DrmDoc

I agree that gerrymandering marginalizes minority votes but I don't think that was a significant factor in Hillary's loss in key states this past election. The perspective I've tried to convey is that these tactics, although of serious concern, were negligible and ineffective compared to overall voter apathy.

A candidate can win the popular vote in states with fewer Electoral College (EC) delegates than other states. This means that a candidate can win the cumulative votes of several states and not amass the number of EC delegates need to win the presidency. Trump's win in key states with significant numbers of delegates meant that he didn't have to win the cumulative popular vote, just the popular vote in those key states with delegates in sufficient numbers to win the presidency. As I understand, Hillary loss by 22,000 votes; therefore, more than 22,000 votes would have been required for her to win that state. If we assume that voter suppression caused Hillary's loss that suppression cost her more than 22,000 votes. If 300,000 registered voters were denied their rights to vote because of voter ID laws, that is indeed suppression. However, those laws likely applied to the voters who managed to vote successfully. Why were 300,000 registered voters not able to obtain proper ID as those who did vote? Were they all minority or poor voters unable to pay for state ID? Were they actually turned away at the polls or just didn't both to vote because they failed to obtain IDs? Were is the link to the article discussing that sizeable number of denied voters?

I'm not suggesting that anyone would be unaffected by restrictive practice, I merely saying that I'm not convinced that those tactics contributed to Hillary's loss. No, that is not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that whatever voter suppression that might have occurred during the election, it was not a compelling factor in Hillary's loss. A loss by 22,000 precinct votes just doesn't suggest to me that 22,001 votes were suppressed in that voting precinct--either the voters didn't come to the polls or they just picked the other candidate.

Hopefully, the facts I've provided will support my opinion. As you may recall, the equivalency regarded rural voters versus minority voters. That 79% is cumulative total of all voters (minority and majority) living in urban areas. According to the poverty statistic link I provided, about 22 million Blacks and Hispanics live in poverty. Given that nearly 70% of those populations in total live in or around urban areas, this means about 15.4 million minorities are indeed equivalent to a rural majority that would likely vote Republican. Perhaps you misunderstood my implication. Definitively, I do not believe that Republican contrived voter suppression contributed to Hillary's loss. I do believe that their suppression tactics is a threat to our democracy and could be more effective in the future. Regarding my Bernie Sander's comments, his tactics labeling Hillary as a Wall Street insider and corporate shill undermined her credibility as a candidate for the people--effectively suppressing the enthusiasm of those minority voters who unsuccessfully supported Bernie in droves. There was no real suppression in the vein of ID and redistricting that suppressed votes, just voter apathy created by a combination of Bernie's campaign and Republican dirty tricks supported by foreign interference.

Perhaps, but what I've seen thus far is mimicry without that true spark that says to me, "I am awake and aware!"

Aren't we all merely expressing our opinions? Nevertheless... According to recent census statistics (2010), America's rural population is about 21%, which totals nearly 59.3 million Americans. Even if not representative of all eligible rural voters, 59.3 million Americans isn't a false equivalent or insubstantial number of Americans potentially affected by malicious voter ID laws. Furthermore, according to US poverty statistics released in September 2016, 17.8 million Whites and non-Hispanic lived in poverty, which is about 7 million shy of the total for all minority groups. I agree that the rate of poverty among minority groups in total is much higher than that among White voters, but there is a substantial number, as you can see, of poor majority white voters also potentially affected by malicious ID laws. It's obtuse to not consider that voter suppression wasn't an effective tactic during this past election considering the sizeable number of potential majority voters also affected by the very same tactics. Again, I'm not belittling or disputing the significance or future effects of voter suppression tactics in our elections, I am merely not convinced that those tactics contributed to Hillary's loss. In my opinion, albeit not solicited, Bernie Sander's campaign did more to suppress votes for Hillary among minority voters than any Republican contrived voter suppression effort.

When I think of rural American, I think in terms of rural states and statewide populations, which numbers more in the thousands rather than hundreds. Again, I don't denied that voter suppression isn't a critical issue, I just don't think it was or could have been a deciding factor in Hillary's loss.

I agree with Strange; contemporary robots are not capable of consciousness but future robots could be. I think the problem contemporary programmers have in developing truly conscious robots is their inadequate understanding of how the human brain produces consciousness. Human consciousness involves a confluence of separate brain areas engage in distinct processes that together constitute cognition and cognitive output. I believe that when programmers learn how to duplicate the intricacies of human brain function accurately, they will succeed. As a start, programmers will need a precise understanding of what mind truly is. Consciousness is a product of our brain function's matrix and that matrix is what we refer to as mind. What constitutes a mind in living organisms is both simple and complex but not beyond our ability to program with the proper understanding.

I would never denied that the fees attached to state ID applications isn't more burdensome for the poor than the rich; however, as you'll note, I've made no distinction between the poor minority from the poor majority. The majority isn't entirely comprised of a wealthy class of individuals. I'm sure you'll agree that there are poor members of the majority social class, particularly in rural America, who are equally affected by voter ID laws. Those poorer members may not share the same political views as those of the minority class. Rural America isn't wealthy and they tend to vote Republican. Their votes supporting majority views would be equally suppressed by the same ID laws impacting minority votes, which is the perspective I've tried to convey. The deciding factor in Trump's narrow victory during the past election wasn't, in my opinion, voter suppression. That factor was clearly the large number of eligible voters who just wasn't motivated to support Hillary as the voters who supported Trump.

In some states, there are fees attached to obtaining state identification. It's not a poll tax per se, but it can be burdensome to the poor needing ID to vote. All the requirements for voter ID applied to the majority as well. They were under the same constraints as those who voted in minority areas. Yet, as some propose, minority voter turnout was suppressed by those constraints because the process of obtain IDs is more difficult for minorities? As I see it, the only impediment to obtaining an ID would have been financial and if a person of color was denied a chance to vote--in a minority voting precinct that was likely staffed by a community volunteers--an equally white voter would have been denied that same chance. Other than for financial reasons, it just doesn't seem reasonable that ID constraints wouldn't affect majority voters as well. Early voting has the same constraints for non-minorities as well. Again, as I see it, an inconvenience to one group of voters is an inconvenience to all groups. A motivated voter will, if affordable, obtain an ID, then take the day off, march to the polls and stand in line for as long as it takes to have his or her vote registered. What happened this past election, as I believe, was that those of us who should have registered their support for Hillary weren't as motivated as those who voted for Trump--and there were lines of many motivated voters well after poll closings.

Yes, in my opinion, there just isn't sufficient evidence that voter suppression was key to Trump winning this past election. The primary reason for Hillary's loss, I believe, involves backlash from Bernie Sander's loss to Hillary coupled with the ceaseless Republican political tactics engaged throughout her campaign. The thing about voter ID laws is that all citizen are affected by them in someway. I understand that these laws may disproportionately affect the poor where there are fee requirements; however, some states have waved those fees and others, like Pennsylvania, eased their ID restrictions during this past election. Although I believe voter suppression is a critical issue, I continue to believe that it wasn't the cause of Hillary's loss. Her loss was the result of the vitriolic campaigns that eroded public trust in her character and leadership, which contributed to an environment of voter apathy. It's just a matter of time when the poor and middle-income of the majority will realize that this president's policies doesn't really include their best interests.

It seems that this administration's FBI chief, charged with investigating contacts between Trump's campaign and Russian officials, lied during his confirmation hearing and did not disclose his meetings with the Russian ambassador to the US. Now there are calls for his resignation. Yet more evidence of wolves appointed by this administration to guard the sheep.

The applications are beyond my insight and understanding. Fortunately, as dimreeper evinces, there are people in this science discussion forum who are abundantly more knowledgeable than I on this topic.

I understand your frustration and appreciate your passion on this subject...but don't burn yourself out over this. We have just under 4 miserable years ahead of us and you don't want your ire spent in just the first few weeks.

In retrospect, I think you're right. Still, I didn't given him a thorough answer, which is why I included the links. Perhaps, he'll research the subject further.

Yes, Ten oz, voter suppression may indeed have a much greater effect in future elections under this adminstration. As expected, the government is reversing course in major Texas voter ID case.

The notochord is a transient development in human embryos and is not retained post-embryotic. Our spinal cord emerges from an initial embryotic notochord stage. I hope this helps.

Actually, our brain already produces another form of thinking and that other form is called dreaming. A majority of us do not know that dreams are thoughts because dreams don't conform to how we consciously understand the nature of thought. When we dream, our sleeping brain can be even more active than when we are awake. The idea that we may only use a small percentage of our brain is a myth. We are already using our brain's maximum.

Although I acknowledge that voter suppression is a real issue and could become even more detrimental to our elections, I don' t believe it was that much of an issue during this past election given the percentages of voter turnout we found in precincts throughout Pennsylvania. If Philly's turnout is any example of Pennsylvania as a whole, it's unreasonable to believe that voter suppression accounted for only a 64% turnout this past election. 36% of approved and registered voters in Philly weren't denied their right to vote--they just didn't vote. Even at 7% voter suppression statewide, there would have been thousands of reports from irate voter distributed over the small number of distinct voting districts throughout Pennsylvania. Those reports would have included thousands of properly registered voters not being allowed to vote at their customary polling places. There were no such reports. Although voter suppression is an issue, I firmly believe it was just not that much of an issue compared to other factors, particularly voter apathy.

I don't doubt the unsavory and subversive motives of Republicans in their efforts to manipulate our voting system in their candidate's favor. Also, I agree that such tactics should continue to be met with active and extreme resistance; however, as I've previously conveyed, I don't believe these vote suppression tactics were that effective during this past election--at least not in Pennsylvania. I've been a resident of Pennsylvania for many years. It has a Democratic governor and its swing county, Philadelphia, is majority Democrat by almost 2/3. Voter participation was down in Philadelphia by several hundred thousands and I can confidently state that voter suppression was not the cause. Anyone familiar with Philly politics would understand the impossibility of suppressing Democratic votes in a Democratic county of a state governed by a Democrat. Philly Democrats did vote this past election, though not in the numbers seen in previous elections because they weren't as motivated. That low turnout is attributable to eligible registered voters who simply did not come to the polls and fulfill their electoral responsibility. There's insufficient evidence--in Philly at least--that voter suppression was a key and compelling factor during this past election. Although it may not have been a significant factor, from my perspective, I do agree that voter suppression tactics are important issues and should be seriously contested for the sake of our democracy.

I think it's highly unlikely that Trump won this past election because of voter suppression. If there was a sizable number of eligible and willing voters disenfranchised during this recent election, their collective outcry would most certainly have been deafening. We know that no vocal or sustained claims of voter suppression have emerged since Trump's election. Also, I don't think 62 million people voted for Trump because they were uneducated or didn't know who and what they were getting. Trump showed them exactly who he was and told them what he would do and they weren't deterred by Trump's deliberate failure to inform them how he would do it. As I saw it, there was voter apathy among a sizable segment of our population and far too many other eligible voters willing led by unreasonable fears. There is no clearer evidence that our electoral system is flawed when the candidate receiving 3 million more votes than her nearest competitor is not declared the winner.

Collectively, we did make the right choice for our democracy with the majority of our citizenry voting in the 2016 presidential elections for the most qualified candidate, which was Hilary Clinton. That majority was failed by an outmoded electoral process that should be abolished. The Electoral College gave us George W. and now Trump. Only a revolution, unfortunately, is likely to change that unnecessary buffer between the presidency and the true will of the American people.

Given this administration's history, it will likely spin this revealing BBC report as "fake news".

Trump certainly seems to be heading in Edrogan's direction but I don't think he'll get that far. I mean, we can still publicly call him a wanker without risk of arrest. It's very clear that he just doesn't know what he's doing and I think his increasingly negative rating supports that perception. My hope is that our democracy survives this administration without irreparable social damage.

Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy. Now access to government press briefings by legitimate outlets is being denied. Is there any firmer evidence of how solidly this administration is aligning itself with the wrong side of freedom?