The Next President is...

[drewpey]

4 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

The caveat I would put on a pathway to citizenship would be only post wall completion, and actual illegal crossings would have to be virtually stopped both according to CBP/ICE and border state law enforcement (to prevent number fudging).

Sooo....never then?  The only way you are going to "virtually stop" illegal immigration to the US is to 1. Significantly increase the number of visas given to these countries or 2. help improve conditions in their country to dissuade them from making the trip.  These people are already so desperate to leave that they have already accepted kidnapping, trafficking, and even death as an outcome.  Building a wall isn't going to make someone change their mind.  They will just find another way around it, and the smugglers will because it will become even more profitable to do so.  Strategically we need mexico to be a stronger neighbor, and we should be working to help them become that...moreso than other countries we have been courting.

Republicans love the two bucket method of negotiations (can't put that in the close bucket, but instead put what you want in the far bucket and we promise to get to it), and should never be trusted to follow through with any sort of deal like this.  It's hard to trust the other party will provide a path to citizenship and increase legal immigration when things settle down when a significant part of the base is screaming to end family reunification visas, and the visa lottery.  That's not how negotiations in congress work, and each party has to give and take to get something everyone can agree on.  If you split the issues they you end up with party line voting and we get nowhere until someone gets a supermajority.

[Clark Griswold]

On 6/29/2018 at 1:17 PM, TreeA10 said:

No one of consequence is actually controlling the borders. And these people of " No consequence", assuming senators, governors, and mayors are inconsequential, are saying we should do away with the federal agency that exercises what little control over the border we actually enforce. Which leads us back to open borders without actually having to say they want open borders. 

Yup all while insisting on virtually no verification to participate in the political process, voting, or legal receipt of public benefit(s).

You can't have a democratic republic if one side is trying to break, bend or encourage the disregard for laws and the rule of law.  Trying to use inherent weaknesses in the open society to gain political advantage.

I'll believe the Democrat line on immigration when they want strict, strong and tough voter ID and citizenship/legal resident verification for public benefits, until then just stopping them at anytime, anywhere from advancing their agenda of open borders and the destruction of the concept of citizenship is acceptable.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Clark Griswold

[HeloDude]

My prediction: All things being equal (i.e. the economy, no new flare ups around the world, etc)...the Dems will lose on this issue in 2020, especially as they go further into not wanting illegal immigrants deported.

[nsplayr]

If we issue valid work permits to immigrants already living here who want them, and if we issue free, widely-available national ID cards to every citizen so that they can access public benefits that are only for citizens, then I'm on totally board.

Progressive objections to current voter ID laws aren't based on some kind of esoteric opposition to secure voting or wanting non-citizens to vote. I want secure, interference elections that reflect the will of the citizens! Progressives object to recent efforts to enact and enforce strict ID laws because even though the concept is foreign and unthinkable to most of us, not every citizen has an acceptable ID nor the means to easily get one. Enforcing strict ID laws therefore deprives those citizens of their most important right as a citizen, to cast a vote equal to that of any other citizen. If we solve the underlying problem with an effort to get every citizen, and I mean every single citizen, free, legal, secure IDs, then great, let's require them at the polls to keep non-citizens from voting and let's require them to be shown in order to access benefits not meant for non-citizens.

If the surface-level problem with undocumented immigrants is the concept of law-breaking rather than an opposition to immigrants in general, I vote we solve that very specific problem by legalizing more short- and long-term economic immigration. Strong market forces are attracting people to the US and we are greatly strengthened by them coming here, so let's not fight forces that compel people to cross harsh terrain under the guidance of extortionist, criminal coyotes. Instead, let's welcome people in the front door in a legal way and allow them to help make our country even better.

FWIW I also want to secure the southern border, the northern border, and all ports of entry for national security purposes. I care deeply about the welfare of other people, even those from other countries, but I still lock my doors at night. I also support deporting immigrants who commit serious crimes; when you're a guest you have to be on your best behavior. All that said, and I'm on the progressive side of the Democratic party! I think there's lots that most of us can agree on in principle and there are many moderate Democrats and elected party leaders who are very much ready to play ball on comprehensive immigration reform that would require implementing some conservative priorities on this issue.

But while we're talking about this, keep in mind that many conservatives have been against a national ID program in the past or even making state IDs more easily accessible to citizens who need them. Many conservatives are arguing for sharp reductions in legal immigration. Some on the far-right have quite explicitly said that they care about maintaining a white majority in the United States and therefore oppose immigration by non-white people. Plenty of progressives have also opposed national ID programs and have differed amongst themselves about how to secure the border and what levels of immigration will work best.

I think there's work to be done by everyone to find a workable solution if we actually want to fix our immigration system rather than just use the problems with the current system every 2-4 years as campaign issues.

Edited July 1, 2018 by nsplayr

[Homestar]

Which state does not offer a non-driving ID card?

Standing in line for an hour with your birth certificate, passport, or whatever is not too high a price for a valid ID. 

Nobody has any problem bringing their ID for beer, but ask someone to bring the ID to the voting station you’d think you were asking the impossible. 

[HeloDude]

52 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Which state does not offer a non-driving ID card?

Standing in line for an hour with your birth certificate, passport, or whatever is not too high a price for a valid ID. 

Nobody has any problem bringing their ID for beer, but ask someone to bring the ID to the voting station you’d think you were asking the impossible. 

Yet progressives are all for making it harder for citizens to exercise their 2A Rights (which I would argue is the most important protected right) because they would requires the same ID to buy/carry a firearm which would be required to vote...

[matmacwc]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Enforcing strict ID laws therefore deprives those citizens of their most important right as a citizen...

 

This is bullshit and we all know it.

[nsplayr]

Whether you think it’s valid or not, there are millions of citizens that lack the type of IDs needed to vote. I am certainly invested in our democratic processes enough to ensure I’m registered and have the right ID and etc., but not everyone is like me, yet their vote counts equally if they are a citizen.

Having the empathy to understand and accommodate people who’s circumstances are different than yours is important to me and most on the left, and in fact feeling a personal social responsibility to protect and promote the rights and wellbeing of others is at the heart of progressive morality, but I don’t necessarily expect most of you guys to agree or see it that way.

My view of the second amendment is that its important that citizens have access to firearms in a way that preserves the safety of everyone. Where I might disagree with some conservatives is on the scope of what types of firearms should be accessible and if they should be carried in certain places or not, but the right to bear arms in the US is well established in the constitution and case law.

38 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

This is bullshit and we all know it.

I sincerely believe that the right to vote and the sanctity of that right is the most fundamental aspect of a representative form of government. Depriving people of their right to vote is one of the worst things the government could do to a citizen beyond killing them outright or inprisoning them unjustly. Do you disagree? Why?

I’ve written a lot lately and y’all know my POV. Feel free to make a detailed and impassioned case for the opposite of what I’m saying, I’m genuinely interested. But just calling BS with no other inputs isn’t gonna really benefit anyone.

Edited July 1, 2018 by nsplayr

[matmacwc]

11 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

 But just calling BS with no other inputs isn’t gonna really benefit anyone.

I don’t have to argue or “narrate” anything, it’s bullshit.  If you can’t adult enough to have some form of ID, then why should I be concerned about your ability to vote on either side.

Edited July 1, 2018 by matmacwc

[MooseAg03]

Agree. If you can’t function at a level to have ID in this day and age, you should not be voting.

Our need for fair, fraud free elections outweigh people’s need to be lazy asses and not get an ID.

[nsplayr]

Because those people are citizens of the United States and the law guarantees the right to vote for every citizen. It’s the entire core of representative government. I don’t know what else to tell ya man.

[matmacwc]

I do, make voter ID mandatory, never question an election again.  But then again, Democrats love to question election results, except when they don’t.

[nsplayr]

9 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

Agree. If you can’t function at a level to have ID in this day and age, you should not be voting.

This is completely at odds with protecting and defending the constitution man. It’s not up to you or me whether or not a fellow citizen should be voting or not, and it’s a betrayal of democracy to work to prevent citizens from voting.

Why is it fire and brimstone from a lot of y’all to in any way limit access to firearms but it’s super blasé about denying citizens their ability to vote? If you are calling me hypocritical for wanting some limits to the 2A, I am absolutely saying the same when you casually shrug off the disenfranchisement of fellow citizens, and I’d argue the later is much worse. Plenty of representatives forms of government function without unfettered acccess to guns, by definition they cannot when people can’t vote. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

4 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

I do, make voter ID mandatory, never question an election again.  But then again, Democrats love to question election results, except when they don’t.

Make those IDs free and truly universal and I’m down. A 90% solution photo ID ( what we have now) isn’t acceptable. I won’t leave those other 10% of citizens behind. Election security and integrity is important, but in-person voter fraud is incredibly rare while citizen disenfranchisement is far too common and accepted.

Edited July 1, 2018 by nsplayr

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Make those IDs free and truly universal and I’m down. A 90% solution photo ID ( what we have now) isn’t acceptable. I won’t leave those other 10% of citizens behind. Election security and integrity is important, but in-person voter fraud is incredibly rare while citizen disenfranchisement is far too common and accepted.

Cool - if the Dems / Progressives want to show their sincerity (using your words as a proxy) then they should at the state level show the red states how to get 100% photo ID done along with other vote integrity assurance technology / procedures, then you guys win points in the national debate by removing this legitimate point of contention.

Photo ID is only one part of a well defended, high integrity voting system.  Include bio-metric/video recording of voters and compared to other voting facilities to prevent double dipping, no electronic tallying machines - physical ballots only, and a law enforcement presence (to include ICE) at all voting facilities to ensure no intimidation by any side and I as a conservative would have no problem with liberal ideas on increasing voter participation (same day registration, weekend voting, etc...).

[MooseAg03]

The voting amendments only state you can’t discriminate against voters because of race, age, sex, etc. It does not mean there can be no regulation placed on voting. I’ve been unable to vote because Texas requires me to re-register every year to vote absentee and sometimes I don’t get it done in time. That’s on me. Constitutional rights are not absolute such as limits placed on the 1st Amendment (can’t yell fire in a theater) and as you alluded to - regulation on the 2nd Amendment even though the text states “shall not be infringed.” Texas offers free IDs through the Department of Public safety to use for voting, just like I have to make an effort to register in order to vote, those on the fringes of society who somehow go through life without an ID can go through the trouble to get one in order to vote.

Texas has been prosecuting voter fraud left and right since the 2016 election, so I don’t think the fraud is as rare as you claim. Hell, in addition to ID, I think we should stain everyone’s thumbs purple like they do in Afghanistan. That keeps people from walking up and claiming a name on the voter rolls in order to vote multiple times.

[TreeA10]

I can't check out a book at the library without an ID but progressives think verifiable ID for voting is too much of a burden. Are we denying somebody's right to read?

[tac airlifter]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Election security and integrity is important, but in-person voter fraud is incredibly rare while citizen disenfranchisement is far too common and accepted.

Another great post because it chrystalzes the differences between us.  I just don’t believe the link you posted about 3.2 million eligible voters unable to obtain appropriate ID.  I’ve never in my life met someone in the US without ID required to vote, and my wife and I have worked with old and economically disadvantaged  folks while volunteering in some run down locations.

on the other hand, I think voter fraud is far more common than you assume.  So I understand your POV, but we disagree on the facts so we’ve drawn different conclusions.  Which is a consistent theme for most of our political disagreements.

 

[HeloDude]

6 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Because those people are citizens of the United States and the law guarantees the right to vote for every citizen. It’s the entire core of representative government. I don’t know what else to tell ya man.

But yet infringe on those same people's right to obtain a firearm.  Funny, you're cool with making someone have an ID to purchase a gun in the name of "safety" but you're not for requiring that same ID to ensure we have fair elections.  

[drewpey]

Voter ID laws are about discouraging the impoverished from voting.  Minorities are disproportionately affected by poverty.  I think a nationwide photo ID system would be great as long as it doesn't create any time/financial burden on people.  I can almost hear the high-pitched whine of republicans when they have to squeeze a few more tax pennies to make this happen though.  They should just tie it into selective service registration, and have everyone do it at once.

[tac airlifter]

7 hours ago, drewpey said:

Voter ID laws are about discouraging the impoverished from voting.  

Resistance to voter ID efforts are about enabling fraud and undermining our system. 

See, I can make dumb generalizations too!  When you assume my intent and base your opposition to my concerns on this incorrectly assumed intent, discourse is impossible.  

Said another way, when the discussion starts by you telling me my concerns are not just invalid, but neferious, there can be no amicable resolution.  

Why don’t you try seeing the voter ID issue from my perspective?  I see the potential disenfranchisement issue from yours, and I get it.  As I said to NS, I don’t think it’s a serious issue but I could be wrong.  How can we fix it?  Basically, since we should agree that voting integrity is the foundational legitimacy of representative democracy, how can we compromise and ensure both our concerns are addressed?

I’ll tell you how not to do it— starting the discussion by assuming my concerns are smokescreen for cheating my fellow citizens.

Edited July 2, 2018 by tac airlifter

[Jaded]

14 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Another great post because it chrystalzes the differences between us.  I just don’t believe the link you posted about 3.2 million eligible voters unable to obtain appropriate ID.  I’ve never in my life met someone in the US without ID required to vote, and my wife and I have worked with old and economically disadvantaged  folks while volunteering in some run down locations. 

 

I didn't understand it either until I tried to get a new driver's license in Texas after living overseas for several years. Showing up with all my forms filled out, all the ID requirements from the website (including my military ID), and getting turned away because my military ID doesn't have my SSN on it (Wtf). It ended up taking 3 half days off work to get a driver's license (first day at the DPS, next day at the social security administration, third day back at the DPS.) If I couldn't afford those lost wages or if I would lose my job for missing that much work, I just wouldn't have an eligible voter ID. 

Obviously you only accept sources that reinforce your world view, and I'm wasting my time providing a personal anecdotal counter example, but whatever. 

Here's a 17 minute podcast that goes through a methodology of voter fraud claims.

 https://www.thisamericanlife.org/630/things-i-mean-to-know

They use math as their source though, so not sure it it's something you are going to believe. 

 

[tac airlifter]

9 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Obviously you only accept sources that reinforce your world view, and I'm wasting my time providing a personal anecdotal counter example, but whatever.

They use math as their source though, so not sure it it's something you are going to believe. 

Thanks for your reply.  I’ll look at the podcast when I can, hopefully later today.  Appreciate your anecdote as well, I’ve genuinly never heard of this issue from a real person.

[Guest]

I didn't understand it either until I tried to get a new driver's license in Texas after living overseas for several years. Showing up with all my forms filled out, all the ID requirements from the website (including my military ID), and getting turned away because my military ID doesn't have my SSN on it (Wtf). It ended up taking 3 half days off work to get a driver's license (first day at the DPS, next day at the social security administration, third day back at the DPS.) If I couldn't afford those lost wages or if I would lose my job for missing that much work, I just wouldn't have an eligible voter ID. 
Obviously you only accept sources that reinforce your world view, and I'm wasting my time providing a personal anecdotal counter example, but whatever. 
Here's a 17 minute podcast that goes through a methodology of voter fraud claims.
 https://www.thisamericanlife.org/630/things-i-mean-to-know
They use math as their source though, so not sure it it's something you are going to believe. 
 

Maybe you’re special because even with the wait at the DMV it took me a total of about 15 minutes (with a mil ID without SSN) to get my Texas DL.

[matmacwc]

It isn’t that difficult to get an ID.  Thankfully, the electoral college makes me feel better voter fraud isn’t a big deal at least on national elections.

I think fraud is a bigger deal in smaller, local elections, there’s too much money involved in government to think it isn’t going on.  In fact, one side of the isle has so much hate and vitriol, I’d expect them to cheat, because, they know better, and tolerance and all that.

Edited July 2, 2018 by matmacwc