2016 Presidential Race

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just cannot wrap my arms around the concept that requiring proof of citizenship is disenfranchising voters:

"This action has illegally kept voters from the polls, caused confusion, and threatened the lawful voter registration efforts of the League and other groups," the League said in a statement. Its president, Chris Carson, said the requirement had amounted to "thinly veiled discrimination." Carson praised the ruling blocking it and said that "we should be making voting easier, not harder. All eligible Americans deserve the opportunity to register and vote without obstacles."

Court Blocks Proof-Of-Citizenship Requirement For Voters In 3 States


Forgive me for being jaded, but the idea of someone only needing to sign a statement saying "YES I AM A CITIZEN" and that's it? Sorry, I guess I'm just not that trusting that anyone is actually looking into these sworn statements and holding anyone accountable, regardless of the law.

Why Shouldn’t A State Ask Individuals to Prove Their Citizenship When They Attempt to Register to Vote?
States already ask for evidence of citizenship. Since states began requiring voters to register prior to voting, every state has required individuals wishing to register to sign a statement under penalty of perjury affirming that they are citizens and that they meet all of the state’s other voter eligibility requirements. The federal form also requires such a statement and additionally states that non-citizens who register may be criminally prosecuted and deported.

How Do Proof-of-Citizenship Laws Block Legitimate Voters? | Demos


So where is the balance? Genuine Citizen wants to vote, but has no physical proof of his/her citizen so they gets to sign a form, declaring them-self a citizen, and now they gets to vote! Perfect, I love it!!!

But...

Use my friendly state of MN as an example. We currently have the largest population of Somali's in the United States, many if not most are refugees; not citizens. But...they kinda like it here, it would benefit their status in the U.S. if a more liberal government, friendly to their plights remained in power....so they go sign a form declaring themselves a citizen, and now they get to vote. That I do not approve of.

Good Question: Why Did Somalis Locate Here?


Maybe if my Republican brethren get their shit together and come to the conclusion that having some social programs does not a Socialist make, they will win the votes of those on the bubble who need a little help, but also want to see business thrive and ensure that their gun rights are not altered. At the end of the day I want every U.S. citizen to have the ability to vote, but not at the expense of allowing the flood of illegal immigrants to this country to game the system in the hopes of keeping those people in power who best represent their best chance of staying here.

As a lifelong registered Republican, I am really trying to see the more liberal points of views that have been presented on this forum from time to time, but it becomes very easy to feel cornered and want to dig in my heels when it seems as if I am the anti-poor, anti-black, anti-name it, until I concede that the liberal definition of fair is the only definition that matters.
 
Holy shit, the rats are jumping the sinking ship. Trump is surely done.

I wonder how Hillary will fare against Pence, assuming he gets the nod after his debate performance.

I'm not surprised that it took this long for the Republican party to turn their backs on a bigoted, racist idiot, given how fractured they are at the moment.
 

I think more than a few women (and men) see a significant difference between reading/watching porn and someone bragging about sexual assault. I know a large number of women who have expressed their own encounters with harassment and groping - this is not sitting well with them. If the Republicans aren't careful Trump is going to give them permanent problems with women - as the party already has with minorities.
 
A voter ID and a photo ID are different things friend. Voter ID cards are free and often can be gotten by showing a bill or something else that proves you are you. Not a lot of free photo ID's being given out.

See ,that's the problem right there. A bill proves nothing related to identity.

I still maintain that a properly vetted state non-driver's ID should be free. It is in the best interests of the state to do so.

You folks have no idea how often I encounter someone who has no ID, doesn't know their SSN, but does know their Philadelphia photo number, state police number, FBI number... or all three. I am constantly having to look up mugshots to verify who the fuck I'm talking to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think more than a few women (and men) see a significant difference between reading/watching porn and someone bragging about sexual assault. I know a large number of women who have expressed their own encounters with harassment and groping - this is not sitting well with them. If the Republicans aren't careful Trump is going to give them permanent problems with women - as the party already has with minorities.

Do you honestly think he's sexually assaulted anyone or do you think he thought he was having a private conversation, and like a lot of guys, was bragging on something that isn't true?
 
I think more than a few women (and men) see a significant difference between reading/watching porn and someone bragging about sexual assault. I know a large number of women who have expressed their own encounters with harassment and groping - this is not sitting well with them. If the Republicans aren't careful Trump is going to give them permanent problems with women - as the party already has with minorities.

What he said was déclassé to be sure. But it's typical of guys talking shit. Most guys have probably said something to another guy along the same lines and that was not an admission to indecent assault.
 
Do you honestly think he's sexually assaulted anyone or do you think he thought he was having a private conversation, and like a lot of guys, was bragging on something that isn't true?

Why would him saying it privately make it less likely to be true? Yes, I think Trump has likely groped and harassed women - it seems consistent with his actions and the reports of this type of behavior from him have been pretty common. Grabbing someone's 'pussy' without consent is assault. If he brags about doing it - whether he's actually done it or not - he's probably going to make a lot of women not want to vote for him. I've found, crazy as it may seem, that regardless of political affiliation women don't like to be assaulted - nor have people brag about how they can do it and get away with it.
 
Do you honestly think he's sexually assaulted anyone or do you think he thought he was having a private conversation, and like a lot of guys, was bragging on something that isn't true?

For him, at this stage, it doesn't really make a lot of difference.
 
I think the critical thing - from a political strategy, not moral basis - about these comments are their timing.

Trump started slipping in the polls prior to the first debate, then the two debates (especially the first) went badly for team Trump. In the first HRC brought over a percentage point or two of fence-sitters and Trump similarly failed to move his - or sent them the other way. In the VP debate Gov Pence beat his opponent but Gov Kaine managed to get Gov Pence on record repeatedly with lies or half-truths about Trump's statements - which then dominated the news cycle and continued to chip away at the undecided in favor of HRC - especially the pro-SEN Sanders folks looking at 3rd party candidates.

The end result was Trump was coming into the second debate 5 or so points behind nationally and 1-3 points behind in his 3 must-win swing states (OH, NC, FL) where he had previously been ahead. I think most of the Republican establishment felt the race was going to go HRC's way but as long as it was tight there wouldn't be a significant down-ballot cost - they'd retain both houses of congress. The fear they had as the polls went south was the damage Trump could do down-ballot if the polls got worse. Still, I think they all made the calculation it was better to stay with Trump and hope for split tickets than run from him - the race was still close enough that running from him cost them more than sticking with him. The speculation I read was that if he had a good 2nd debate they'd stick with him - if not some of the tighter races might panic and run away.

What we've seen with these comments is the close-race herd on the Republican side panicked early and bolted without waiting for the 2nd debate or to see if the polls stabilized back towards Trump. The result is Trump doesn't have a chance in the general - this is going to dominate the news cycle for two weeks - first with the comments, then with all the infighting and sniping on the Republican side. We'll see if folks were smart to run from him. My suspicion is they were not. I think there's still way more of the Republican party - or those planning to vote Republican this election - who will not come out to support those that disavowed Trump than there are that will.
 
Not that easy of a task:

Republican Party rules don’t provide for removal just because it wants to.

There's no easy way for Republicans to dump Trump

To add: I am sure that the DNC would use every legal maneuver available to block any attempt to change the names on the ballot- not that I blame them, at this point Hilary should stop spending money and blow off the debates. She cannot lose -

I never said anything about them dumping him as a candidate, just turning their backs on a massive mistake.

Please, Republican leaders, keep his dumb ass on the ticket. Pretty please with sugar on top.

If they're smart, those same leaders will hereafter push remaining money to Republican down-ticket candidate's campaigns.
 
I'm honestly surprised they nominated him without, it seems, even cursory vetting of his media. He's been well known as a loudmouth who says outrageous things so I'd have thought they'd have checked on that first.
 
This election has been like a pregnancy. Nine months of seeing what we'll get and nausious all the way. - Johnny Carson
 
I'm honestly surprised they nominated him without, it seems, even cursory vetting of his media. He's been well known as a loudmouth who says outrageous things so I'd have thought they'd have checked on that first.
GOP sources have said that the party essentially did zero opposition research on the guy, which is why they seemingly have nothing prepared when these big scandals break. With a month to go in the race, there's probably still a few big things floating out there and the GOP has no idea how to react.
 
GOP sources have said that the party essentially did zero opposition research on the guy, which is why they seemingly have nothing prepared when these big scandals break. With a month to go in the race, there's probably still a few big things floating out there and the GOP has no idea how to react.

If it's as you say I'd tend to agree.

Welcome back to family dynasties, America?
 
There are organized busses to polls. There is no valid reason that same effort could not be extended to gaining valid citizenship proving identification, if identification were made necessary.

I support required proper ID, to vote, for free. Honestly, social security cards should be more useful than a piece of paper that you need another ID to corroborate.

The GOP has never liked Trump, so there is inaction on their part to do what they normally have done for every single other candidate. At this point, I wouldn't be significantly surprised if the party as a whole would rather see Hillary in the white house. At least they have an inkling of what they will be getting, vs the wild card.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top