Politics Thread: Silicon Valley Edition

[HoonDing]

NAACP is the new NSDAP.

[Hurlshort]

Well, illegals don't actually vote, so there is a bit more to it than that. Oddly enough, my wife's family is split up between the US and Mexico. The ones here are super conservative and vote Republican, while the ones in Mexico are super liberal. Kind of strange how split they are.

 

I would say the Republican party as a whole needs to do a better job of appealing to Mexican-Americans.

[Volourn]

"Well, illegals don't actually vote"

 

Yeah, they do. Encouraged by politicians at that to do so. Kalfornia makes laws also making it easier for them to vote as well.

 

I know as a Kanadian I'd be FURIOUS if a bunch of yahoo Amerikans came to my country illegal and voted in my elections.

[Orogun01]

Well, illegals don't actually vote, so there is a bit more to it than that. Oddly enough, my wife's family is split up between the US and Mexico. The ones here are super conservative and vote Republican, while the ones in Mexico are super liberal. Kind of strange how split they are.

 

I would say the Republican party as a whole needs to do a better job of appealing to Mexican-Americans.

I don't think catering to specific groups would work, specially since the issues that drive them to the Republican side are the same issues that poor white americans have. It should be about the working class not about races.

[Hurlshort]

"Well, illegals don't actually vote"

 

Yeah, they do. Encouraged by politicians at that to do so. Kalfornia makes laws also making it easier for them to vote as well.

 

I know as a Kanadian I'd be FURIOUS if a bunch of yahoo Amerikans came to my country illegal and voted in my elections.

Fake news.

[ShadySands]

That reminds me, what ever happened to Trump's voter fraud commission?

[smjjames]

"Well, illegals don't actually vote"

 

Yeah, they do. Encouraged by politicians at that to do so. Kalfornia makes laws also making it easier for them to vote as well.

 

 

Proof that they're actually doing so in large numbers (in the range of thousands to tens of thousands or more)? Please distinguish fact from conspiracy theories.

 

 

That reminds me, what ever happened to Trump's voter fraud commission?

 

It got disbanded. Naturally, Trump blamed the Democrats, but it was resistance from both parties in most states.

[Volourn]

 

"Proof that they're actually doing so in large numbers (in the range of thousands to tens of thousands or more)? Please distinguish fact from conspiracy theories."

 

I don't need to. My statement had nothing to do with numbers. Prove  that politicians don't encourage them to vote and that Kalifornia hasn't made it easier for them to do so.

 Don't try to make a 'counter' argument that didn't even agrue against the argument that was made. It is a lame way to have a discussion.

[Elerond]

 

"Proof that they're actually doing so in large numbers (in the range of thousands to tens of thousands or more)? Please distinguish fact from conspiracy theories."

 

I don't need to. My statement had nothing to do with numbers. Prove  that politicians don't encourage them to vote and that Kalifornia hasn't made it easier for them to do so.

 Don't try to make a 'counter' argument that didn't even agrue against the argument that was made. It is a lame way to have a discussion.

 

http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-html-htmlstory.html

 

Here's how California's new voter registration law will work

California has received a lot of attention in recent days for its new voter registration law, which is intended to streamline the process of signing up to vote and encourage more participation in elections. Here’s what we know — and don’t know yet — about the new law:

 

What is the process?

When people go to the DMV to obtain or renew a driver's license, or to get a state identification card, they’ll be asked for the usual information in such transactions, such as their name, date of birth and address. They’ll also be asked to affirm their eligibility to vote and will be given the choice of opting out of registering at that time. Information about anyone who does not decline registration will be electronically transmitted from the DMV to the secretary of state’s office, where citizenship will be verified and names will be added to the voter rolls.

 

When will this go into effect?

That’s unclear. The law goes into place on Jan. 1, 2016, but the DMV said in a statement that it would not send information to the secretary of state until that office "develops regulations, completes a statewide database system and funding is secured to implement this program.” The regulations, which must be agreed upon between the DMV and the secretary of state, will have to settle basic procedural issues, such as how the “opt-out” question will be phrased and how often the DMV will transmit data.

The statewide voter registration database, Vote-Cal, is on track to be implemented by June 2016, said Secretary of State Alex Padilla. He said he expects funding needs to be minimal, noting that the DMV received money in the current state budget for a technology upgrade. If there are extra costs, he said, “the governor signed the bill, and I interpret his signature as a commitment to funding implementation as necessary.”

Resolving the procedural questions will take some time, Padilla acknowledged. “It won’t be in time for the June primary of 2016,” he said. “At the latest, for the 2018 election cycle, I expect millions of new voters on the rolls in the state of California."

 

Is this really “automatic” voter registration?

Not quite. No one who is eligible will be registered to vote without their knowledge. Proponents of the New Motor Voter Act have emphasized how the electronic transmittal of information will simplify the process.  Lori Shellenberger, voting rights director for the ACLU of California, called the law “a gold standard for what is an automated voter registration, but not automatic.”

 

How is this law different from Oregon’s, where automatic registration was first enacted?

The key difference is the timing of the “opt-out” choice. In Oregon, there are no questions about voter registration at the point of service at the DMV. Rather, the DMV forwards people's information to the secretary of State. Those deemed eligible receive a card in the mail that informs them of their registered status and allows them to pick a political party or to opt out of registration.

 

What about people in the country illegally who are able to obtain driver's licenses in California under a law passed in 2013?

Padilla noted that there is already a separate process for residents in the country illegally to apply for special licenses. Although citizens are currently offered the opportunity to register to vote at the DMV under an earlier federal law, noncitizens are not. That will continue under the new registration process. People applying for the special licenses will not be asked about their eligibility to vote and will not be asked if they’d like to opt out of registration.

“We’ve built the protocols and the firewalls to not register people that aren’t eligible,” Padilla said. “We’re going to keep those firewalls in place."

 

 

“We’ve built the protocols and the firewalls to not register people that aren’t eligible,” Padilla said. “We’re going to keep those firewalls in place."

 

Of course one can always disputed effectiveness of said protocols and firewalls.

[Valsuelm]

 

"Proof that they're actually doing so in large numbers (in the range of thousands to tens of thousands or more)? Please distinguish fact from conspiracy theories."

 

I don't need to. My statement had nothing to do with numbers. Prove  that politicians don't encourage them to vote and that Kalifornia hasn't made it easier for them to do so.

 Don't try to make a 'counter' argument that didn't even agrue against the argument that was made. It is a lame way to have a discussion.

 

Why on earth can't you use the forum quotation tools offered here?

 

Reading what you have to say would often be much easier if you did.

 

Yes, the forum software that Obsidian uses leaves a lot to be desired but with all due respect, it beats your formatting.

[Valsuelm]

 

"Well, illegals don't actually vote"

 

Yeah, they do. Encouraged by politicians at that to do so. Kalfornia makes laws also making it easier for them to vote as well.

 

 

Proof that they're actually doing so in large numbers (in the range of thousands to tens of thousands or more)? Please distinguish fact from conspiracy theories.

 

 

If you don't think there's rampant voter fraud in any given national election (and many state and local elections (and even some student and club elections)), involving illegal aliens, dead people, living people, and more I have a bridge catalogue I'd like you to take a look at.

 

Election fraud is one of the biggest elephants in the room that a great many are invested in pretending isn't there. Nescience or supreme naiveté is required to believe that said stinky elephant is not there.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Valsuelm

[Hurlshort]

Is rampant a statisticle term?

 

California is a blue state because the Republican party has basically abandoned it. It doesn't require any boogie men or ghost voted to make it so.

[smjjames]

 

 

 

Of course one can always disputed effectiveness of said protocols and firewalls.

 

 

True, the effectiveness of it can be debated. Also, I see Padilla said that we could see millions this year. So, we'll have to see just how huge it is in the midterms and especially the 2020 Presidential.

 

@Val: Well, I know that Republicans have been crying election fraud with little evidence to show for it. If Trump cries election fraud or rigged election in November (although he is completely aware of the challenge Republicans have) of this year or in 2020, then he'd better show the proof.

 

 

Is rampant a statisticle term?

 

California is a blue state because the Republican party has basically abandoned it. It doesn't require any boogie men or ghost voted to make it so.

 

+1 to that. The Republicans aren't even trying to adapt and compete. Californias top-two Jungle Primary doesn't help the Republicans though, that's for sure. Although, California may be a poor example of how competitive the top-two system would actually be since the Republicans barely compete here.

[Valsuelm]

@Val: Well, I know that Republicans have been crying election fraud with little evidence to show for it. If Trump cries election fraud or rigged election in November (although he is completely aware of the challenge Republicans have) of this year or in 2020, then he'd better show the proof.

It is foolish to think that election fraud is a partisan issue. I'm going to give you some benefit of doubt and assume you're young for a moment, and don't vividly recall the cries of election fraud following the 2000 Presidential election by oodles of people, primarily democrats.

 

Indeed, if you look into it, there is ample evidence that election fraud occurred in that election on numerous levels and in numerous places, ultimately in favor of the Republicans that time around.

 

People within both parties play the evil game, and often turn a blind eye to it, as they're both greatly invested in the broken system.

 

There's a number of good documentaries on the subject, particularly many made in the wake of the 2000 election . One I especially suggest finding is 'Hacking Democracy', watching it, and thinking.

 

Also, next time you go to the ballot box, take a good look around and ponder how easy it is for the results of your polling station to be tampered with. If you come up with anything but easy as an answer you either vote in a polling station with fail-safes I've never seen or heard of, or you lack imagination.

 

Again, it is foolish to think that voter fraud is a partisan issue.

[smjjames]

 

@Val: Well, I know that Republicans have been crying election fraud with little evidence to show for it. If Trump cries election fraud or rigged election in November (although he is completely aware of the challenge Republicans have) of this year or in 2020, then he'd better show the proof.

It is foolish to think that election fraud is a partisan issue. I'm going to give you some benefit of doubt and assume you're young for a moment, and don't vividly recall the cries of election fraud following the 2000 Presidential election by oodles of people, primarily democrats.

 

Indeed, if you look into it, there is ample evidence that election fraud occurred in that election on numerous levels and in numerous places, ultimately in favor of the Republicans that time around.

 

People within both parties play the evil game, and often turn a blind eye to it, as they're both greatly invested in the broken system.

 

There's a number of good documentaries on the subject, particularly many made in the wake of the 2000 election . One I especially suggest finding is 'Hacking Democracy', watching it, and thinking.

 

Also, next time you go to the ballot box, take a good look around and ponder how easy it is for the results of your polling station to be tampered with. If you come up with anything but easy as an answer you either vote in a polling station with fail-safes I've never seen or heard of, or you lack imagination.

 

Again, it is foolish to think that voter fraud is a partisan issue.

 

 

I'm 34, don't know if that's young to you. But to answer your question, yes, there was the debacle with 'hanging chads' and problems with the butterfly ballot in Florida. Democrats definetly weren't happy and they were protesting about irregularities and problems in Florida and wanted to continue the count but it got stopped. Don't remember about problems outside of Florida in 2000 though, the problems in Florida were the dominant complaint.

 

As for both parties playing the game, yeah, the Republicans do it all the time like fewer polling places, etc.

 

I know it's not a partisan issue, but I was making a distinction between dirty tricks/voter suppression election fraud which aren't illegal vs actual breaking of the law election fraud.

 

The partisan bit is the Republicans crying election fraud numbering in the millions or tens of thousands without showing proof for stuff on that scale.

Edited January 16, 2018 by smjjames

[Valsuelm]

 

 

@Val: Well, I know that Republicans have been crying election fraud with little evidence to show for it. If Trump cries election fraud or rigged election in November (although he is completely aware of the challenge Republicans have) of this year or in 2020, then he'd better show the proof.

It is foolish to think that election fraud is a partisan issue. I'm going to give you some benefit of doubt and assume you're young for a moment, and don't vividly recall the cries of election fraud following the 2000 Presidential election by oodles of people, primarily democrats.

 

Indeed, if you look into it, there is ample evidence that election fraud occurred in that election on numerous levels and in numerous places, ultimately in favor of the Republicans that time around.

 

People within both parties play the evil game, and often turn a blind eye to it, as they're both greatly invested in the broken system.

 

There's a number of good documentaries on the subject, particularly many made in the wake of the 2000 election . One I especially suggest finding is 'Hacking Democracy', watching it, and thinking.

 

Also, next time you go to the ballot box, take a good look around and ponder how easy it is for the results of your polling station to be tampered with. If you come up with anything but easy as an answer you either vote in a polling station with fail-safes I've never seen or heard of, or you lack imagination.

 

Again, it is foolish to think that voter fraud is a partisan issue.

 

 

I'm 34, don't know if that's young to you. But to answer your question, yes, there was the debacle with 'hanging chads' and problems with the butterfly ballot in Florida. Democrats definetly weren't happy and they were protesting about irregularities and problems in Florida and wanted to continue the count but it got stopped. Don't remember about problems outside of Florida in 2000 though, the problems in Florida were the dominant complaint.

 

As for both parties playing the game, yeah, the Republicans do it all the time like fewer polling places, etc.

 

I know it's not a partisan issue, but I was making a distinction between dirty tricks/voter suppression election fraud which aren't illegal vs actual breaking of the law election fraud.

 

The partisan bit is the Republicans crying election fraud numbering in the millions or tens of thousands without showing proof for stuff on that scale.

 

 

The issues with the 2000 election went beyond Florida and hanging chads. It's been well over a decade since I was fresh on that election but Ohio was definitely another sticky point, as well as various peoples and business entities in Florida and elsewhere. The mainstream media just touched on the surface poo that was smeared all over that election. Like many other things in politics, the deeper you look the uglier it gets.

 

Anon.

 

I'm curious how you differentiate the underlined and bolded above. What is the difference? What election fraud isn't illegal?

[smjjames]

Reform with voting machines actually started not long after, but I just remember Florida being the main focal point.

 

To answer your question, you seemed to be making the distinction between 'dirty tricks' like reducing the number of polling places vs actual fraud, so, I was clarifying.

 

The pros and cons of various failsafes/safeguards and their effectiveness can be debated, sure, but the thing is that studies and records have shown voting fraud to be very low (a hundred or so, or less) for national, not in the rampant territory that Republicans claim. Obviously when you get down to the local election level, things are more susceptiblle to being messed with, but on the scale of national elections, it's negligible.

Edited January 16, 2018 by smjjames

[redneckdevil]

Also with low turn out, that can also give the impression of voter fraud when people don't take into account it's not a flat 50/50 of each candidate.

[Chilloutman]

by the way there are elections in CZ currently on the way, if anyone is interested just for fun you can go through this calculator with little bit of basic google translate:

 

here: https://volebnikalkulacka.cz/

 

or right there into calculator (short one with 35 questions) (probably):

 

https://volebnikalkulacka.cz/cs/prezidentske-volby-2018/?hr=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmN6Lw%3D%3D

 

its for first round, in next round we are voting from 2 who got most votes

Edited January 16, 2018 by Chilloutman

[Gromnir]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?439881-1/us-senate-debates-fisa-bill&vod

 

cspan uncut footage from US Senate for jan 17, 2018.  jeff flake speech begins at 18:16.

 

for those less conspiracy oriented, one can find the full transcript and speech in entirety at the following site.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/full-text-jeff-flake-on-trump-speech-transcript-343246

[Darkpriest]

So I heard, that you guys want to have a New California (Republic?) as another state?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/campaign-split-california-two-separate-165129797.html

[Leferd]

Nah. I’m a California Republic loyalist.

 

There ain’t no Governator Tandi coming along.

[smjjames]

So I heard, that you guys want to have a New California (Republic?) as another state?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/campaign-split-california-two-separate-165129797.html

 

It's pretty blantantly a split between Democrat and Republican areas and rural/small town/small city vs urban/suburban.

 

Also, one problem with the seccession idea is that they'd need the okay of the state legislature and of Congress. I don't see the state legislature going through with it and congressional Democrats certainly wouldn't go through with it. Actually, I don't think Republicans would neccesarily want to embrace it because it could further legitimatize separatist movements in other states, both red and blue.

 

Plus the fact that the last time any state has split into one or more parts (not counting moving territory borders around) was the Civil War.

[ShadySands]

All I can say is that there is no way that Trump is 239 lbs #girther

[HoonDing]

Trump could beat up Steven Seagal