Alternative Facts, Broken Promises & Wolves

[swansont]

 

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.

 

 

I don't care about your opinion here, to the extent that it is not buttressed by facts.

 

The poor are are over-represented by minorities, which means that such regulation hits them harder. Rural population is (by definition) low-density, so there are fewer of them, thus the suppression is not equal. You are creating a false equivalence here in this thread about alternative facts.

 

The only way you can argue that something (in what you admit was a narrow victory) wasn't a reason for the results is if it had no effect at all. And I don't see how anyone can argue that without being obtuse.

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 can't reconcile that with the recognition that the margin of victory was small.

[DrmDoc]

I don't care about your opinion here, to the extent that it is not buttressed by facts.

 

Aren't we all merely expressing our opinions? Nevertheless...

 

The poor are are over-represented by minorities, which means that such regulation hits them harder. Rural population is (by definition) low-density, so there are fewer of them, thus the suppression is not equal. You are creating a false equivalence here in this thread about alternative facts

 

 

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.

Edited March 3, 2017 by DrmDoc

[swansont]

Aren't we all merely expressing our opinions? Nevertheless...

Facts are what is objectively true when personal feeling is left out. Opinions, OTOH, are subjective.

 

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.

21% is rural, means that 79% is not. Saying that 21% and 79% are the same is a false equivalence.

 

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.

First you say that it did not contribute and in the very next sentence you imply that it did. Which is it?

[DrmDoc]

 

Facts are what is objectively true when personal feeling is left out. Opinions, OTOH, are subjective.

 

Hopefully, the facts I've provided will support my opinion.

 

21% is rural, means that 79% is not. Saying that 21% and 79% are the same is a false equivalence

 

 

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.

 

 

First you say that it did not contribute and in the very next sentence you imply that it did. Which is it?

 

 

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.

[swansont]

It's not as if someone making $1 above the poverty line would be magically unaffected by the economic impact of restrictive voting practices, so I think you are not making a valid comparison by using population below the poverty line.

 

Perhaps you misunderstood my implication. Definitively, I do not believe that Republican contrived voter suppression contributed to Hillary's loss.

IOW, you are claiming there were zero votes lost owing to voter suppression.

 

That's where my disagreement is.

[DrmDoc]

It's not as if someone making $1 above the poverty line would be magically unaffected by the economic impact of restrictive voting practices, so I think you are not making a valid comparison by using population below the poverty line.

 

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.

 

IOW, you are claiming there were zero votes lost owing to voter suppression.

 

That's where my disagreement is.

 

 

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.

Edited March 3, 2017 by DrmDoc

[dimreepr]

 

I'm claiming that whatever voter suppression that might have occurred during the election, it was not a compelling factor in Hillary's loss.

 

Then how do you explain how she won the popular vote?

Why else is gerrymandering so popular?

Edited March 3, 2017 by dimreepr

[swansont]

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.

What you must be suggesting (in order to be logically consistent) is at the very least the voter suppression was less than 22,000 net votes. And it was not 22,000 in one precinct. Clinton lost the state of Wisconsin by around 22,000 votes. 300,000 registered voters didn't have strict forms of voter ID. But you're convinced that this had no effect on the result.

[DrmDoc]

 

Then how do you explain how she won the popular vote?

Why else is gerrymandering so popular?

 

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.

 

 

What you must be suggesting (in order to be logically consistent) is at the very least the voter suppression was less than 22,000 net votes. And it was not 22,000 in one precinct. Clinton lost the state of Wisconsin by around 22,000 votes. 300,000 registered voters didn't have strict forms of voter ID. But you're convinced that this had no effect on the result.

 

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?

Edited March 3, 2017 by DrmDoc

[dimreepr]

 

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.

 

Did you set out to describe 'gerrymandering' or why more votes equals a loss?

[DrmDoc]

 

Did you set out to describe 'gerrymandering' or why more votes equals a loss?

 

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.

[dimreepr]

The perspective I've tried to convey is that these tactics, although of serious concern, were negligible and ineffective compared to overall voter apathy.

 

But how does voter apathy deny more votes?

[DrmDoc]

 

But how does voter apathy deny more votes?

 

It's not that voter apathy denied votes but that voters weren't sufficiently motivated to do what was necessary to insure Hillary's win.

[dimreepr]

 

It's not that voter apathy denied votes but that voters weren't sufficiently motivated to do what was necessary to insure Hillary's win.

 

What's the difference?

[iNow]

They're not mutually exclusive, folks

[DrmDoc]

 

What's the difference?

 

Tactics such as gerrymandering and ID requirement involves state efforts to suppress votes. Voter apathy isn't a tactic but rather the voters lack of interest in fulfilling his or her civic duty.

[dimreepr]

They're not mutually exclusive, folks

 

Indeed.

 

 

Tactics such as gerrymandering and ID requirement involves state efforts to suppress votes. Voter apathy isn't a tactic but rather the voters lack of interest in fulfilling his or her civic duty.

 

 

So the difference is 'tactics' enough said.

[Airbrush]

I heard the claim on Fox News that the Russians tried to hack both parties, democratic and republican, but the republicans were smart and upgraded their servers to resist the hacking, but the democrats were dumb and didn't do anything, so they got hacked. Is any of that true?

[DrmDoc]

I heard the claim on Fox News that the Russians tried to hack both parties, democratic and republican, but the republicans were smart and upgraded their servers to resist the hacking, but the democrats were dumb and didn't do anything, so they got hacked. Is any of that true?

 

Unfortunately, the Democrats have time and again demonstrated their political impotency against the Republican agenda. If that's any example, then it's very likely that the Dems were not as prepared or as careful as the Republicans in securing their servers.

 

 

 

BREAKING NEWS: In a case of the great and powerful Wizard of Oz shouting, "Ignore that man behind the curtain!", Trump is now claiming that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped prior to the November elections. Most respondents agree that this claim is Trump's effort to divert attention from recent charges of collusion between his staff and Russian officials.

Edited March 4, 2017 by DrmDoc

[StringJunky]

 

BREAKING NEWS: In a case of the great and powerful Wizard of Oz shouting, "Ignore that man behind the curtain!", Trump is now claiming that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped prior to the November elections. Most respondents agree that this claim is Trump's effort to divert attention from recent charges of collusion between his staff and Russian officials.

From today's BBC:

 

 

Some Democrats feel Mr Trump's latest tweets are an attempt to focus attention away from the Russian affair.

 

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said: "The Deflector-in-Chief is at it again."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39168149

[iNow]

I heard the claim on Fox News that the Russians tried to hack both parties, democratic and republican, but the republicans were smart and upgraded their servers to resist the hacking, but the democrats were dumb and didn't do anything, so they got hacked. Is any of that true?

Almost certainly no.

 

The simple fact is: If an advanced spy agency WANTS into a system, they WILL get into that system (barring a few very remote exceptions).

 

All of the best reports I've seen on this suggest Russia simply CHOSE not to target the Republicans and they instead CHOSE to focus on Democrats.

 

We may never know, but this almost certainly has NOTHING to do with Republicans somehow being Internet badasses with impenetrable security. If you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[MigL]

I happen to agree with you 100% DrmDoc.

I made the same observations about a month ago and got pilloried.

Everything from being a 'Trumpet' supporter to suppressing women's rights to protest.

 

A large majority of H Clinton's problems were caused by herself and the DNC.

D Trump's campaign is not smart enough to engineer the win, it was a protest vote that handed them the win.

Its too bad the American people decided to make the protest with such a stupid and ridiculous candidate as D Trump.

[Ten oz]

I happen to agree with you 100% DrmDoc.

I made the same observations about a month ago and got pilloried.

Everything from being a 'Trumpet' supporter to suppressing women's rights to protest.

 

A large majority of H Clinton's problems were caused by herself and the DNC.

D Trump's campaign is not smart enough to engineer the win, it was a protest vote that handed them the win.

Its too bad the American people decided to make the protest with such a stupid and ridiculous candidate as D Trump.

Changes to voting laws has been a long game for Republicans. It isn't about what Trump's team engineered. Increased by redistricting in 2010 and changes to the voting rights act in 2013 (Holder vs Shelby County) Republicans have targeted communities. There has been changes all over the country. Courts have shot down many but others have shifted through. These efforts have had an observable impact. Including midterms Elections Republicans have lost the popular vote is something like 6 of the last 8 national Election yet they control the House, the Senate, and now the White House. That isn't just luck.

 

Separately, Clinton got 3 million more votes. That isn't an insignificant number and yet there continues to be a line of thinking that she failed to do X, Y, or Z. Historically winning the popular vote by over 2% is a good margin. Bush failed to do as well either of his two terms. Saying Clinton needed to win by 4 to 5 million votes or else she is responsible for apathy and earned the loss sets a rather unprecedented bar for her campaign. Millions more people voted for Clinton. Millions more people wanted Clinton to be President. It is a odd argument to that people make, that this election was a rejection of Clinton.

[DrmDoc]

Perhaps my perspective of voter suppression effectiveness this past election is skewed by my perception of the turnout in Philadelphia. Philly's voting precincts were unchanged during this past election and voter ID requirements were also eased. Yet voter participation was down about 36% over previous elections. It's just implausible to me that voter suppression was a factor in Philly when those tactics were virtually non-existent here. Trump won Pennsylvania, which is a state wherein a single voting distinct--like Philadelphia--can sway state elections. Pennsylvania's Governor, as I commented previously, is a Democrat and Philly has a majority Democrat voting population by 2/3. To my knowledge, there was no sizeable outcry of voter suppression from anywhere in our nation that was reported this past election; therefore, a reasonable person may only conclude that some other factor is responsible for the less that stellar turnout of votes for Hillary. I voted for Hillary and I wanted her to win, I just think that a substantial number of other voters weren't as motivated as I.

 

 

 

FYI: This recent New York Times article provides a rundown of all the protective regulations reversed by this administration thus far. Regrettably, there's very little we can do to halt this absurdity before our nation's mid-term elections.

Edited March 5, 2017 by DrmDoc

[DrmDoc]

I imagine that each new president ensconces his administration with various insiders loyal to his cause. Here is access to the names of more than 400 individuals this administration has appointed to positions in government that did not require Senate approval.