If Drumph wins, I’ll blame the democrats.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Members don't see this ad.
pgg said:
Between the 18th and 21st Amendments, it wasn't, but it is now. 😉

The right to travel is another Constitutionally protected right (not so much explicitly, but inferred in several places in the Constitution with regard to rights of citizens related to interstate travel and their P&I upon arrival in a new state), but ID is required to board a plane, board a train, or operate a motor vehicle. It's hard to argue that interstate travel is really feasible in the modern era without planes trains or automobiles, unless you expect people to hitchhike. You can't even board a Greyhound bus without ID.

I'm posting, so you know I'll bring up the 2nd Amendment 🙂 ... Firearm ownership is also a Constitutionally protected right, yet purchasing one requires ID.



Setting aside the details of the appropriate level of scrutiny that permit regulating a Constitutional right ... I'll agree with you that firearm possession carries some potential for malfeasance and that requiring ID and a background check a purchase are reasonable, minimally encumbering burdens upon the exercise of that right.

Similarly, showing ID to prove one is of legal age to consume alcohol and thereby exercise one's sacred post-21st-Amendment right to get smashed, is also a reasonable, minimally encumbering burden upon the exercise of that right.

Showing ID to travel ... well ... I think it's a bit of a stretch, even in the post-9/11 era, to require people to show their papers in order to freely move about. But it seems that showing ID under those circumstances is also a reasonable, minimally encumbering burden.

With regard to voting, it certainly isn't an absolute right. A felony conviction is sufficient to lose the right to vote. You argue that voter fraud is vanishingly rare, and of course it is, but one reason that it is rare is because of various election integrity safeguards ... of which ID has been one.


If you think getting ID in order to vote is an absurd burden, perhaps the best use of energy and advocacy would be to make getting ID easier.


I have never really understood why Democrats have chosen THIS particular hill to die on. Virtually every democracy in the world requires ID to vote. Mexico, Canada, every nation in the EU (since the UK left), Japan, South Korea, etc. While it's nowhere near the polarizing electoral issue that abortion or guns are, it's certainly one that ordinary people think is a weird thing to get upset about. Resistance to something as simple as voter ID lends a veneer of credibility to whacko claims of election fraud.

There are plenty of worthy voter suppression battles to fight, but opposing a requirement for ID is just farcical on the face of it, especially in view of how the vast majority of other liberal democracies somehow require ID and yet function in transparent and admirable form.


Elections don't sneak up on you, the way a hankerin' for a beer might. Everyone's got plenty of time to get their ID sorted out well in advance. I still don't see a reason to oppose voter ID requirements, even if you think it's a solution looking for a problem.
Click to expand...
You should know, I’m writing you in 2024.
 
pgg said:
You know, I almost asked in that post if voter ID was a strategic line for you, the same way my resistance to universal background checks has been. 🙂

Because that was the only way I could make sense of the resistance. I respect the tactic, and fully agree that attempts at voter suppression is a real and pervasive thing from the GOP.


And. In the face of Trump getting the nomination again, I suppose I might vote for a Democrat instead of a third party. NYSRPA v Bruen has afforded a little breathing room. How times change.
Click to expand...

It is a tactic, but not in its entirety. I legitimately believe that the vast majority of voter ID laws are pointless. A couple more points:

One, I would argue that voting is categorically different than those things you mentioned like gun ownshership, driving, flying (terrorism), and drinking. The latter are dangerous in that they potentially can directly cause bodily harm, not just to the individual but also to others. In my opinion that satisfies the onus to have an ID requirement. No one ends up in a trauma bay from voting (at least not yet)

Two, you assert that the ID requirement is one of the things that's kept voting so secure. I think that's one of those assertions that sounds intuitively true but isn't necessarily true. And the reason I say that is voter turnout. Since 1980, minus a couple outliers, the voting-eligible-population turnout in presidential elections has been glued at 58%. We can't even get 3 out of 5 eligible adults to get their ass to a poll. But yet we're acting like we have to make it more restrictive?? For what? So we can have the lowest instead of just one of the lowest turnout percentages for a democratic nation? I doubt paying people to vote would increase turnout, and yet we're trying to increase the cost rather than incentivize people to do their civic duty.
 
vector2 said:
Granted though, I can see why a large percentage of the country is confused about that given how loudly and for how long trump has shouted his big lie about widespread voter fraud.
Click to expand...
It's a really good argument because no democrat has ever complained or voiced a concern about voter fraud - ever - in the history of voting.
 
vector2 said:
It is a tactic, but not in its entirety.
Click to expand...

I threw in a tactic-related edit to my post a moment ago that you didn't quote so I'll copy it here in case you didn't see it -

pgg said:
(Edit - Also, I would add that my resistance to universal background checks is a tactic in the sense that it's something I'd offer up in a true compromise bill, in which my side is getting something in return. I've mentioned trading it for repealing waiting periods for 2nd+ firearms, or removing suppressors from the NFA, or repealing the Hughes Amendment, or national CCW reciprocity, or any number of other concessions from the gun control side. It also serves double duty as a rhetorical device and thought experiment, to illustrate that the gun control side never acts in good faith, and that their refusal to ever offer anything at all in return betrays the lie of the compromise they demand but won't participate in.)
Click to expand...

So, also a tactic - but not in its entirety. 🙂


vector2 said:
I legitimately believe that the vast majority of voter ID laws are pointless. A couple more points:

One, I would argue that voting is categorically different than those things you mentioned like gun ownshership, driving, flying (terrorism), and drinking. The latter are dangerous in that they potentially can directly cause bodily harm, not just to the individual but also to others. In my opinion that satisfies the onus to have an ID requirement. No one ends up in a trauma bay from voting (at least not yet)

Two, you assert that the ID requirement is one of the things that's kept voting so secure. I think that's one of those assertions that sounds intuitively true but isn't necessarily true. And the reason I say that is voter turnout. Since 1980, minus a couple outliers, the voting-eligible-population turnout in presidential elections has been glued at 58%. We can't even get 3 out of 5 eligible adults to get their ass to a poll. But yet we're acting like we have to make it more restrictive?? For what? So we can have the lowest instead of just one of the lowest turnout percentages for a democratic nation? I doubt paying people to vote would increase turnout, and yet we're trying to increase the cost rather than incentivize people to do their civic duty.
Click to expand...

Virtually every other democracy on earth has an ID requirement AND better turnout than us. But I do see your points.

Still. it's an odd choice of hills to die on, even tactically 🙂, and I do think that the contrived arguments against voter ID ("too burdensome") are working against you when undecided moderates hear them.

Then again, actual undecided moderates seem to be getting rarer and rarer, so maybe it isn't the liability I think it is.
 
pgg said:
Resistance to something as simple as voter ID lends a veneer of credibility to whacko claims of election fraud.
Click to expand...
This is such an important concept and statement.

When you put up such resistance to something so simple as an ID to vote, one can imagine the thoughts ... "what in the world are they worried about? What are they hiding? They can't possibly think this is a real issue. There must be something else at play here! They can't be trusted."

Like I said - ID's are a simple solution. If both people come to the table with good faith, wanting to understand the other side. I imagine reasonable, smart, caring, non-prideful people would have a conversation like this.

Right "We are really worried that you are trying to commit voter fraud to get votes. Because we believe we are right on all the issues, we find it hard to believe you could garner up enough votes to support your leftish causes."

Left "But most of the documented examples of cheating have been on the right."

Right "Yes we agree. But even more reason to shore up the voting. Also, just because we can't prove you didn't cheat, doesn't mean you didn't cheat. AND it doesn't mean you won't cheat in the future."

Left "Okay, I hear your concerns. You are concerned that cheating happens and we are clever enough not to get caught. I am here to tell you we didn't cheat - but I get that you believe we are capable of it. What do you propose?"

Right "Well, we think if we had an ID (like most other countries) that proved citizenship, that would calm us down."

Left "Okay. We are concerned that the only reason you are asking for this, is so you can make it hard for people to get an ID. We think our ideas are right, and we find it hard to believe anyone would vote for you guys, so we kinda think you need to cheat to win. So we think that you asking for an ID is a sneaky way to get people who would normally vote for us to not be able to vote."

Right "I hear you and I get what you are saying. I can see how making people get ID's would perhaps diminish the ability for some to vote. How about this? How about you come up with a solution of how you can get an ID in everyone's hand cheaply so that those who are poor don't have to pay a dime (well...maybe a dime)."

Left "Okay. I like that plan. We will figure out a way that we can make it easy for all US citizens to get an ID proving citizenship that will allow them to vote. If we come up with a plan, will you support it? Again, our concern is NOT the ID, but that we want anyone who wants to vote to be able to vote."

Right "That works for us. Again, OUR concern is that only US Citizens vote, and only vote once. Thanks for working with us."

Left "Thank you for being so kind."
 
Last edited:
epidural man said:
I disagree. That is what a lot of MAGA folks can’t understand. They think people voted FOR Biden. Some did I’m sure, but most would have voted for ANYTHING other than Drumph.

I have a friend who thinks there was something funny going on with the election because he just can’t wrap his head around the shear numbers that actually voted for Biden (it was a huge number). But if one considers the idea that many were not voting FOR Biden, it makes a lot more sense.

One thing I can’t get my head around, is why MAGA supporters can’t see how divisive Drumph is (or they don’t care which is probably worse). I agree that he had some great policies. But you can’t tell me that in this big old country, there isn’t a SINGLE person who thinks similarly (policy wise) that isn’t such a dickhead, cruel and mean, dishonest, and such a horrible businessmen? There isn’t a single person?

It blows my mind.
Click to expand...
Rob DeSantis enters the chat
 
epidural man said:
Or are you mischaracterizing the argument on purpose?
Click to expand...
The answer to that is a firm yes. When somebody calls everyone in the world that disagrees with him an idiot with 3 brain cells you aren't going to have a discussion with rationale and logic. It just won't happen.
 
pgg said:
I threw in a tactic-related edit to my post a moment ago that you didn't quote so I'll copy it here in case you didn't see it -



So, also a tactic - but not in its entirety. 🙂




Virtually every other democracy on earth has an ID requirement AND better turnout than us. But I do see your points.

Still. it's an odd choice of hills to die on, even tactically 🙂, and I do think that the contrived arguments against voter ID ("too burdensome") are working against you when undecided moderates hear them.

Then again, actual undecided moderates seem to be getting rarer and rarer, so maybe it isn't the liability I think it is.
Click to expand...

We talk a lot in other threads about how heterogenous the US is compared to all those other democracies across the pond ,which are much more monolithic ethnically, culturally, and economically. I'm sure there's some explanation in there given those differences why a turnout comparison isn't apples to apples between us and them.

Here, for whatever reason, voter ID has become the face of a voter suppression battle that includes those multitude of other things mentioned previously. Although I wish the battle was based around something like automatic registration and universal mail-in ballots....because at least fighting to get those things implemented would do more to increase turnout than anything else.

But I really don't think fighting about ID is "odd" when you look at the facts surrounding voter ID. The average folks on both sides who think it's a strange hill or who are apathetic toward it are exactly the people who it doesn't affect. 11% of
Americans or 21 million citizens don't have ID. Lack of ID disproportionately affects those who are low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Even in states where ID is free, the cost associated with obtaining all the necessary documents and obtaining transportation can be onerous. And of course some of the literature on the topic says at best voter ID has a neutral effect on turnout, and at worst suppresses turnout by 2-3%.
 
NumTacos said:
What’s your issue with a voter using a valid student ID then? I would, daresay, point out that the task of getting a student ID is indeed a product of “government funds”. I am sure there are many wonderful Idahoans, but trust me, many of those beautiful people are not really interested in truly fair and representative elections.
Click to expand...
Too easy to falsify. No uniform standard.

If one has a student ID and can't get thru the simple steps of the voter ID process.... they probably shouldn't have a student ID.
 
epidural man said:
This is such an important concept and statement.

When you put up such resistance to something so simple as an ID to vote, one can imagine the thoughts ... "what in the world are they worried about? What are they hiding? They can't possibly think this is a real issue. There must be something else at play here! They can't be trusted."

Like I said - ID's are a simple solution. If both people come to the table with good faith, wanting to understand the other side. I imagine reasonable, smart, caring, non-prideful people would have a conversation like this.

Right "We are really worried that you are trying to commit voter fraud to get votes. Because we believe we are right on all the issues, we find it hard to believe you could garner up enough votes to support your leftish causes."

Left "But most of the documented examples of cheating have been on the right."

Right "Yes we agree. But even more reason to shore up the voting. Also, just because we can't prove you didn't cheat, doesn't mean you didn't cheat. AND it doesn't mean you won't cheat in the future."

Left "Okay, I hear your concerns. You are concerned that cheating happens and we are clever enough not to get caught. I am here to tell you we didn't cheat - but I get that you believe we are capable of it. What do you propose?"

Right "Well, we think if we had an ID (like most other countries) that proved citizenship, that would calm us down."

Left "Okay. We are concerned that the only reason you are asking for this, is so you can make it hard for people to get an ID. We think our ideas are right, and we find it hard to believe anyone would vote for you guys, so we kinda think you need to cheat to win. So we think that you asking for an ID is a sneaky way to get people who would normally vote for us to not be able to vote."

Right "I hear you and I get what you are saying. I can see how making people get ID's would perhaps diminish the ability for some to vote. How about this? How about you come up with a solution of how you can get an ID in everyone's hand cheaply so that those who are poor don't have to pay a dime (well...maybe a dime)."

Left "Okay. I like that plan. We will figure out a way that we can make it easy for all US citizens to get an ID proving citizenship that will allow them to vote. If we come up with a plan, will you support it? Again, our concern is NOT the ID, but that we want anyone who wants to vote to be able to vote."

Right "That works for us. Again, OUR concern is that only US Citizens vote, and only vote once. Thanks for working with us."

Left "Thank you for being so kind."
Click to expand...
Maybe one day, all political negotiations would happen that way.
 
dipriMAN said:
Republicans admit that very few students vote with student IDs, and fraud is ridiculously rare, but yet they want stricter ID requirements and will even waste government funds to make voter ID cards. Totally hypocritical seeing as the republican motto is less government spending and useless programs ….. the only reason republicans pass these laws is to make it harder for younger and poorer populations to vote, because they all vote democrat, cannot deny it, and eventually the younger generation will make every election all democrat.
Click to expand...
Orrrrr..... you can just go get an ID.
If the Republican motto is less government, what is the Democrat motto, "We're helpless" ?
 
pgg said:
Every business venture he has engaged in except for The Apprentice has either failed or generally lost money.
Click to expand...
Clearly you are forgetting about the successes of Trump Steaks, Trump Wine, Trump Airlines, and Trump University!
 
NumTacos said:
Man, you have lost the plot. Being on “good terms” with dictators is a good thing? Sure, I want my President to have a constructive, working relationship with world leaders if at all possible, but good lord, listen to yourself.
Click to expand...
I'm not all that opposed to getting along with insane people that have nukes and aren't under our control.
 
Comedy break





200w.gif
 
epidural man said:
Why?

I...just...can't....

Oh my gosh.....

We are doomed.

I'm done with this.

I will leave with a few quotes -

"Those who pray for your downfall are concentrating negative thoughts towards you, without taking cognizance of the slippery ground in which they are standing, which could lead to their downfall."

– Michael Bassey Johnson


"The straight line leads to the downfall of humanity."

– Friedensreich Hundertwasser

"One sticks to an opinion because he prides himself on having come to it on his own, and another because he has taken great pains to learn it and is proud to have grasped it: and so both do so out of vanity.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

“Time and time again does the pride of man influence his very own fall. While denying it, one gradually starts to believe that he is the authority, or that he possesses great moral dominion over others, yet it is spiritually unwarranted. By that point he loses steam; in result, he falsely begins trying to prove that unwarranted dominion by seizing the role of a condemner.”

― Criss Jami, Salomé: In Every Inch In Every Mile
Click to expand...

Word. Pluralism, what's a brother to do? Recognizing that diverse and commensurate values exist simultaneously in a highly divided country is tough. Tradeoffs are inevitable. I don't agree with the tradeoffs as proposed in these voter ID bills, you aren't even acknowledging that the trade offs exist yet. Simply asserting your preference for one value over another is boring, get into the deep end and acknowledge my values too.
 
epidural man said:
Right "Well, we think if we had an ID (like most other countries) that proved citizenship, that would calm us down."

Left "Okay. We are concerned that the only reason you are asking for this, is so you can make it hard for people to get an ID. We think our ideas are right, and we find it hard to believe anyone would vote for you guys, so we kinda think you need to cheat to win. So we think that you asking for an ID is a sneaky way to get people who would normally vote for us to not be able to vote."

Right "I hear you and I get what you are saying. I can see how making people get ID's would perhaps diminish the ability for some to vote. How about this? How about you come up with a solution of how you can get an ID in everyone's hand cheaply so that those who are poor don't have to pay a dime (well...maybe a dime)."

Left "Okay. I like that plan. We will figure out a way that we can make it easy for all US citizens to get an ID proving citizenship that will allow them to vote. If we come up with a plan, will you support it? Again, our concern is NOT the ID, but that we want anyone who wants to vote to be able to vote."
Click to expand...

This is better. Now show me the bill that doesn't disenfranchise any citizen and (as you put it) "calms you down". I'll read it! You make it sound so simple, so it must exist.
 


Let's hope all the people for whom he's playing up this not-an-elitist-just-a-good-ol'-boy-like-you schtick don't google which small schools in Connecticut and Boston he did his undergrad and got his law degree from.
 
epidural man said:
eh....

Although I think it is funny and brilliant how he totally showed how utterly hypocritical the Martha's Vineyard lefties are, it WAS a dick move to those poor immigrants and kinda showed that DeSantis is also very mean.
Click to expand...
Ya know, I was sure that move was going to backfire and blow up, that the Obama's would swoop in with a tent city on their 14 acres and say, "Look at us. LOOK AT US!!!! We're great!!!"

But damn if they didn't all get those immigrants kicked off the Vineyard faster than Al Sharpton at a Klan rally 😂
 
rowsdower88 said:
This is better. Now show me the bill that doesn't disenfranchise any citizen and (as you put it) "calms you down". I'll read it! You make it sound so simple, so it must exist.
Click to expand...
Oh it doesn’t exist. People like yourself can see past their partisan nose.
 
epidural man said:
Oh it doesn’t exist. People like yourself can see past their partisan nose.
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm offering to read whatever bill you send me dude! I told you my conditions for what kind of bill I would support (not disenfranchising anyone) and now you just want to take your ball and go home.

I could get behind it if it didn't have all the BS. If you take away 100 students means of voting to prevent 1-2 voter fraud cases, that seems like a dumb tradeoff. If you make it harder for seniors and working people to vote by making absentee voting harder it doesn't seem like a good tradeoff. If this is an issue Republicans are passionate on, why don't they compromise on these aspects in their bills? There are ways you could increase voting integrity without disenfranchising people!

I'm acknowledging your concern. I hear you. Do you hear me? Send me your favorite bipartisan bill! One I can get behind!
 
epidural man said:
For your reading pleasure….I know…I know…it sounds preechy of me to try and teach you something…maybe a little condescending…but I have to try. I just have to.

www.thoughtco.com

What Is the Fallacy Known as the False Dilemma?

False dilemma is a fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when, in reality, more options are available.
www.thoughtco.com www.thoughtco.com
Click to expand...

There were no two options in my answer.
I was just asking if Trump’s own AG’s investigation was enough for you to agree that there was no appreciable/winner changing fraud..
 
Lawpy said:
And yet, one of them will win the nomination because they are each way better than all the other GOP guys running.
Click to expand...

And their base is rabid in its need for further suppression of minority rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights, workers’ rights….
As long as they can inflict more damage than what they suffer by their elected officials, they are OK with it
 
I know he hasn’t announced yet but what is Ron Desantis’ presidential platform? Besides being an anti-woke, anti-LGBT culture warrior? You can’t build a presidential campaign with only that.

At least Trump came up with “make America great again”. Can’t argue with that. Indeed Biden copied it with “build back better.”

What will Desantis build? How will he address China and Russia? How will he address our looming climate and demographic disasters?
 
Last edited:
nopain1234 said:
Someone sounds jealous. You’re what’s wrong with society. If you want what he has go get it. Otherwise, mind your own damn business
Click to expand...
Are you serious? This is money that comes from us. The taxpayers. Is this a joke? Mind your business when people stealing from the government? That means stealing from the taxpayers. Are you on crack? Or are you a thief and fraudster as well!?
 
Last edited:
nopain1234 said:
You sound like a real piece of work lol
Click to expand...
And you sound like a sexist misogynist jerk with zero moral and ethical standards who calls a woman the B word for speaking out against corruption and theft of OUR taxpayers money.
YOU are the problem in this country. Not her. Who the hell are you to come on here cursing out women?
 
I'm glad you took the time to explain what you meant. I see what you mean by "STEM is more practical," but we are already seeing the negative effects of focusing too much on STEM without balancing this tech-fueled craze with the tempering effect of ethics. Look at what's happening with all these aggregator companies just taking advantage of policy and infrastructure shortcomings and calling it "disruption" at the expense of the common man. Yes, innovation is necessary and, knowing what we know of human nature, inevitable too. But at the cost of human rights? I'm not sure.

BobLoblaw78 said:
You’re right. I went back and looked. I think I’m not making the points as well as I want combined with replying without fully thinking about it. I started with saying I was walking through it as I discussed and it shows. I definitely was in school newspaper, journalism, etc and that had its place and value. I enjoyed humanities. Didn’t enjoy English but that was important. I wasn’t stressing they weren’t important but that STEM was more practical.

My issue stems mostly from the “product” not being better. I get disheartened when I hear about kids not being able to learn bc of other disruptive kids. Or when I hear about blow off classes that nothing is even attempted to be a learning experience. Or when they never come home with homework. I am speaking from experience of multiple kids through HS. I still think there should be bigger focus on STEM with less options in classes and more quality. And regardless of class that expectations of actual learning and engagement should be prioritized. I would be remiss to not mention that votech is a very practical pathway for anyone with interest.

It is hard to be clear but brief. That reminds me of Twain’s “I didn’t have enough time to write a short letter so I wrote a long one”
Click to expand...
 
amyl said:
Actually his father was sentenced to 3 years in prison for white collar crimes but was pardoned. It made the news. My husband just resigned as he was uncomfortable with some of the things the accountant wanted him to document, amongst other things. I know that’s what he spent it on because he tells everyone that’s what he did with it.
Click to expand...


America (and maybe the world) rewards sociopaths. If you have a sense of decency or a conscience, you will never join the ruling class. Win at all costs means exactly that.
 
epidural man said:
This is such an important concept and statement.

When you put up such resistance to something so simple as an ID to vote, one can imagine the thoughts ... "what in the world are they worried about? What are they hiding? They can't possibly think this is a real issue. There must be something else at play here! They can't be trusted."

Like I said - ID's are a simple solution. If both people come to the table with good faith, wanting to understand the other side. I imagine reasonable, smart, caring, non-prideful people would have a conversation like this.

Right "We are really worried that you are trying to commit voter fraud to get votes. Because we believe we are right on all the issues, we find it hard to believe you could garner up enough votes to support your leftish causes."

Left "But most of the documented examples of cheating have been on the right."

Right "Yes we agree. But even more reason to shore up the voting. Also, just because we can't prove you didn't cheat, doesn't mean you didn't cheat. AND it doesn't mean you won't cheat in the future."

Left "Okay, I hear your concerns. You are concerned that cheating happens and we are clever enough not to get caught. I am here to tell you we didn't cheat - but I get that you believe we are capable of it. What do you propose?"

Right "Well, we think if we had an ID (like most other countries) that proved citizenship, that would calm us down."

Left "Okay. We are concerned that the only reason you are asking for this, is so you can make it hard for people to get an ID. We think our ideas are right, and we find it hard to believe anyone would vote for you guys, so we kinda think you need to cheat to win. So we think that you asking for an ID is a sneaky way to get people who would normally vote for us to not be able to vote."

Right "I hear you and I get what you are saying. I can see how making people get ID's would perhaps diminish the ability for some to vote. How about this? How about you come up with a solution of how you can get an ID in everyone's hand cheaply so that those who are poor don't have to pay a dime (well...maybe a dime)."

Left "Okay. I like that plan. We will figure out a way that we can make it easy for all US citizens to get an ID proving citizenship that will allow them to vote. If we come up with a plan, will you support it? Again, our concern is NOT the ID, but that we want anyone who wants to vote to be able to vote."

Right "That works for us. Again, OUR concern is that only US Citizens vote, and only vote once. Thanks for working with us."

Left "Thank you for being so kind."
Click to expand...
Your way to compromise is where you (right) propose a solution then have the other side (left) do the work to come up with a method to make it happen. Oh, and that’s after somehow getting the left to admit to cheating that didn’t happen/wasn’t caught.

Tactic summary: toss idea that is typically a non-starter, insult other side, and then somehow Harry Potter style spell to get them to do the work

That was a very interesting conversation to read.

I wish you all the success if you ever sit at a board table.
 
chocomorsel said:
This right here is the truth. Sad, sad truth.
Click to expand...
Sociopaths take advantage of any system that is out there. It is not that the system is set up to reward them. If you have a sense of decency and a conscience, you would need to eliminate sociopaths to keep them from manipulating any and every system. Eliminating sociopaths doesn't sound like something a good person would do.... Catch 22. Maybe that is why we always resort to picking the least bad person/sociopath for politics.
 
BobLoblaw78 said:
Sociopaths take advantage of any system that is out there. It is not that the system is set up to reward them. If you have a sense of decency and a conscience, you would need to eliminate sociopaths to keep them from manipulating any and every system. Eliminating sociopaths doesn't sound like something a good person would do.... Catch 22. Maybe that is why we always resort to picking the least bad person/sociopath for politics.
Click to expand...
I'm not a sociopath but I would have no problem eliminating them. I guess I am a semi-good person?
 
We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes said:
I had to show an ID at the bank yesterday and last week to board a plane!!
It's Jim Crow 3.0!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Neither of which are constitutional rights.

I don't personally care about voter ID either way as long as its doesn't make it too difficult to vote since as others have said its a solution in search of a problem.

I think SC has done a good job at it:

South Carolina

South Carolina asks you to show photo ID to vote in person. If you can’t get an accepted photo ID, there is another way to confirm your identity. Most voters do not need a copy of their ID to vote by mail.
www.voteriders.org www.voteriders.org

But then you have states that are not as easy:



www.nbcdfw.com

How Texas Law Makes Voting Harder

The sweeping changes to Texas’ election code that GOP Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law Tuesday make it harder — sometimes even legally riskier — to cast a ballot in the state, which already has some of the nation’s most restrictive voting laws, the Associated Press reports.
www.nbcdfw.com www.nbcdfw.com
 
FutureInternist said:
And their base is rabid in its need for further suppression of minority rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights, workers’ rights….
As long as they can inflict more damage than what they suffer by their elected officials, they are OK with it
Click to expand...
You would be surprised to hear that not every GOP voter is a “ rabid MAGA cult follower”- many of us here are center-right, moderate, independent and critical thinkers who are more focused on the merit of the individual policies proposed by the 2 parties, rather than just being a blind and loyal party supporter. None of the 2 parties are satisfying all the criteria I require 100%, but I shall vote for the team that can atleast meet me 3/4 of the way.

BTW, I am registered as an independent voter, and have previously voted for both Dems & GOP—depending on the key issues that concern me as a citizen.

And for the Left to state that GOP is anti-minority is factually incorrect. This is actually minimizing and belittling the thinking of the Asian-American communities (which have been until recent years a heavy democratic bloc) and now have recently switched to GOP mainly due to the educational and crime-relates policies of the Democrats. The Democrats keep insisting on dividing their base and unfairly supporting the principles of “First among Equals” when it comes to supporting certain minority groups. Moreover they proudly claim that they are against any form of discrimination, but actually support “reverse discrimination” in the form of affirmative action policies. You cannot have the cake and eat it too!

www.nytimes.com

Asian Americans, Shifting Right (Published 2023)

The new politics of class in America.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BobLoblaw78 said:
Sociopaths take advantage of any system that is out there. It is not that the system is set up to reward them. If you have a sense of decency and a conscience, you would need to eliminate sociopaths to keep them from manipulating any and every system. Eliminating sociopaths doesn't sound like something a good person would do.... Catch 22. Maybe that is why we always resort to picking the least bad person/sociopath for politics.
Click to expand...
Well I never said anything about eliminating them but I would vote for that. Put them on a deserted island and let them fight it out against each other instead of taking advantage of and manipulating innocent people.
 
Young&Wise said:
You would be surprised to hear that not every GOP voter is a “ rabid MAGA cult follower”- many of us here are center-right, moderate, independent and critical thinkers who are more focused on the merit of the individual policies proposed by the 2 parties, rather than just being a blind and loyal party supporter. None of the 2 parties are satisfying all the criteria I require 100%, but I shall vote for the team that can atleast meet me 3/4 of the way.

And for the Left to state that GOP is anti-minority is factually incorrect. This is actually minimizing and belittling the thinking of the Asian-American communities (which have been until recent years a heavy democratic bloc) and now have recently switched to GOP mainly due to the educational and crime-relates policies of the Democrats. The Democrats keep insisting on dividing their base and unfairly supporting the principles of “First among Equals” when it comes to supporting certain minority groups. Moreover they proudly claim that they are against any form of discrimination, but actually support “reverse discrimination” in the form of affirmative action policies. You cannot have the cake and eat it too!

www.nytimes.com

Asian Americans, Shifting Right (Published 2023)

The new politics of class in America.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
Ok, so you are ProAsian. The “Model Minority” and against other minorities. Got it.
But we already knew that.
 
chocomorsel said:
Ok, so you are ProAsian. The “Model Minority” and against other minorities. Got it.
But we already knew that.
Click to expand...
I will continue to argue for meritocracy, equality and consideration for social economic status instead of race/ethnicity, while you can continue to respond in a snarky way as that makes your points all the more compelling!
 
Young&Wise said:
I will continue to argue for meritocracy, equality and consideration for social economic status instead of race/ethnicity, while you can continue to respond in a snarky way as that makes your points all the more compelling!
Click to expand...

If the status quo meritocracy is failing certain minority communities then we need to seriously consider affirmative action programs to address the disparity.

We had that whole other post on affirmative action, just reply to some of my comments there if you still disagree on this.

forums.studentdoctor.net

NEJM perspectives (03/09/2023) on “Diversifying the Physician Workforce- From Rhetoric to Positive Action”

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2211874 I thought NEJM is a respectable and high quality journal for original medical articles and meaningful perspectives in medicine…and definitely not for pushing an agenda based on biased perspectives. No thanks…I am cancelling my subscription!
forums.studentdoctor.net forums.studentdoctor.net
 
Young&Wise said:
I will continue to argue for meritocracy, equality and consideration for social economic status instead of race/ethnicity, while you can continue to respond in a snarky way as that makes your points all the more compelling!
Click to expand...
I have responded to you once here. Don’t feel too self important. I paid you attention once. You seem full of yourself. Not continuing nothing. I see you for who you are. Goodbye.
 
Onefellswoop87 said:
Your way to compromise is where you (right) propose a solution then have the other side (left) do the work to come up with a method to make it happen. Oh, and that’s after somehow getting the left to admit to cheating that didn’t happen/wasn’t caught.

Tactic summary: toss idea that is typically a non-starter, insult other side, and then somehow Harry Potter style spell to get them to do the work

That was a very interesting conversation to read.

I wish you all the success if you ever sit at a board table.
Click to expand...
If this conversation is like cleaning a window, and your understanding my point akin to your responsible section, I’d have to say “you missed a spot.”
 
Last edited:
rowsdower88 said:
Lol, I'm offering to read whatever bill you send me dude! I told you my conditions for what kind of bill I would support (not disenfranchising anyone) and now you just want to take your ball and go home.

I could get behind it if it didn't have all the BS. If you take away 100 students means of voting to prevent 1-2 voter fraud cases, that seems like a dumb tradeoff. If you make it harder for seniors and working people to vote by making absentee voting harder it doesn't seem like a good tradeoff. If this is an issue Republicans are passionate on, why don't they compromise on these aspects in their bills? There are ways you could increase voting integrity without disenfranchising people!

I'm acknowledging your concern. I hear you. Do you hear me? Send me your favorite bipartisan bill! One I can get behind!
Click to expand...
When I was in boys state in high school, I was a senator and I sponsored a bill that was non-partisan to put Idaho flags up in the classrooms. You can read that if you like. It didn’t pass though.

Actually, I’m not sure you are acknowledging my concerns.

Here is how I know. By the sound of this post, you think that I think the Republicans write fair bills, and you’ve asked me to produce an example. And you also assume that I’m somehow on the right politically. And since these are way off the mark, I would say my concerns have not been acknowledged I do not feel heard nor seen, and it hurts immensely.
 
I understand not liking the many not likeable childish traits of Donald Trump, but I never understood that as a reason to fervorishly back the worst president we've ever had, by far the most mentally incompetent president we've ever had, and one of the most corrupt presidents we've ever had.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Let’s now blame the Anesthesiologists for contributing to Climate change!
2
Replies
88
Views
6K
nimbus
nimbus
epidural man
I blame you guys for this
Replies
44
Views
3K
Gern Blansten
Gern Blansten
epidural man
The Law wins - suck it Pacira
Replies
5
Views
1K
nimbus
nimbus
I
Insurance won’t pay for anesthesia care if procedure goes beyond time limit
2 3 4
Replies
162
Views
13K
TeslaCoil
TeslaCoil
R
Wondering if I matched into the wrong specialty
Replies
14
Views
2K
anbuitachi
A
Top