OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[DanTown8587]

But seriously, how do you function as a human being without an ID in 2016? This topic will never be debated in an intellectually honest way. How many people don't have a valid form of ID? Do we really want those people to be able to vote? Would requiring an ID make dishonest people think twice about committing fraud? If requiring an ID doesn't work, then why do we require it for so many other things in life? Can you even entertain the idea that people in favor of voter ID laws have good intentions?

For reasons laid out by another poster, the state government that has strict voter ID laws goes throw a giant charade of "integrity of the vote" when in reality, they are trying to suppress people from voting. And again, there is not a problem being fixed. There are not people going around and taking advantage of voting rules to cast multiple votes; voter fraud is literally non-existent. If people were causing harm to the system then I could buy the idea that regulation is needed but it clearly does not need to be regulated the way it is and the harm from the regulation outweighs the perceived good it does.

[GetBuLLish]

Just like it's partisan to investigate Clinton for using unsecured means of communication but not Powell? Again why would Powell use equipment to knowingly get around state department servers especially when talking to world leaders. Nothing will convince you short of Putin admitting it.

You're not getting it, but ok.

Not that being critical of Clinton's email is limited to party politics, but who are you voting for?

No one.

[Bascitball]

But seriously, how do you function as a human being without an ID in 2016? This topic will never be debated in an intellectually honest way. How many people don't have a valid form of ID? Do we really want those people to be able to vote? Would requiring an ID make dishonest people think twice about committing fraud? If requiring an ID doesn't work, then why do we require it for so many other things in life? Can you even entertain the idea that people in favor of voter ID laws have good intentions?

For reasons laid out by another poster, the state government that has strict voter ID laws goes throw a giant charade of "integrity of the vote" when in reality, they are trying to suppress people from voting. And again, there is not a problem being fixed. There are not people going around and taking advantage of voting rules to cast multiple votes; voter fraud is literally non-existent. If people were causing harm to the system then I could buy the idea that regulation is needed but it clearly does not need to be regulated the way it is and the harm from the regulation outweighs the perceived good it does.

Do you really believe the part in bold above, or is this just exaggeration to prove your point? If you really believe this, it's a perfect example of why we can't have open, honest debates on certain topics in this country.

[GetBuLLish]

voter fraud is literally non-existent

Tell that to Obama. Well, more specifically, tell that to 2008 Obama.

“Well, I tell you what it helps in Ohio, that we got Democrats in charge of the machines,” Obama said regarding the threat of election-rigging.

He continued, “Whenever people are in power, they have this tendency to try to tilt things in their direction. That’s why we’ve got to have, I believe, a voting rights division in the Justice Department that is nonpartisan, and that is serious about investigating cases of voter fraud.”

“That’s why we need paper trails on these new electronic machines so that you actually have something that you can hang on to after you’ve punched that letter—make sure it hasn’t been hacked into,” he added, admitting that even Democrats have "monkeyed around" with election results:

"I want to be honest, it’s not as if it’s just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too."

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-speaks-rigged-elections-2008

[greenl]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/donald_trump_the_dress_rehearsal_for_fascism_20161016

"The Democratic and Republican parties may be able to disappear Trump, but they won’t disappear the phenomena that gave rise to Trump. And unless the downward spiral is reversed—unless the half of the country now living in poverty is lifted out of poverty—the cynical game the elites are playing will backfire. Out of the morass will appear a genuine “Christian” fascist endowed with political skill, intelligence, self-discipline, ruthlessness and charisma. The monster the elites will again unwittingly elevate, as a foil to keep themselves in power, will consume them. There would be some justice in this if we did not all have to pay. "

[dice]

voter fraud is literally non-existent

Tell that to Obama. Well, more specifically, tell that to 2008 Obama.

“Well, I tell you what it helps in Ohio, that we got Democrats in charge of the machines,” Obama said regarding the threat of election-rigging.

He continued, “Whenever people are in power, they have this tendency to try to tilt things in their direction. That’s why we’ve got to have, I believe, a voting rights division in the Justice Department that is nonpartisan, and that is serious about investigating cases of voter fraud.”

“That’s why we need paper trails on these new electronic machines so that you actually have something that you can hang on to after you’ve punched that letter—make sure it hasn’t been hacked into,” he added, admitting that even Democrats have "monkeyed around" with election results:

"I want to be honest, it’s not as if it’s just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too."

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-speaks-rigged-elections-2008

obama is not talking about fraud BY voters. he's talking about fraud AGAINST voters. and the voter ID nonsense is purportedly to prevent fraud BY voters

a number of republican politicians have slipped up by publicly referring to voter ID laws helping their party. it's obvious what the motivation is. there's a reason these laws are cropping up now when they didn't in the past. and it's not a surge in voter fraud. demographic changes are forcing desperation moves to postpone the inevitable

[dice]

But seriously, how do you function as a human being without an ID in 2016? This topic will never be debated in an intellectually honest way. How many people don't have a valid form of ID? Do we really want those people to be able to vote? Would requiring an ID make dishonest people think twice about committing fraud? If requiring an ID doesn't work, then why do we require it for so many other things in life? Can you even entertain the idea that people in favor of voter ID laws have good intentions?

For reasons laid out by another poster, the state government that has strict voter ID laws goes throw a giant charade of "integrity of the vote" when in reality, they are trying to suppress people from voting. And again, there is not a problem being fixed. There are not people going around and taking advantage of voting rules to cast multiple votes; voter fraud is literally non-existent. If people were causing harm to the system then I could buy the idea that regulation is needed but it clearly does not need to be regulated the way it is and the harm from the regulation outweighs the perceived good it does.

Do you really believe the part in bold above, or is this just exaggeration to prove your point? If you really believe this, it's a perfect example of why we can't have open, honest debates on certain topics in this country.

it's exaggeration, but negligible exaggeration. there have been individual cases of voter fraud, but the voter fraud PROBLEM is non-existent

[dice]

1. Owning guns is a basic right

huh? the right to own a gun is one granted by the supreme court. it's not a right that's essential to freedom or anything truly basic. freedom of speech is a basic right. freedom to socialize is a basic right. freedom to worship how you please is a basic right. freedom to possess weapons is not a basic right

Requiring ID to protect against gun fraud works against the idea that gun ownership should have active participation.

gun ownership should have active participation? why? i see no reason why it should be encouraged, but plenty of reason why it should be DIScouraged

Significantly less people would own guns if ID is required and the reason for wanting ID is essentially suppressing gun rights of people who tend to be Americans.

again, there is very good reason for gun rights of american adult citizens to be restricted. there is ZERO reason for voting rights of american adult citizens to be restricted

we do not have a problem with "bad guys" getting hold of ballots. on the other hand...

[dice]

Trying to rationalize with a Trumpy is impossible. Nice username by the way, it properly matches whom you are supporting.

I completely understand the need to for an anti-establishment candidate. I completely understand how people are fed-up with government/politics and feel like a drastic change is needed. Unfortunately, people have gotten so wrapped up in that concept that they fell in love with Trump. The idea and the concept is fine, the candidate unfortunately is not.

Are you really going ad hominem on this?

It was clear with Herman Cain, and it's been clear with Donald Trump. If you're an outsider, you cannot ever run for president for either of the two major parties, because every single establishment with a vested interest in politics is going to skewer you, and it's doubly worse if you're an outsider Republican. It really does not matter; they could've nominated the most saintly and inoffensive non-politician with enough wealth to not depend on corporate donors who can influence his or her positions, and the media and Republican and Democratic establishments would've found a way to turn him or her into the next Pol Pot or Queen Mary I.

the media BUILT donald trump. he is using frequent media appearances to avoid having to sink any of his own money into his campaign

and the more general suggestion that the media has it out for republicans is specious. the right wing dominates radio. fox "news" has the highest ratings. and right-leaning corporate entities own the networks and set their agenda (largely ratings-driven)

[Bascitball]

1. Owning guns is a basic right

huh? the right to own a gun is one granted by the supreme court. it's not a right that's essential to freedom or anything truly basic. freedom of speech is a basic right. freedom to socialize is a basic right. freedom to worship how you please is a basic right. freedom to possess weapons is not a basic right

Requiring ID to protect against gun fraud works against the idea that gun ownership should have active participation.

gun ownership should have active participation? why? i see no reason why it should be encouraged, but plenty of reason why it should be DIScouraged

Significantly less people would own guns if ID is required and the reason for wanting ID is essentially suppressing gun rights of people who tend to be Americans.

again, there is very good reason for gun rights of american adult citizens to be restricted. there is ZERO reason for voting rights of american adult citizens to be restricted

we do not have a problem with "bad guys" getting hold of ballots. on the other hand...

I was comparing the argument that we should not infringe on voting rights (from an earlier post) to the exact wording of the 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment.

The point is that many people are happy to regulate the right to keep and bear arms, but are completely unwilling to discuss reasonable steps to eliminate voter fraud.

[dice]

1. Owning guns is a basic right

huh? the right to own a gun is one granted by the supreme court. it's not a right that's essential to freedom or anything truly basic. freedom of speech is a basic right. freedom to socialize is a basic right. freedom to worship how you please is a basic right. freedom to possess weapons is not a basic right

Requiring ID to protect against gun fraud works against the idea that gun ownership should have active participation.

gun ownership should have active participation? why? i see no reason why it should be encouraged, but plenty of reason why it should be DIScouraged

Significantly less people would own guns if ID is required and the reason for wanting ID is essentially suppressing gun rights of people who tend to be Americans.

again, there is very good reason for gun rights of american adult citizens to be restricted. there is ZERO reason for voting rights of american adult citizens to be restricted

we do not have a problem with "bad guys" getting hold of ballots. on the other hand...

I was comparing the argument that we should not infringe on voting rights (from an earlier post) to the exact wording of the 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment.

you'll note that the "exact wording" of the 2nd amendment does not refer to individual gun owners. it refers only to militia. you glossed over that reality in addition to...irony of ironies...the reference to WELL. REGULATED.

The point is that many people are happy to regulate the right to keep and bear arms, but are completely unwilling to discuss reasonable steps to eliminate voter fraud.

well yeah, that's what the right itself involves - regulation! what you're really saying is "many people are happy to read the 2nd amendment in full"

many other people are happy to slice, dice, cut and paste the 2nd amendment to make it fit their argument

the steps being discussed to eliminate virtually non-existent voter fraud are not reasonable. any step proposed that has a blatantly political motivation is not reasonable

[Bascitball]

Trying to rationalize with a Trumpy is impossible. Nice username by the way, it properly matches whom you are supporting.

I completely understand the need to for an anti-establishment candidate. I completely understand how people are fed-up with government/politics and feel like a drastic change is needed. Unfortunately, people have gotten so wrapped up in that concept that they fell in love with Trump. The idea and the concept is fine, the candidate unfortunately is not.

Are you really going ad hominem on this?

It was clear with Herman Cain, and it's been clear with Donald Trump. If you're an outsider, you cannot ever run for president for either of the two major parties, because every single establishment with a vested interest in politics is going to skewer you, and it's doubly worse if you're an outsider Republican. It really does not matter; they could've nominated the most saintly and inoffensive non-politician with enough wealth to not depend on corporate donors who can influence his or her positions, and the media and Republican and Democratic establishments would've found a way to turn him or her into the next Pol Pot or Queen Mary I.

the media BUILT donald trump. he is using frequent media appearances to avoid having to sink any of his own money into his campaign

and the more general suggestion that the media has it out for republicans is specious. the right wing dominates radio. fox "news" has the highest ratings. and right-leaning corporate entities own the networks and set their agenda (largely ratings-driven)

Have you ever considered that the media knew they could destroy Trump and helped him get the Rep nomination only in an effort to get Clinton elected? They could have released a lot of their dirt on him long ago, but held most of it until it would be the most damaging to his campaign. That is not unbiased journalism. I read somewhere that people in media donate to Clinton 97% compared to 3% Trump. If that is accurate, it's clear who the media wants elected.

[dice]

Are you really going ad hominem on this?

It was clear with Herman Cain, and it's been clear with Donald Trump. If you're an outsider, you cannot ever run for president for either of the two major parties, because every single establishment with a vested interest in politics is going to skewer you, and it's doubly worse if you're an outsider Republican. It really does not matter; they could've nominated the most saintly and inoffensive non-politician with enough wealth to not depend on corporate donors who can influence his or her positions, and the media and Republican and Democratic establishments would've found a way to turn him or her into the next Pol Pot or Queen Mary I.

the media BUILT donald trump. he is using frequent media appearances to avoid having to sink any of his own money into his campaign

and the more general suggestion that the media has it out for republicans is specious. the right wing dominates radio. fox "news" has the highest ratings. and right-leaning corporate entities own the networks and set their agenda (largely ratings-driven)

Have you ever considered that the media knew they could destroy Trump and helped him get the Rep nomination only in an effort to get Clinton elected?

no. i'm a rational human being

obama is not a secret muslim either. nor foreign born. and the government did not plot and carry out the 9/11 attacks

[Bascitball]

huh? the right to own a gun is one granted by the supreme court. it's not a right that's essential to freedom or anything truly basic. freedom of speech is a basic right. freedom to socialize is a basic right. freedom to worship how you please is a basic right. freedom to possess weapons is not a basic right


gun ownership should have active participation? why? i see no reason why it should be encouraged, but plenty of reason why it should be DIScouraged


again, there is very good reason for gun rights of american adult citizens to be restricted. there is ZERO reason for voting rights of american adult citizens to be restricted

we do not have a problem with "bad guys" getting hold of ballots. on the other hand...

I was comparing the argument that we should not infringe on voting rights (from an earlier post) to the exact wording of the 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment.

you'll note that the "exact wording" of the 2nd amendment does not refer to individual gun owners. it refers only to militia. you glossed over that reality in addition to...irony of ironies...the reference to WELL. REGULATED.

The point is that many people are happy to regulate the right to keep and bear arms, but are completely unwilling to discuss reasonable steps to eliminate voter fraud.

well yeah, that's what the right itself involves - regulation! what you're really saying is "many people are happy to read the 2nd amendment in full"

many other people are happy to slice, dice, cut and paste the 2nd amendment to make it fit their argument

the steps being discussed to eliminate virtually non-existent voter fraud are not reasonable. any step proposed that has a blatantly political motivation is not reasonable

Well, this is pointless, but I can't leave this sitting here unchallenged. The 2nd amendment IS about individual rights.

"The operative phrase in the Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," Lund said. The prefatory phrase about militias is "an ablative absolute clause giving context for the main clause," and is illuminating in that function. "The Second Amendment does not say it protects the right of state militias to bear arms," he noted.

"No one thinks that when the First Amendment speaks about the right of the people to petition the government that it means only to protect the rights of lobbyists for state governments. It means individuals. What the Second Amendment is saying is you can't disarm the people under the pretext of regulating the militia."

Source: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2001_02/amendment.htm

[Bascitball]

the media BUILT donald trump. he is using frequent media appearances to avoid having to sink any of his own money into his campaign

and the more general suggestion that the media has it out for republicans is specious. the right wing dominates radio. fox "news" has the highest ratings. and right-leaning corporate entities own the networks and set their agenda (largely ratings-driven)

Have you ever considered that the media knew they could destroy Trump and helped him get the Rep nomination only in an effort to get Clinton elected?

no. i'm a rational human being

obama is not a secret muslim either. nor foreign born. and the government did not plot and carry out the 9/11 attacks

The bold part is not nice. I never said any of that. Please don't imply what I believe.

Edit: trying to be nice.

[dice]

I was comparing the argument that we should not infringe on voting rights (from an earlier post) to the exact wording of the 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment.

you'll note that the "exact wording" of the 2nd amendment does not refer to individual gun owners. it refers only to militia. you glossed over that reality in addition to...irony of ironies...the reference to WELL. REGULATED.

The point is that many people are happy to regulate the right to keep and bear arms, but are completely unwilling to discuss reasonable steps to eliminate voter fraud.

well yeah, that's what the right itself involves - regulation! what you're really saying is "many people are happy to read the 2nd amendment in full"

many other people are happy to slice, dice, cut and paste the 2nd amendment to make it fit their argument

the steps being discussed to eliminate virtually non-existent voter fraud are not reasonable. any step proposed that has a blatantly political motivation is not reasonable

Well, this is pointless, but I can't leave this sitting here unchallenged. The 2nd amendment IS about individual rights.

that's the way the supreme court has INTERPRETED it. but it's not what it SAYS

the part about well regulated militias would not be there if it wasn't essential to the right granted

"No one thinks that when the First Amendment speaks about the right of the people to petition the government that it means only to protect the rights of lobbyists for state governments. It means individuals."

because the first amendment doesn't mention lobbyists, dumbass. the 2nd amendment DOES mention militias. fourth damn word

[by the way, when i use the word 'dumbass' here, i'm referring to the individual to whom the quote is attributed, not the poster of the quote. i was banned from the current affairs board in part due to lazy moderator misinterpretation of such a comment. shame i feel the need to clarify this for people. and ironic given this discussion related to 'big brother']

"What the Second Amendment is saying is you can't disarm the people under the pretext of regulating the militia."

it doesn't say that at all! if that's what they MEANT, presumably that's the way they would have written it

"well regulated militia necessary to security" - it's either regulation or the militia itself that is essential. "the people" vs the government. not everyone for him or herself. not protection from OTHER citizens nor sport. which, if we're being honest, are the reasons why the vast majority of people own firearms

another irony: right wingers, typically strict constructionists, are here more than happy to READ INTO what is actually said in the 2nd amendment to support their argument

and before you say "well, this guy's a law expert," note that there are plenty of legal scholars on both sides of the argument

[dice]

Have you ever considered that the media knew they could destroy Trump and helped him get the Rep nomination only in an effort to get Clinton elected?

no. i'm a rational human being

obama is not a secret muslim either. nor foreign born. and the government did not plot and carry out the 9/11 attacks

The bold part is not nice. I never said any of that. Please don't imply what I believe.

Edit: trying to be nice.

i didn't imply that at all. i'm implying that your theory has about as much rational merit as any of the other conspiracy theories i mentioned (and, frankly, nearly all prominent conspiracy theories). all are absurd suggestions

[TimRobbins]

I think Trump is funny like an idiot/jackass that is funny to laugh at, not with. No one sane wants that idiot/jackass to be the leader of our nation though.

Disagree. I would enjoy the comedy. Hillary would just be sad.

then you my friend, probably shouldn't vote. Sad is worse than likely likely total fiasco? Funny is more important that competence?

You really need to think this through more.

The world will go on. Don't worry. At least we'll get a few laughs and a few less wars.

[dice]

Disagree. I would enjoy the comedy. Hillary would just be sad.

then you my friend, probably shouldn't vote. Sad is worse than likely likely total fiasco? Funny is more important that competence?

You really need to think this through more.

The world will go on. Don't worry. At least we'll get a few laughs and a few less wars.

if you're concerned about unnecessary beefs with foreigners that lead to military incursions, i'm not sure donald trump is your guy. i mean, how else is he gonna get mexico to pay for that wall?

[DanTown8587]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/09/7-papers-4-government-inquiries-2-news-investigations-and-1-court-ruling-proving-voter-fraud-is-mostly-a-myth/

Yes, incidents of people trying to vote when they should not is INCREDIBLY rare. There does not exist any data that supports the idea that fraudulent voting happens with any sort of even freak regularity.