Alternative Facts, Broken Promises & Wolves

[StringJunky]

 

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.

So do I.

 

Edit:

 

 

I mean, we can still publicly call him a wanker without risk of arrest.

I shall defend to the death a person's right to call someone else names based on their behaviour.

Edited February 24, 2017 by StringJunky

[StringJunky]

It seems he's heading firmly in Erdogan's direction. Today's BBC report:

 

 

White House briefing bar: Media groups condemn exclusion

 

Media groups have reacted angrily after several, including the BBC, were barred from an informal briefing with White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer.

 

The excluded New York Times said the move was "an unmistakable insult to democratic ideals".

The bar came hours after President Donald Trump delivered another attack on the media, saying that "fake news" was the "enemy of the people".

The BBC has asked the White House to clarify its exclusion.

BBC bureau chief in Washington, Paul Danahar, said: "We understand that there may be occasions when, due to space or circumstances, the White House restricts press events to the established pool. However, what happened today did not fit into that pattern."

He added: "Our reporting will remain fair and impartial, regardless."

'Expanded pool'

Friday's briefing had been scheduled as an on-camera event in the briefing room but was changed to an informal off-camera event, known as a "gaggle", in Mr Spicer's office.

Explaining the move to go off-camera, he said: "We don't generally do, we haven't done briefings when the president's had a major event."

Mr Spicer said an "expanded" pool of journalists had been invited to the gaggle. Pools are not uncommon - the journalists attending then share their reporting with the White House press corps.

However, the choice of those attending, including groups seen as friendly to the Trump administration, and the fact that other journalists who asked to attend were refused entry drew condemnation from media groups.

White House Correspondents' Association President Jeff Mason said it was "protesting strongly".

The BBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Guardian, the Los Angeles Times, Buzzfeed, the Daily Mail and Politico were among those excluded.

Those allowed into the room included ABC, Fox News, Breitbart News, Reuters and the Washington Times.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39088770

[DrmDoc]

It seems he's heading firmly in Erdogan's direction. Today's BBC report:

 

 

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

[Ten oz]

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?

An educated populace is vital to of our democracy. Ironically our society has never been as highly educated or had as many resources for information as we currently do yet Congress is historically disfunctional and we have a POTUS whom is dangerously unfit.

 

In 1940 less than 5% of the total poulation had a 4yrs degree. By 1980 that number was up into the high teens. Today over a third of the population has at leat a 4yrs degree. So we are messurably more educated per the standard we use for education. As for news, people once relied on regional radio and newspapers alone. Options limit to just a couple of each per region, if there were options at all. The news consumed was typically a day or more old too considering the time it took to gather info, write the reports, and then distribute. By the 1980 we had live TV and cable news that report 24/7. People were no longer stuck consuming regional news. A person living in rural Nevada could watch live news from New York, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, or etc. And today we have the internet and smartphone. I can receive international news 24/7 directly to the smartphone in my pocket while walking down the street.

 

So how is it we are here? Congressional approval ratings are at 20% and have consistantly been below 30% for at least a decaded. When polled the majority of people have said the country is on the wrong track for over a decade as well. Now we just elected a POTUS whom is already polling with higher disapproval than approval and the inauguration was just a month ago. Collectively we (U.S. population) don't seem to be making better choices about democracy despite huge increases in things (press and education) considered critical to a functional democracy. Either we overestimate the importance of free press and education or we are not actually experiencing the increases we assume. I would argue the later.

[DrmDoc]

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.

[Ten oz]

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.

Yes, the popular got it right but there is simply no reason it should have even been close. Trump is clearly a lying narcissist who at no point presented a coherent plan to govern. Even people who supported him, even ones on this forum, concede as much. It reflects very poorly on our society that Trump was able to get 62 million votes.

 

The electoral college isn't the problem in my opinion. Any system only works if it is exercised correctly. Voter surpression deteriorated the electoral's ability to matter. Conservatives in nurmerous states do passed various laws and election regulations with the purpose in mind of make voting difficult as possible without being so obvious as to get overruled by courts. Even then we see courts forced to rule against individual state voiting laws. The electoral college is manipulated. It still comes back to the education of voters though. We (citizens) accept these changes to the rules that erode democracy and steal elections. The electoral process can work. We (citizens) must care about everyones right to vote first. Without that no form of democracy can function.

[DrmDoc]

Yes, the popular got it right but there is simply no reason it should have even been close. Trump is clearly a lying narcissist who at no point presented a coherent plan to govern. Even people who supported him, even ones on this forum, concede as much. It reflects very poorly on our society that Trump was able to get 62 million votes.

 

The electoral college isn't the problem in my opinion. Any system only works if it is exercised correctly. Voter surpression deteriorated the electoral's ability to matter. Conservatives in nurmerous states do passed various laws and election regulations with the purpose in mind of make voting difficult as possible without being so obvious as to get overruled by courts. Even then we see courts forced to rule against individual state voiting laws. The electoral college is manipulated. It still comes back to the education of voters though. We (citizens) accept these changes to the rules that erode democracy and steal elections. The electoral process can work. We (citizens) must care about everyones right to vote first. Without that no form of democracy can function.

 

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.

[Ten oz]

 

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.

in WI Trump got 1.405 million votes. In 2012 Romney received 1.407 million votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Wisconsin,_2012

 

In MI Trump got 2.27 million votes. In 2012 Romney received 2.12 million votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Michigan,_2012

 

In Iowa Trump got 800k votes. In 2012 Romney received 730k votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2012

 

In PA Trump got 2.9 million votes. In 2012 Romney received 2.68 million votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania,_2012

 

The States above are the what gave Trump the election. When we consider all the variables involved which change who registerewd voters are elction to election (people die, people vote for the first time, people move into and out of a State), by the number Trump received a nearly identical vote as Romney did in those key states. Which makes sense because we have a two party system and people vote for their team despite whom the candidates are. So the "apathy" you mentioned only effected the specifically Democrat. If we look at where turnout was down we see it was down in heavily Democratic regions of those states.

 

Philly - http://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/11/10/philly-voter-turnout-trump-clinton/

Detriot - http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/detroit_flint_voting_muscle_we.html

Milwaukee - http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2016/11/10/milwaukee-elections-head-says-voter-id-law-hurt-citys-turnout/93607154/

 

Many would are Clinton was just a bad candidate or that as a white candidate she simply couldn't turnout the minority community the way Obama had. However the "apathy" trend is unique to those battle ground states Trump absoluted had to have. Clinton's numbers from NJ, IL, IN, GA, SC, NC, other states with health populations of minorities mirror Obama's 2012 performance perfectly. And in some of this countries largest states Clinton significantly exceeded Obama's 2012 performance at levels which Trump didn't exceed Romney's numbers any place:

 

In NY Clinton got 8.75 million votes. In 2012 Obama received 7.85 million votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2012

 

In TX Clinton got 3.87 million votes. In 2012 Obama received 3.3 million votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas,_2012

 

In CA Clinton got 8.75 million votes. In 2012 Obama received 7.85 million votes.

 

14 states changed their voter registration laws ahead of the 2016 election (all Republican back legistration). Overall since 2010 there have been 20 states with new voter registration laws. As a party the Republicans don't do this because it has no impact. They don't spend the money and fight the court battles because it hasn't helped them. If you take a few minutes and look at voting numbers states by state you will see that most states have a remarkable amount of consistancy. In the States which do not it can normally be traced to changed in voter registration which either made it easier or more difficicult for people to vote. http://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016

[DrmDoc]

in WI Trump got 1.405 million votes. In 2012 Romney received 1.407 million votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Wisconsin,_2012

 

In MI Trump got 2.27 million votes. In 2012 Romney received 2.12 million votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Michigan,_2012

 

In Iowa Trump got 800k votes. In 2012 Romney received 730k votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2012

 

In PA Trump got 2.9 million votes. In 2012 Romney received 2.68 million votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania,_2012

 

The States above are the what gave Trump the election. When we consider all the variables involved which change who registerewd voters are elction to election (people die, people vote for the first time, people move into and out of a State), by the number Trump received a nearly identical vote as Romney did in those key states. Which makes sense because we have a two party system and people vote for their team despite whom the candidates are. So the "apathy" you mentioned only effected the specifically Democrat. If we look at where turnout was down we see it was down in heavily Democratic regions of those states.

 

Philly - http://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/11/10/philly-voter-turnout-trump-clinton/

Detriot - http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/detroit_flint_voting_muscle_we.html

Milwaukee - http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2016/11/10/milwaukee-elections-head-says-voter-id-law-hurt-citys-turnout/93607154/

 

Many would are Clinton was just a bad candidate or that as a white candidate she simply couldn't turnout the minority community the way Obama had. However the "apathy" trend is unique to those battle ground states Trump absoluted had to have. Clinton's numbers from NJ, IL, IN, GA, SC, NC, other states with health populations of minorities mirror Obama's 2012 performance perfectly. And in some of this countries largest states Clinton significantly exceeded Obama's 2012 performance at levels which Trump didn't exceed Romney's numbers any place:

 

In NY Clinton got 8.75 million votes. In 2012 Obama received 7.85 million votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2012

 

In TX Clinton got 3.87 million votes. In 2012 Obama received 3.3 million votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas,_2012

 

In CA Clinton got 8.75 million votes. In 2012 Obama received 7.85 million votes.

 

14 states changed their voter registration laws ahead of the 2016 election (all Republican back legistration). Overall since 2010 there have been 20 states with new voter registration laws. As a party the Republicans don't do this because it has no impact. They don't spend the money and fight the court battles because it hasn't helped them. If you take a few minutes and look at voting numbers states by state you will see that most states have a remarkable amount of consistancy. In the States which do not it can normally be traced to changed in voter registration which either made it easier or more difficicult for people to vote. http://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016

 

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.

[Ten oz]

 

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.

Hillary Clinton lost PA by 0.7% (44k votes). Overall in the key states that gave Trump the election they were collectively decided by about 80k votes which is less that a half of a single percent of the votes in those states. So it isn't as though millions needed to by turned away from the polls. Not even hundreds of thousands. You are acknowledging that the issue is real but then insisting rather definitively it couldn't have accounted for decimals of a percent difference. I believe it absolutely could. In my opinion beyond the more aggressive voter ID laws even subtle changes to voting locations, number of early voting days, the operating hours, and etc would easily create less than a percent point of difference in outcome.

 

We also saw other forms of manipulation.We saw a Republican Congress abuse their constitutional power to run an ongoing partisan attack campaign against the Democratic candidate. They investigated Hillary Clinton for both Benghazi and her email server in the middle of the election specifically to aid their candidate. Additionally the ordered an FBI investigation of her email server. Clinton had the testify under oath, key staff members testified under oath. Then when neither was found Congress just kept going investigating the investigations, lmfao. They made FBI Director Comey testify as to way he wasn't prosecuting Clinton. Additional there we illegal cyber attacks against both the DNC and members of Clintons campaign. Those attack clearly sought to benefit Donald Trump.

 

I actually think it is remarkable that despite congressional investigation turned FBI investigation, foriegn propaganda attacks, and voter surpression in the form of changed registration laws in 14 states, Hillary Clinton still won 3 million more votes. Had any one or all those (investigations, hacks, supression) hurdles been removed I think Clinton wins easily. Removing the Electoral process doesn't resolve those problems. Does stop Republicans in Congress using their majority for political gain by throwing BS investigation at those who oppose them, doesn't stop a foriegn govt from cyber attacking a candidate, and etc. As we discuss this I have no doubt Republicans are trumping up BS reason to investigate Warren and Booker. They are promising 2020 candidates so the GOP Congress will have them under investigation sooner rather than later. That is the hurdle. Even if we went to just using the popular vote it won't fix Congress. It won't fix the various way the Republicans work manipulate the system.

[DrmDoc]

Hillary Clinton lost PA by 0.7% (44k votes). Overall in the key states that gave Trump the election they were collectively decided by about 80k votes which is less that a half of a single percent of the votes in those states. So it isn't as though millions needed to by turned away from the polls. Not even hundreds of thousands. You are acknowledging that the issue is real but then insisting rather definitively it couldn't have accounted for decimals of a percent difference.

 

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.

Edited February 26, 2017 by DrmDoc

[DrmDoc]

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.

[Ten oz]

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.

Since the Holder vs Shelby County decision in 2013 stripped the voters rights act we have seen 14 states and over 80 counties change there laws. Many more have tried and been blocked by courts. It is a real problem and growing. It is death by a thousand paper cuts. Any individual paper cut may not seem big enough to be responsible for anything but collectively they are.

 

I live in DC. Most of my co-workers live in either Virginia or Maryland. Depending on their communities some were able to be on and out on Election day while others had to basically take the day off because of the uncertainty of waiting in hour(s) long lines. Clinton won both Maryland and Virginia. However, even in those states the system is clearly flawed. Based on one's address some have a significantly more convenient experience. It isn't right. I am a registered voter in CA. I was able to mail my vote in ola month before the election. Easy work!

 

In my opinion if we had a federal standard for our federal Elections (local races can have local standards) that made voting easy for everyone as it is for folks like me Hillary Clinton would have won the popular vote by 10 million and the electoral college easily. States like TX, SC, NC, FL, GA, OH, and etc could be reliably blue if voter participation was increased. The apathy you referenced is its own form of voter supression. Just as Conservatives cast doubt on climate change and evolution to make people apathetic to them so too do they attack voting and democracy broadly. Conservatives promote the notion all politicians lie, the govt makes things worse, govt programs only go to poor minorities, voter fraud, mainstream media is fake, and etc. Where they (Conservatives) can they out block people from voting. If they can't block they make it hard as they can make it. And where they can do that they promote propaganda to generate apathy.

 

People need to be more educated on civics. People need to understand why a free press matters and why access to voting is a right everyone should exercise. It should set off alarm bells every where when a candidate attacks the press and attacks voting. The fact it doesn't is a far bigger problem than the electoral college. People don't understand democracy.

 

Sorry for rambling on. This stuff is just so fustrating to me.

[DrmDoc]

Sorry for rambling on. This stuff is just so fustrating to me.

 

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.

Edited February 28, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

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.

We have a couple of Governor races this year and then the midterms next year. We shouldn't have to suffer in silence for till 2020.

[DrmDoc]

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.

Edited March 2, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

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 Russia's ambassador to the US. Now there are calls for his resignation. Yet more evidence of wolves appointed by this administration to guard the sheep.

 

Congress spent 2 years investigating Hillary Clinton's emails. There was a congressional investigation, a FBI investigation, a congressional investigation into the FBI investigation, and a second FBI investigation into possible evidence connected to a separate case. All while crowds chanted "lock her up". During a live debate our President (then a candidate) threatened that if elected he would assign special a prosecutor for yet another round of investigation. Crooked Hillary is what the President called his opponent. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton handed over years worth of tax returns, over 30,000 emails, hack thousands more emails hacked and released, and testified under oath before Congress. Trump has not produced any taxes, any emails, or been put under oath. the double standard here is beyond words. This is the same man who demanded President Obama's long form birth certificate arguing the short form wasn't good enough!!

 

So this is where we are in 2017? Minorities and women hand over taxes, birth certificates, emails and are still investigated at length while the wealth white males get to just refuse such checks. It is, as Clinton said, deplorable. Gen. Flynn and Sec. Session lied about contact with Russian officials, the President ran around campaigning that the Chinese might have been responsible for hacks which he had been briefed were Russian during the campaign, and we still Congress sits on its hands. We need a real investigation. One that gets people under oath and looks into the tax returns to ensure no conflicts.

[swansont]

 

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.

 

 

Oh, come on.

 

The mainstream media didn't cover it, but why would that be surprising, as they botched so much involved with this election.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/

https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-case-study-in-voter-suppression-258b5f90ddcd#.xiq6689yc

http://www.theroot.com/was-the-2016-election-stolen-by-massive-voter-suppressi-1790858003

[DrmDoc]

 

 

Oh, come on.

 

The mainstream media didn't cover it, but why would that be surprising, as they botched so much involved with this election.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/

https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-case-study-in-voter-suppression-258b5f90ddcd#.xiq6689yc

http://www.theroot.com/was-the-2016-election-stolen-by-massive-voter-suppressi-1790858003

 

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.

 

 

Congress spent 2 years investigating Hillary Clinton's emails. There was a congressional investigation, a FBI investigation, a congressional investigation into the FBI investigation, and a second FBI investigation into possible evidence connected to a separate case. All while crowds chanted "lock her up". During a live debate our President (then a candidate) threatened that if elected he would assign special a prosecutor for yet another round of investigation. Crooked Hillary is what the President called his opponent. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton handed over years worth of tax returns, over 30,000 emails, hack thousands more emails hacked and released, and testified under oath before Congress. Trump has not produced any taxes, any emails, or been put under oath. the double standard here is beyond words. This is the same man who demanded President Obama's long form birth certificate arguing the short form wasn't good enough!!

 

So this is where we are in 2017? Minorities and women hand over taxes, birth certificates, emails and are still investigated at length while the wealth white males get to just refuse such checks. It is, as Clinton said, deplorable. Gen. Flynn and Sec. Session lied about contact with Russian officials, the President ran around campaigning that the Chinese might have been responsible for hacks which he had been briefed were Russian during the campaign, and we still Congress sits on its hands. We need a real investigation. One that gets people under oath and looks into the tax returns to ensure no conflicts.

 

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.

Edited March 3, 2017 by DrmDoc

[swansont]

 

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 against Hillary that eroded public trust in her character and leadership, which contributed to an environment of voter apathy.

 

 

Fees are out-and-out illegal/unconstitutional (poll tax). The main issue here was voter ID, which disproportionately affected minorities, who overwhelmingly voted democrat. So you have 300k people in Wisconsin who were denied the vote, and where Trump won by 22k. Further, there were areas where voter ID was struck down, but locally voter IDs were still being demanded. You also have places like North Carolina where they reduced early voting, expressly for the purpose of reducing the vote of minorities.

[DrmDoc]

 

 

Fees are out-and-out illegal/unconstitutional (poll tax). The main issue here was voter ID, which disproportionately affected minorities, who overwhelmingly voted democrat. So you have 300k people in Wisconsin who were denied the vote, and where Trump won by 22k. Further, there were areas where voter ID was struck down, but locally voter IDs were still being demanded. You also have places like North Carolina where they reduced early voting, expressly for the purpose of reducing the vote of minorities.

 

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.

Edited March 2, 2017 by DrmDoc

[swansont]

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.

Much like how a law preventing poor people from sleeping under a bridge applies equally to rich people.

 

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.

If you have to go out of your way to get an ID, it will take time, and usually the time is when someone is normally at work. If you are economically disadvantaged, you are less likely to have the kind of job(s) where you can easily take a few hours out of your day to go get the ID. You say take the day off — not everybody has that kind of luxury in their employment. The effect of forgoing a day's pay (or a fraction thereof) does not have the same impact on everyone. The same applies to the longer voting lines in areas with higher concentrations of disadvantaged people. You are less likely to be able to go vote, and it discourages you from trying in the first place.

 

All of that essentially amounts to a poll tax, which is unconstitutional. In Harman v. Forssenius it was ruled that "the poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed." when Virginia tried to substitute extra paperwork to establish residency in lieu of a poll tax.

The average time to vote is longer if you're a minority.

http://fusion.net/story/335786/long-lines-minority-voter-suppression/

https://www.facingsouth.org/2014/09/waiting-at-the-polls-long-lines-and-the-right-to-v.html

[DrmDoc]

Much like how a law preventing poor people from sleeping under a bridge applies equally to rich people.

 

If you have to go out of your way to get an ID, it will take time, and usually the time is when someone is normally at work. If you are economically disadvantaged, you are less likely to have the kind of job(s) where you can easily take a few hours out of your day to go get the ID. You say take the day off — not everybody has that kind of luxury in their employment. The effect of forgoing a day's pay (or a fraction thereof) does not have the same impact on everyone. The same applies to the longer voting lines in areas with higher concentrations of disadvantaged people. You are less likely to be able to go vote, and it discourages you from trying in the first place.

 

All of that essentially amounts to a poll tax, which is unconstitutional. In Harman v. Forssenius it was ruled that "the poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed." when Virginia tried to substitute extra paperwork to establish residency in lieu of a poll tax.

The average time to vote is longer if you're a minority.

http://fusion.net/story/335786/long-lines-minority-voter-suppression/

https://www.facingsouth.org/2014/09/waiting-at-the-polls-long-lines-and-the-right-to-v.html

 

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.

[Ten oz]

 

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.

 

Rural America is smaller in population than metro areas. The Republicans will happily disenfranchise a hundred people in a district they know they will carry if it means a thousand people in a district they won't carry will also be disenfranchised.

[DrmDoc]

 

Rural America is smaller in population than metro areas. The Republicans will happily disenfranchise a hundred people in a district they know they will carry if it means a thousand people in a district they won't carry will also be disenfranchised.

 

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.