Joe Biden 2021

[Longhorn_Fan68 33870]

17 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

would you two just fuck already holy shit

or fight to the death. either way stfu

[Anastasis 23469]

33 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

or fight to the death. either way stfu

Yesterday you posted a tweet by one of the originators of the alfa server conspiracy.  Just FYI, since I am sure that wildcat is interested in why the topic is still relevant. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Anastasis

[Longhorn_Fan68 33870]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yesterday you posted a tweet by one of the originators of the alfa server conspiracy.  Just FYI, since I am sure that wildcat is interested in why the topic is still relevant. 

well fuck me, then. I guess everything I have ever posted is now irrelevant. damn it all!

[Anastasis 23469]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

well fuck me, then. I guess everything I have ever posted is now irrelevant. damn it all!

Nobody said that everything you posted is irrelevant. 

Wildcat wonders why some institutional memory around this place is relevant.

Tea Pain tweets should be received by this board like Louise Mensch tweets. Or triplehorn posts. They all share about the same level of credibility. 

[Dbeasy 15051]

Voting rights law failed today. Why is there so much resistance to the requirement for an ID? I recognize that the republicans are playing games with the type of ID, but shouldn’t there be universal agreement that you have to show an id? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Voting rights law failed today. Why is there so much resistance to the requirement for an ID? I recognize that the republicans are playing games with the type of ID, but shouldn’t there be universal agreement that you have to show an id? 

For one, there is no evidence of a problem significant enough to justify a federal voter ID law.
 

Two, unless the government is going to buy every eligible voter a photo ID, it’s basically a hidden poll tax for voters that don’t have a photo ID. 

[Captainant 27667]

10 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Voting rights law failed today. Why is there so much resistance to the requirement for an ID? I recognize that the republicans are playing games with the type of ID, but shouldn’t there be universal agreement that you have to show an id? 

It's a solution in search of a problem... There is not a widespread occurrence of voter fraud. Period. Voter ID laws are a weapon for the GOP-held house and/or senate to ignore states vote counts and appoint their own electors/pick the outcome if they don't like the voice of the voters.

[Brisketexan 105139]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

For one, there is no evidence of a problem significant enough to justify a federal voter ID law.
 

Two, unless the government is going to buy every eligible voter a photo ID, it’s basically a hidden poll tax for voters that don’t have a photo ID. 

These.

It's a solution in search of a functionally non-existent problem.

But if photo IDs were made completely accessible -- both in terms of cost and actual access (we can't require people to go wait for 8 hours at the DMV to get something to enable them to vote, we can't make people who live in towns/areas without a DMV office to travel when they don't have the means, we can't require the homebound to travel, etc.), then maybe.  In short, if it's a necessary security mechanism, then make it absolutely easy to obtain -- like zero effort.  Otherwise, it functions as EXACTLY what the GOP WANTS it to function as -- just one more hassle to discourage voting.

And yes, millions of people in this country live their lives without a photo ID -- they never fly on a plane, drive, etc.  Maybe nobody you know, but that's the point -- it's people on the margins, who happen to be EXACTLY who the GOP wants to disenfranchise.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Brisketexan

[tantric superman 4667]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

For one, there is no evidence of a problem significant enough to justify a federal voter ID law.
 

Two, unless the government is going to buy every eligible voter a photo ID, it’s basically a hidden poll tax for voters that don’t have a photo ID. 

If they don't give enough of a damn about voting to get an ID, fuck 'em. 

[tantric superman 4667]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's a solution in search of a problem...

So are many things.  The only real issue is accessibility of the required proof.

I need to show an ID to pick up a race packet for a fun run. 

Agree that an ID is required as long as you make IDs easily accessible.  Move on to the next fucking issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Poe It Up 126]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

Voting rights law failed today. Why is there so much resistance to the requirement for an ID? I recognize that the republicans are playing games with the type of ID, but shouldn’t there be universal agreement that you have to show an id? 

This is bizarre to me as well. Who are all these people without ID’s and how do they manage to survive? 

[jimmyjazz 45952]

46 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

If they don't give enough of a damn about voting to get an ID, fuck 'em. 

It's not easy for a significant percentage of eligible voters.  The GOP has shut down a lot of registration facilities, making it difficult to travel (w/o owning a vehicle and w/o taking time off from a job that doesn't look kindly on such a thing) to go register.

History proves that a wide variety of ID works -- drivers license, utility bills, school ID, whatever.  Narrowing it down is burdensome on a particular class of voter.  I'll let you figure out what that class is.

[David Dennison 18860]

If you are going to require ID, automatically register people to vote when they get the ID.

Republicans should have no problem with that.

[RomaVicta 29907]

Well, you do have to register. You are issued a voter card. If you forget it, they look you up on the rolls. 

It's been more than sufficient for quite awhile. 

Further, in a democracy, you shouldn't have to jump through a hoop or over even a low bar to add the tiny voice of a vote.

Lastly, is there some great profit to be made in the crime of voting illegally? What exactly is someone's motivation to do so? Now we've heard lies from the same people that want to require driver licenses that bus loads of illegal voters are often seen crossing statelines or that wicked illegal aliens are going to the DMV so they can find a way to cast an illegal vote.

All unsubstantiated. 

If someone can prove to me that the impetus for this is founded in any place other than the same shit sewer we find people wanting to suppress the colored vote, maybe I'll consider this "common sense" measure. 

If we have a voting problem it's that a number of our voters are stupid, paranoid, or malilgn.

[hobbes2702 13033]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

If they don't give enough of a damn about voting to get an ID, fuck 'em. 

Moronic 

[tantric superman 4667]

41 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If you are going to require ID, automatically register people to vote when they get the ID.

Republicans should have no problem with that.

That's how you negotiate and do politics.

[tantric superman 4667]

17 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Moronic 

Spend all your time tilting at windmills if it makes you feel better.  The vast majority of voters are never going to understand why ID requirements are that much of a hassle relative to the right to actually go into the booth and vote. 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

 

40 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

If we have a voting problem it's that a number of our voters are stupid, paranoid, or malilgn.

...and forget their voter registration cards and don't carry a photo ID.

Plus, they can't get their ass motivated to vote.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

We have 100,000,000+ eligible voters that do not vote already, so go ahead and give everyone of them a free ID and automatically register them to vote, I love this plan. 

Edited June 23, 2021 by Hugo Stiglitz

[tantric superman 4667]

49 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

History proves that a wide variety of ID works -- drivers license, utility bills, school ID, whatever.  Narrowing it down is burdensome on a particular class of voter.  I'll let you figure out what that class is.

Ultimately, my thoughts are that if you agree to some kind of ID, you pretty much can win the argument that you should eliminate ALL other forms of suppression and expand the ease of voting.  To me it's a simple way of saying, okay, I'll satisfy your bullshit argument, now you have to give me everything I want -- weekend voting, national holiday on election day, no fault mail in voting, dropoffs, etc. 

[jimmyjazz 45952]

5 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Ultimately, my thoughts are that if you agree to some kind of ID, you pretty much can win the argument that you should eliminate ALL other forms of suppression and expand the ease of voting.  To me it's a simple way of saying, okay, I'll satisfy your bullshit argument, now you have to give me everything I want -- weekend voting, national holiday on election day, no fault mail in voting, dropoffs, etc. 

Bless your heart.  This is a fucking war, the lines will just move.

[Captainant 27667]

20 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Ultimately, my thoughts are that if you agree to some kind of ID, you pretty much can win the argument that you should eliminate ALL other forms of suppression and expand the ease of voting.  To me it's a simple way of saying, okay, I'll satisfy your bullshit argument, now you have to give me everything I want -- weekend voting, national holiday on election day, no fault mail in voting, dropoffs, etc. 

Lulz fascists are rarely appeased. 

[safe sex 11727]

The Democrats gave Republicans concession after concession while drafting the ACA and got how many votes for it? Anyone??

[hobbes2702 13033]

If ID isn’t free then it’s a poll tax. 

[atomheartbevo 89666]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

And yes, millions of people in this country live their lives without a photo ID -- they never fly on a plane, drive, etc.  Maybe nobody you know, but that's the point -- it's people on the margins, who happen to be EXACTLY who the GOP wants to disenfranchise.

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's not easy for a significant percentage of eligible voters.  The GOP has shut down a lot of registration facilities, making it difficult to travel (w/o owning a vehicle and w/o taking time off from a job that doesn't look kindly on such a thing) to go register.

History proves that a wide variety of ID works -- drivers license, utility bills, school ID, whatever.  Narrowing it down is burdensome on a particular class of voter.  I'll let you figure out what that class is.

My cousin-in-law lives in a large city, never bothered to get a driver's license (family didn't have a car), just graduated high school.

The military had absolutely no problem working around the lack of a current photo ID, even though they will be sinking a shit-ton of money into training, clothing, housing, etc. him.

[Gengs1 2583]

Photo

How the voting for anything  is going for Biden 

C90A87B3-C300-4893-836E-59BC7FB63FD3.webp

Edited June 23, 2021 by Gengs1

[Satchel 6938]

50 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

The Democrats gave Republicans concession after concession while drafting the ACA and got how many votes for it? Anyone??

Sure did. The Dems accepted 121 amendments offered by the Russicans and still got kicked in the nuts.

[Brisketexan 105139]

This is bizarre to me as well. Who are all these people without ID’s and how do they manage to survive? 

There are millions of them. They are almost all poor, to very poor. You dont know them, because you live in an entirely different world (you should be grateful for that).

And they don’t survive very well. But they manage. And they have the same right to vote that every other citizen has. We shouldn’t take it away from them.

[Anastasis 23469]

31 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Sure did. The Dems accepted 121 amendments offered by the Russicans and still got kicked in the nuts.

...by Lieberman. 

[Anastasis 23469]

We should just let anyone who shows up on election day vote.  I am absolutely serious. Let true democracy shine. 

[Bookman 4639]

2 hours ago, Poe It Up said:

This is bizarre to me as well. Who are all these people without ID’s and how do they manage to survive? 

This was discussed at length half a decade ago when the Voter ID laws were getting litigated. You should read some of the district court and appellate opinions.

[fattyflattie 4639]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

We should just let anyone who shows up on election day vote.  I am absolutely serious. Let true democracy shine. 

Then how will the prisoners vote?

[Js1 85336]

I don’t like photo ID where it must be a DL. But identification such as a DL OR a passport, utility bill, student ID, library card, etc - yes. As long as an alternative is accepted and/or photo ID is also free and easily accessible, ok. 

[TwiceHorn 31470]

12 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I 100% believe he doesn't drink. He's just that weird.

Well, he comes from an alcoholic family and had a brother that died of alcoholism.  So yeah, I bet he doesn't drink.

But he's stupid and arrogant enough to believe that he can do other drugs, adderall or whatever, under prescription from some quack, and think he's not an addict junkie as bad as his own parents.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

10 minutes ago, Bookman said:

This was discussed at length half a decade ago when the Voter ID laws were getting litigated. You should read some of the district court and appellate opinions.

The fact that obtaining a government ID has a small but material effect on the ability of people to vote is a giant indictment of the country.  Probably bigger than enacting voter ID laws to suppress the vote.

[Cacti 191]

On 6/21/2021 at 5:33 AM, Shady Ray said:

If conflict with China truly is in the cards, and the Europeans are expected to participate, being able to effectively convince Western Europeans to change their views will be one of Biden and his administration's biggest tasks.

It’s no surprise that European countries would rather be neutral if there was a conflict between the U.S. and China—it would be probably be far from their shores—but it’s troubling when most of NATO would rather be neutral if Russia was involved. And that’s because if there is serious conflict between the U.S. and Russia, it’s likely as not to be in Europe’s backyard.

A Pew Research Center poll, dated 2-9-2020, sheds some additional light on the fragile [my words] nature of the relationship between us and European members of NATO (despite the title).

One Pew question was: % who say if Russia got into a serious military conflict with one of its neighboring countries that is our NATO ally, (survey country) should/should not use military force to defend that country?

Germany (60%), Spain (56%), and France (53%) said ‘should not’. A majority of the other members also replied should not.

Quote

Many in member countries express reservations about fulfilling Article 5’s collective defense obligations.

The gist of your referenced article is that the Europeans feel they can’t rely on the U.S.  But if the most powerful and influential European NATO members are hesitant about defending fellow members on their own mainland, then are they themselves reliable?

[mchookem 16336]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

The military had absolutely no problem working around the lack of a current photo ID, even though they will be sinking a shit-ton of money into training, clothing, housing, etc. him.

don't males still have to register for the draft at 18 yoa? just add females and make that voter registration at the same time.

[Sawbonz 27561]

2 hours ago, trauma babe said:

The Democrats gave Republicans concession after concession while drafting the ACA and got how many votes for it? Anyone??

Um the democrats gave democrats concession after concession and still had to use reconciliation to pass it

[Shady Ray 1633]

44 minutes ago, Cacti said:

It’s no surprise that European countries would rather be neutral if there was a conflict between the U.S. and China—it would be probably be far from their shores—but it’s troubling when most of NATO would rather be neutral if Russia was involved. And that’s because if there is serious conflict between the U.S. and Russia, it’s likely as not to be in Europe’s backyard.

A Pew Research Center poll, dated 2-9-2020, sheds some additional light on the fragile [my words] nature of the relationship between us and European members of NATO (despite the title).

One Pew question was: % who say if Russia got into a serious military conflict with one of its neighboring countries that is our NATO ally, (survey country) should/should not use military force to defend that country?

Germany (60%), Spain (56%), and France (53%) said ‘should not’. A majority of the other members also replied should not.

The gist of your referenced article is that the Europeans feel they can’t rely on the U.S.  But if the most powerful and influential European NATO members are hesitant about defending fellow members on their own mainland, then are they themselves reliable?

In my opinion, the answer to that is "hell no, they aren't reliable." Absent a clear act of unilateral aggression such as Russia rolling into the Baltics (as opposed to a buildup of tensions over some localized issue like a border dispute between Russia and a member-state that went hot, for example), you'd have a really hard time galvanizing the Germans and French populations to supporting military action against Russia. The governments would honor Article 5, but it would be grudgingly accepted as fulfilling a duty to NATO, and not out of any genuine empathy/camaraderie with another Nato member.

 

The French, of course, have always been the most "NATO skeptical" of the bunch, and, well, the Germans IMO are simply still traumatized by even the idea of war in the East.

 

Not that this is by any means conclusive, put purely anecdotally...on certain days of the year, Germans are expected to tend to the graves of deceased family members...so every Christmas Eve and Easter (yeah, they're a bunch of morbid fuckers) and a couple of other days here and there, we, along with my in-laws, head to the cemeteries of my wife's maternal and paternal sides here in Munich and tidy up family graves, including three which are inscribed with "Missing in Stalingrad" (and pass a dozen more of the same while walking through). I often wonder how much of those constant reminders impact the German view of potential confrontation in that part of the world, so I would guess that a lot of those survey results from Germany are not solely based on the new-found German pacifism, but also pant-shitting anxiety due to history.

[Neonmoon 38129]

Why would the party that says a permit to carry a gun infringes upon their rights to bear arms want to require an ID to exercise ones right to vote?

[tantric superman 4667]

10 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Bless your heart.  This is a fucking war, the lines will just move.

The bill itself is bloated doesn't have focus (tax returns - who gives a fuck).  If you are going to win, you need to fight smart, and you need to realize when you are leaving yourself open.  The battle should be fought in the states.  Bills like this are a waste of time. 

People generally want more ease of voting. Focus on those issues, continue to paint the Republicans as anti-democratic bastards, and win the states.

 

[tantric superman 4667]

10 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

If ID isn’t free then it’s a poll tax. 

Everything is a poll tax unless you just think the vote and it magically registers. Online voting requires a computer, in person voting requires time and commute fees, etc.. 

Until we go completely biometric (retina scan, chip, fngerprint) photo ID is the most practical way to verify identity.  The logic of the ID is just so strong that the issue should be making them free.  It simply a more appealing argument to a broader swath of people than being against voter ID, and in this environment you need appealing arguments to keep and gain voters.  That's why lazy shit like "Defund the Police" is such a cancer.  Just a needless, emotionally driven whiff.

 

[tantric superman 4667]

10 hours ago, Captainant said:

Lulz fascists are rarely appeased. 

I'm not trying to appease fascists.  I'm trying to make sure the moderates who turned my districts blue over the last three years keep it blue.

[tantric superman 4667]

double

Edited June 23, 2021 by tantric superman

[bad_teammate 13195]

Does anyone here believe that if H1/S1 had voter ID mandated in it that Republicans would suddenly be for it? Or that Democrats would alter the filibuster to pass it?

Because if not... what are you guys even talking about?

[David Dennison 18860]

9 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Um the democrats gave democrats concession after concession and still had to use reconciliation to pass it

The Affordable Care Act passed in December 2009 without using reconciliation. 

 

[Js1 85336]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

The Affordable Care Act passed in December 2009 without using reconciliation. 

 

Correct.  The Dems had 60 votes. 

The amendment to the bill passed in 2010 using reconciliation.

The Jan. 9 news article “ Obama vetoes bill aimed at repealing health law ” repeated a commonly held misconception about the process used to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2010: “To pass the Obamacare repeal bill, Republican lawmakers used the complex budget procedure known as reconciliation to avoid a filibuster in this case — the same procedure Democrats used to pass the bill in 2009 when they controlled both the House and Senate.” The Senate did not use the reconciliaton process to pass the ACA. The act, comprising 906 pages, is the basic comprehensive substance of Obamacare. It was passed on a bill that was filibustered, and a supermajority vote of 60 was required to end that filibuster (by invoking cloture under Senate Rule 22). It was signed by the president on March 23, 2010, and became Public Law 111-148. 

A second bill, which was a reconciliation bill, was passed after that date to make a series of discrete budgetary changes in the ACA. That act, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, was signed by the president on March 30, 2010, and became Public Law 111-152. It comprises 54 pages, 42 of which dealt with health care. Like the reconciliation bill in 2010, the reconciliation bill that the president vetoed this month made discrete budgetary changes in existing law. That vetoed bill did not “repeal” Obamacare. It amended several of the law’s budgetary components while leaving the basic structure of the law in place. 

[landman 559]

11 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

There are millions of them. They are almost all poor, to very poor. You dont know them, because you live in an entirely different world (you should be grateful for that).

And they don’t survive very well. But they manage. And they have the same right to vote that every other citizen has. We shouldn’t take it away from them.

No doubt they have the right to vote.  But they need to prove who they are somehow, be it a voter ID, regular ID, something.  With the amount of money the government spends elsewhere ($1million a foot or whatever for the wall), a free ID to whomever needs one doesn't seem like a bad thing.  

[GRHorn 105]

 

[Brisketexan 105139]

7 minutes ago, landman said:

No doubt they have the right to vote.  But they need to prove who they are somehow, be it a voter ID, regular ID, something.  With the amount of money the government spends elsewhere ($1million a foot or whatever for the wall), a free ID to whomever needs one doesn't seem like a bad thing.  

People prove who they are when they register to vote.  Proof of residence, utility bills, all of that.  It's not anything new.

Again, the "you gotta have photo ID!  You just gotta!" argument is a solution to a functionally non-existent problem.  There IS NOT a material problem with people showing up to vote at polling places under someone else's registration, nor is there a material problem with people registering under a fake name.

But fine, if you still want to create an enormous apparatus and cost-center to solve a non-problem, then it has to be something that provides ID to everyone.  Even the homebound (and yes, they exist, and 100% have the right to vote.  I know some of these people -- I've delivered meals to them via Meals on Wheels.  They are real people.)  Find a way to guarantee that it is just as easy for them to get a photo ID as it is for them to register to vote, and go for it.

Just know that it's an enormous waste of time and money that doesn't solve any real problem.  It's like spending a coupla billion on measures to prevent hippo attacks in the US.  If it makes you feel better, go for it.  But know that the amount of hippo attacks before and after is gonna be about the same.