2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing

Users who are viewing this thread

moof

Regular
Oh, ok. Nah I've seen dozens of people (it's not a large sample size, but at the same time I don't spend heaps of time looking at people's opinions on wierd issues like this) have a problem with the ID issue. I never thought it was the whole problem, but it seems to be most of what people were talking about over the last 6 months, but I admit my perspective on this specific topic is a surface take.

Thanks for the rundown.
The ID debate usually boils down to my other post pretty much, ease of access. In Texas for example if you don't have any photo ID you can show something like proof of address or a bank statement with your name on it, but if you have to resort to that you have a much longer approval process which again leads to people not wanting to bother with it in the first place. On the other hand, if you present your gun license that's considered ID that doesn't require extra approvals, no hassle at all.

Who is more likely to not have photo ID in their posession? In Texas it's black people. Who is more likely to have a gun license? In Texas it's white people. So yeah it's not glaring but it impacts one demographic more than the other. People typically want anything that verifies you are who you are to make you elegible to vote with no extra hoops to jump through depending on how you prove it.
 
The ironic thing about the whole "election was rigged" Republican/etc. narrative is that it is essentially just the same bull**** that I saw getting screeched for 4 years by Democrats/etc. with the whole "Russians hacked the election!" meme.
The meme is a straw man, as if anyone responsible claimed that the Russians put Trump into power - they merely helped a little, an assessment shared by social media companies and intelligence agencies. It's very different from denying facts about the 2020 election.
And here's a new corroborating leak for those that still think Russian support for Trump in 2016 is a lie. There's a strong hint that kompromat on Trump was used as a leverage, something that explains his strange attitude towards Russia and Putin.
“It is acutely necessary to use all possible force to facilitate his [Trump’s] election to the post of US president,”
 
I'm not aware of any state that doesn't require identification. The Russia hacking thing is nowhere near the same level as straight up saying the entire election process is a fraud. That is dictatorial behavior. I really can't stand the Democrats either but they have not reached the level of madness the Republicans reached with the last election.
On the other hand, if you present your gun license that's considered ID that doesn't require extra approvals, no hassle at all.
Funnily enough, Texas will be allowing you to conceal carry without a CCL later this year. A CCL though makes sense as ID since it's government-issued, but there is definitely a bias against forms of ID minorities would be more likely to have.
 

Sundeki

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWB
Who is more likely to not have photo ID in their posession? In Texas it's black people. Who is more likely to have a gun license? In Texas it's white people.
Really? Why would black people be less likely to have ID?



The meme is a straw man, as if anyone responsible claimed that the Russians put Trump into power - they merely helped a little, an assessment shared by social media companies and intelligence agencies. It's very different from denying facts about the 2020 election.
And here's a new corroborating leak for those that still think Russian support for Trump in 2016 is a lie. There's a strong hint that kompromat on Trump was used as a leverage, something that explains his strange attitude towards Russia and Putin.
The point I was making was that the denial of the outcome of the 2020 election by Republicans is straight out of the Democrat handbook. I don't think it was a strawman. In post-election interviews, Hillary Clinton was quoted several times as saying directly "Russia Hacked the Election", and when combined the screeching of "NOT MY PRESIDENT" which was never ending from lots of anti-Trump people. Trump was their president, and the idea that Russia's election meddling was enough to change the outcome of the entire election was/is farcical. And yet it was a constant element of anti-Trump agitation from Democrats and anti-Trump media elements for years.

The two are equivalent to me. Maybe that makes me an idiot, and maybe you think it's a strawman. But 2016 wasn't "hacked" in the way that was implied, and 2020 wasn't "rigged" in the way that was implied. And the narrative that both sides use to try and delegitimize the other are functionally very similar, and with the same goals. It's all apart of the same political degeneration, and as an outsider looking in(with the good and bad that comes with that) that doesn't like either the Democrats nor the Republicans; on the whole I don't see much of a difference. But my opinion might be coloured more by the media I'm exposed to. As a non-American, I only really see media from larger American publications in news feeds (like CNN, MSNBC, etc.), and I don't see much of the smaller local media, which may be less hysterical and less clickbait driven.
 

moof

Regular
Really? Why would black people be less likely to have ID?
Has nothing to do with black people specifically. Poor people and people living on the poverty line are more likely to not have photo ID in general, and in the Texas example I was giving the poor people in the region are disproportionately black. So by limiting identification laws to specific documents you can easily alienate a group of people indirectly, but not really indirectly if you're doing it anyway knowing that those people will be alienated.
 
Last edited:

Nodice83

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Has nothing to do with black people specifically. Poor people and people living on the poverty line are more likely to not have photo ID in general, and in the Texas example I was giving the poor people in the region are disproportionately black. So by limiting identification laws to specific documents you can easily alienate a group of people indirectly, but not really indirectly if you're doing it anyway knowing that those people will be alienated.
Ok, I was going to ask if those people have social security cards which should be ok... but I guess they don't, right?

How many attempts to change the voting law have been successful in the States anyway? This is a federal law or state law that defines that? I'd guess the first, but then it is up to the 'supreme court' that should debate whether this is constitutional, right? It does not sound legit to me... is there a chance they would not reject it?
 
The point I was making was that the denial of the outcome of the 2020 election by Republicans is straight out of the Democrat handbook. I don't think it was a strawman.
"The election was rigged and therefore invalid" is very different from "the election was unduly influenced by outside forces (and Comey)".
In post-election interviews, Hillary Clinton was quoted several times as saying directly "Russia Hacked the Election", and when combined the screeching of "NOT MY PRESIDENT" which was never ending from lots of anti-Trump people. Trump was their president, and the idea that Russia's election meddling was enough to change the outcome of the entire election was/is farcical. And yet it was a constant element of anti-Trump agitation from Democrats and anti-Trump media elements for years.
The two are equivalent to me. Maybe that makes me an idiot, and maybe you think it's a strawman. But 2016 wasn't "hacked" in the way that was implied, and 2020 wasn't "rigged" in the way that was implied. And the narrative that both sides use to try and delegitimize the other are functionally very similar, and with the same goals. It's all apart of the same political degeneration, and as an outsider looking in(with the good and bad that comes with that) that doesn't like either the Democrats nor the Republicans; on the whole I don't see much of a difference. But my opinion might be coloured more by the media I'm exposed to. As a non-American, I only really see media from larger American publications in news feeds (like CNN, MSNBC, etc.), and I don't see much of the smaller local media, which may be less hysterical and less clickbait driven.
The Russian leaked the DNC emails to embarrass the Democrats. They hacked DNC email accounts to do so. "Hacking an election" doesn't mean anything and I doubt Hillary said so.
The anti-Trump people were within their democratic right to say Trump is not their President which means he doesn't represent them (just as the racist thought of Obama), not that he isn't formally a President, a big difference. They didn't deny he won or stormed the White House. This is a legitimate form of political protest. Just because you found it tiresome doesn't make it equivalent to what Trump and his militia did when he lost the election.
You sound like an ex-Trump supporter who supported the Trumpist version of reality until it got too embarrassing.

TLDR: One thing is democratic, the other one is not.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
Ok, I was going to ask if those people have social security cards which should be ok... but I guess they don't, right?

How many attempts to change the voting law have been successful in the States anyway? This is a federal law or state law that defines that? I'd guess the first, but then it is up to the 'supreme court' that should debate whether this is constitutional, right? It does not sound legit to me... is there a chance they would not reject it?
Social security cards are not an ID (no pictures on them), and as crazy as it sounds voting laws are up to the states, not the federal government in the US.

Just to give a bit of perspective on how annoying it can be to get an ID, you need to bring two documents with you that prove that you live in a Texas address to get one, and they are extreme picky about what is and isn't allowed.


This, among other things, means that if you are homeless it becomes extremely challenging to get one. If you don't have a car it is factually impossible to go and vote in a state like Texas, and if you can't vote on weekends/nights or evenings you would have to take time off work, with no paid leave because that's not a thing in most working class jobs. So yeah you are not legally prohibited from voting. They just make it so complicated that you just give up and don't do it. I have yet to get my driver's license here because of how absurd the system is (and on top of everything they were issuing appointments months ahead because of covid).
 

moof

Regular
Ok, I was going to ask if those people have social security cards which should be ok... but I guess they don't, right?

How many attempts to change the voting law have been successful in the States anyway? This is a federal law or state law that defines that? I'd guess the first, but then it is up to the 'supreme court' that should debate whether this is constitutional, right? It does not sound legit to me... is there a chance they would not reject it?
@eddiemccandless 's reply to you sums it up pretty well.

It really should be a federal level thing that is standardized and simplified to be as secure as possible while being as easy as possible. Instead politicians (republicans) strategically change what they allow and don't allow to favour their voting outcome. They'll also do blatant things like gerrymandering which is literally changing border lines of counties to shift around voters in their favour. It's really dumb that they can get away with stuff like this lol.

The point I was making was that the denial of the outcome of the 2020 election by Republicans is straight out of the Democrat handbook. I don't think it was a strawman. In post-election interviews, Hillary Clinton was quoted several times as saying directly "Russia Hacked the Election", and when combined the screeching of "NOT MY PRESIDENT" which was never ending from lots of anti-Trump people. Trump was their president, and the idea that Russia's election meddling was enough to change the outcome of the entire election was/is farcical. And yet it was a constant element of anti-Trump agitation from Democrats and anti-Trump media elements for years.

The two are equivalent to me. Maybe that makes me an idiot, and maybe you think it's a strawman. But 2016 wasn't "hacked" in the way that was implied, and 2020 wasn't "rigged" in the way that was implied. And the narrative that both sides use to try and delegitimize the other are functionally very similar, and with the same goals. It's all apart of the same political degeneration, and as an outsider looking in(with the good and bad that comes with that) that doesn't like either the Democrats nor the Republicans; on the whole I don't see much of a difference. But my opinion might be coloured more by the media I'm exposed to. As a non-American, I only really see media from larger American publications in news feeds (like CNN, MSNBC, etc.), and I don't see much of the smaller local media, which may be less hysterical and less clickbait driven.
You're making a comparison between drastically different things. To be very clear, Hillary Clinton did not reject the results of the 2016 election. Trump rejected the results of the 2020 election. Hillary called Trump and condeded the night he won. Trump still has not conceded to this day. Hillary never once claimed the American voting process was compromised. Trump did falsely claim that the entire American voting process was compromised.

Of course there were some hillary supporters chanting "NOT MY PRESIDENT", just like there were some racist people on the right in 2008 saying they would never accept a black "muslim" president even though he wasn't muslim lol. There are extremes on both sides. The difference here is Trump is just as extreme as his extreme supporters by doing things like inciting the capitol attack and by rejecting the results of the election. Hillary isn't comparable to her extreme supporters given she conceded the election immediately, and never made any false claims relating to the election. She did say that russian interference and hacking took place, and she's right to say that as the FBI literally released a massive report confirming that the Russians did hack Hillary Clinton's emails, and the Russians did have an initiative to bolster Trump as much as they could. That is simply a fact.

To say there is an equivalence is a massive reach. You have to ignore the severity of Trumps faults to draw an equivalence, it is faaaaaaar from being a both sides issue.
 

Nodice83

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Just to give a bit of perspective on how annoying it can be to get an ID, you need to bring two documents with you that prove that you live in a Texas address to get one, and they are extreme picky about what is and isn't allowed.
Looking back to 2016 - I remember how annoying it was to make them proceed with my working visa, so I can imagine...
It really should be a federal level thing that is standardized and simplified to be as secure as possible while being as easy as possible. Instead politicians (republicans) strategically change what they allow and don't allow to favour their voting outcome. They'll also do blatant things like gerrymandering which is literally changing border lines of counties to shift around voters in their favour. It's really dumb that they can get away with stuff like this lol.
How little did I know... I can somehow understand why this all makes your blood boil.
 

dijiTurk

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&BWF&S
It will probably be another social media channel that we can use with need of fact-checks.

Look. I was surfing at worldwideweb, and i saw Biden too old again:
After the stairs & meeting..This one is 3rd event. Now, i wonder when Kamala Harris will come, and how the new social media will be, or which will win the next election (D.Trump & K.Harris) .

Additon: I'm focusing to "being old" based on an event ( without kidding. just focusing to being old/tired ) . Tweet shows the event's video, that's why i shared it. Idk the tweet owner. And, subject is not tweet owner. Subject is next election/the Us & its' relations/Biden/being old , etc.
 
Last edited:
You are retweeting a Trump propagandist, congratulations again on surfing the web only to find crap.
As for Trump Social, one thing that they are NOT going to have there is obviously fact-checking and (ironically) criticism of Trump. And it will fail anyway if that's not obvious to you.

Edit: Here's a clever nickname straight from Guardian comments: Pravda Social. Use it wisely, because it may become a thing and lose its bite.
 
Last edited:

kurczak

Section Moderator
WB
It is a fact that the voting changes put in place as a result of Covid allowed more people to vote. Tell me why the logical response is to scrap it, rather than embracing that it brought about a net positive change and allowed more people to vote. Scrapping it would then make it more difficult for those people to vote again.

You wanna talk logic? That is very simple logic right there, your mind is probably blown though. Quick, google a new ben shapiro take for your counter.
Oh wow, I forgot this piece of something happened.

Once again, you need a state-issued photo ID to:

get a job
rent an apartment
drive even the ****tiest car
rent a car
go to a club
collect unemployment
sign up for Section 8
sign up for EBT
and more and more, even in gigasanctuary cities in gigasanctuary states

In effect, it's next to impossible to live a life without a state-issued photo ID unless you are a 100% off-the grid survivalist, in which case why would you even want to vote, or an absolute piece of criminal **** dodging multiple warrants, in which case you should not be allowed to vote anyway. There's political differences and there's deliberate lying. For shame.
 

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
The most common state-issued photo ID is a driver's license, but not all people have those, particularly in big cities where car ownership is lower per capita. You also don't always need a state-issued photo ID to get a legit, above-board job (for example in instances of nepotism), and you can live in a home rented or owned by someone else. Clubbing is a social activity not everyone participates in, and not everyone gets carded at clubs. If you have the aforementioned job then you're probably not collecting unemployment, and if living in a residence under someone else's name then you're not concerned by section 8. Your job might also preclude you from EBT, depending on how much you make. All of this can certainly be done without a state-issued photo ID. As a matter of fact, the only time I had to use my driver's license for anything other than driving in the past 3 years & buying alcohol was registering to vote, and I only get carded at the liquor store when I shave.

Not saying this is the norm, or even a significant portion of the population, but it's quite possible to go under the radar if your name isn't on a lease and everything you need is in walking distance or accessible via public transportation.
 

moof

Regular
Oh wow, I forgot this piece of something happened.

Once again, you need a state-issued photo ID to:

get a job
rent an apartment
drive even the ****tiest car
rent a car
go to a club
collect unemployment
sign up for Section 8
sign up for EBT
and more and more, even in gigasanctuary cities in gigasanctuary states

In effect, it's next to impossible to live a life without a state-issued photo ID unless you are a 100% off-the grid survivalist, in which case why would you even want to vote, or an absolute piece of criminal **** dodging multiple warrants, in which case you should not be allowed to vote anyway. There's political differences and there's deliberate lying. For shame.
You can narrow in on photo ID specifically if you want, Orion's post covered everything I would say. That being said, what I'm talking about is the expanded mail in voting, I'm talking about the addition of more ballot drop off boxes, more time to drop your ballot off early, allowing people to physically come into vote at more times of day, allowing people to physically come into vote on weekends, etc. All of these things brought about a net positive change in peoples accessibility to vote, yet for whatever reason people like yourself believe it's appropriate to reel it all back in and return to "normal".
 
Last edited:
Most importantly, this was never about election fraud, as many Republicans themselves are fond of it when it's in their favor. Stop the count!

Having said that, it's mind-blowing for Europeans (incl. the Republican lady representative here) to see how Americans don't have mandatory state IDs and have to improvise those with driver's licenses. How is the DMV the issuing authority for universally required identification papers? This belongs to internal or state dept. You can have mah freedoms even with a state ID.
 
Top Bottom