hey guys, let's all just take a moment to set aside our differences and express our sorrow at the plane crash in Colombia. What has happened there is a tragedy, not only for Brazil and Chapecoense, but for all of Latin America and fans of soccer worldwide.

[Sarge]

Why do you believe voter fraud is "notoriously difficult to root out?" According to who? What about the people who actually do find it or who study it from a place of expertise...do they say this? Why would you claim "we will never know who is right"? That seems like the logical fallacy of "false balance"...

There are a few studies out there, but their methodology seems to be a bit flawed. For example, the Brennan Institute study takes the idea that a very small set of cases has actually been prosecuted, therefore voter fraud is not an issue. However, if one isn't looking for it, or doesn't have the appropriate safeguards in place, then there's no way to know. We're just assuming based on a lack of evidence. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Of course, it's [url=http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-8-7-15-Merged.pdf]not like it doesn't exist[/url]. If this is what has been found without significant safeguards in place, how much more exists?

Along those lines, I read a lot of FiveThirtyEight, and this article from today comports a bit more with your view than mine, but I still find the argumentation compelling.

All due respect Sarge, this just doesn't make sense to me. I understand the concept of being against a left leaning government (although I don't agree). However, being against a left leaning non-profit organization just feels like you are against the "left" for all the wrong reasons.

So, by that logic you should be supportive of the ACLJ, right?

They are trying to protect civil liberties, surely you support that, or do you?

If you were aiming for due respect, I'd say you missed the mark.

Hey guys, let's all just take a moment to set aside our differences and express our sorrow at the plane crash in Colombia. What has happened there is a tragedy, not only for Brazil and Chapecoense, but for all of Latin America and fans of soccer worldwide.

Oh, man, that's terrible. Prayers for all those involved.

[Blu]

Between the plane crash and the fires consuming Gatlinburg, seems like there's a lot going on right now. That and the last hospital in Eastern Aleppo fell, and Assad is regaining control of the shell of a former city.

[Exhuminator]

I am just amazed there are survivors from the plane crash:



"At least three soccer players, two crew members and one journalist survived, authorities said. " -CNN

It's very rare to have even one plane crash survivor, let alone multiple. It will be interesting to see what the black box says.

[Sarge]

Oof, that's terrible with the fires. We finally got a really good rain yesterday, over an inch. Hopefully that will knock out that smoldering fire back home.

Definitely amazing anyone survived that crash.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Also, in-person voter fraud is a bogeyman used to justify minority voter suppression efforts.

Really? I don't see how it is minority suppression to require everyone to have a legitimate I.D. to vote.

There are many poor and minority citizens who do not have access to birth certificates, or who do not have the knowledge or time (because they work 2 or 3 unforgiving jobs) to navigate sometimes arcane documentation requirements for valid IDs. And in a stunning hypocrisy, some states allow firearms licenses, even though those often don't demand the same documentation rigor of other IDs. So basically, most voter ID laws are carefully crafted to favor white voters and the IDs they are most likely to have, and often exclude many federal forms of ID the poor and minorities are likely to carry.

Further, voter ID advocates have failed time and time again to demonstrate a real need for these laws. They can ably craft hypotheticals, but offer no evidence of actual harm. There are easier ways to practice voter verification and most places do so already.

+1

+2

Voter identification laws are generally part of a law intended to discourage voting by minorities, who tend to vote for Democratic candidates. Here is a good article on North Carolina's experience with these laws:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... aw/493649/

Anecdotally, I also spent some time in Milwaukee, Wisconsin during the months leading up to the 2012 election, and I noticed this:

https://thegrio.com/2012/10/29/web-of-d ... ppression/

Driving frequently between downtown Milwaukee and its suburbs, the billboards' intent was pretty obvious (and, IMO, completely disgusting).

[MrPopo]

Why can't we just identify people from the signature of the nanites the government injects along with the vaccinations?

[Sarge]

[jp1]

All due respect Sarge, this just doesn't make sense to me. I understand the concept of being against a left leaning government (although I don't agree). However, being against a left leaning non-profit organization just feels like you are against the "left" for all the wrong reasons.

So, by that logic you should be supportive of the ACLJ, right?

They are trying to protect civil liberties, surely you support that, or do you?

If you were aiming for due respect, I'd say you missed the mark.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the aclj comparison.

Also, I'm not sure how asking you a question is missing the mark on "due respect". Should I simply assume you support civil liberties when you oppose a non-profit group whose purpose is to protect them? It seems like a valid question.

If the "left agenda" bothers you due to the financial side of things then certainly I can understand your conservative views, if it has to do with something else then I don't see how that is valid in regards to politics. An NPO is not government funded so why do you have a problem with them simply because they "lean left"?