2016 Presidential Horse Race

[connor_in]

A little late with that plan, it was accomplished in 1968. Hillary's plan is a little more down to earth. Sorry, Donald, the country has to pay its bills and can't go bankrupt over and over until they get it right. What worked for you in private business isn't an option for the greatest country in the world.

Dude, seriously? Kind of a big date in human history

 

[GATTACA!]

We already know we can put a man on the moon. Hillary is trying to get equal pay for women, an end to institutional discrimination, and universal health care -- you know, things that have eluded this country for its entire existence. Oh yeah, and she is calling for a massive renewal of aging infrastructure and working to quell the rapid warming of the planet that will result in world wide calamity. That is not only bold, but it constructive and purposeful. What purpose is there for landing a shuttle on the moon that is greater than pulling families out of poverty or preventing Atlanta from becoming Atlantis?

LOL the same candidate that pays her female staffers 38% less than their male counterparts??

She's a lying hypocrite.

 

[ACamp1900]

Let's please just grow up and be real on one point..., the Democrats don't give one shit about equality or anything else unless they can use that 'movement' to funnel tax dollars to those that financially back them, claim political ownership over whatever group they claim to be helping, dumb down every political battle to its most simplistic and most emotional terms, or generally expand their scope of power... The notion that the left is genuinely alturistic or cares about equality and 'the people' is one of the biggest myths in politics today, and frankly, the endless droning on about it is a pretty easy way to find the children in the room IMO... Neither of these parties give a shit about anything but their own power, letting that sink in is step number 1 that many seem to just refuse to accept.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Let's get one thing very clear, the Democrats don't give one shit about equality for anything els unless they can use that 'movement' to funnel tax dollars to those that financially back them, claim political ownership over whatever group they claim to be helping or generally expand their scope of power,... The notion that the left is genuinely alturistic or cares about equality and 'the people' is the biggest myth in politics today, and frankly, the endless droning on about it is the single easiest way to find the children in the room IMO... Neither of these parties give a shit about anything but their own power, letting that sink in is step number 1 that many seem to just refuse to accept.

Yessir. I also mentioned this in the thread a few nights ago, and the main reason I am in favor of a limited central government and states' rights.

 

[GATTACA!]

Let's get one thing very clear, the Democrats don't give one shit about equality or anything else unless they can use that 'movement' to funnel tax dollars to those that financially back them, claim political ownership over whatever group they claim to be helping, dumb down every political battle to its most simplistic and most emotional terms, or generally expand their scope of power... The notion that the left is genuinely alturistic or cares about equality and 'the people' is one of the biggest myths in politics today, and frankly, the endless droning on about it is a pretty easy way to find the children in the room IMO... Neither of these parties give a shit about anything but their own power, letting that sink in is step number 1 that many seem to just refuse to accept.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

How do these facts differ from the last thirty years of presidential elections?

Trump is doubling down on the phenomena. And he is ignoring any other group to concentrate on this.

A certain block of voters see themselves as the beacon of freedom and the protectors of morality handed down by God almighty. Period.

Does this mean that the predominantly white, over-class is wrong? Or all crazy? Hell No.

With every success, our culture gains more confidence in their believes! And that is very normal and human behavior!

Have you ever watched a Trump speech in its entirety? Or any political speech at all in its entirety?

I learned a big lesson lately, taught to me by a journalist and political commentator. When we were speaking he interrupted me and explained about perspective. He told me that like him, I had the perspective of listening to every word, where most people who will make a decision on November 8th, and are expressing themselves today, and building that opinion toward an intent to come to consensus, listen only to the 10 second sound bites.

Huge! That concept is absolutely huge!

So, when you watch a Trump speech, and keep yourself paying attention (It is in my own opinion much easier reading James Joyce's stream of conscious writing style, than following a Trump speech.) you see certain themes rise out of the soup.

Last night in Denver, one of if not the key line was something akin to "When I was younger American won every war." Yes it was a defense of his indefensible statement that the American military is in shambles, (a point for fearmongering.)

And more brilliantly it allows Donald Trump the Republican candidate who is openly talking about assaultive violence, perpetrated on individuals, organizations, and governments, obviously including offensive war of dubious morality, to give those who get aroused by the same their orgasms! And all the while it still distanced himself, Donald Trump candidate for President 2916, from the shit-show the Bush Administration (Rump-Chen-owitz) made of the American military and the incursions themselves by getting the US into IRAQ (the one that was so dubious it was beyond the Spanish American War,) and Afghanistan at the same time!

This is right out of the playbook of a serial abuser, wife beater. It is textbook by the numbers. Trump is playing a group of people in American that have become fearful, because the static of their cognitive dissonance is increasing, so much so that they can no longer ignore it, more of the drug they need to remain in their own little worlds, secure in their knowledge that they are right and good, and everyone else has the problem.

Reminding that group that America is always right, as a truism, without any qualification or application of moral or ethical scrutiny is for Donald and that group the equivalent of providing a free, somewhat legal speedball! It is the dope that his audience wants and needs, and for it they are willing to put any mindfulness aside. Is Donald bad? Probably not. Are these people bad? Definitely not!

But the behavior is as sick and dangerous as just about any. Just like with an interpersonal relationship between any abuser and his victim, both the abuser and the abused get something. In neither case, of course, is it healthy.

For this country I truly believe it is a bad connection between the over-class, and Donald Trump.

People talk continually about dark forces contributing to the choices (or lack thereof) we have in this years elections.

First, we have to take out the negatives we add because of our prejudices. We all do. I personally have always believed the Clintons were smarmy as hell. My prejudice was formed by my observation of the hypocrisy of the upper classes, plenty of personal examples I have witnessed in my life.

And people need to frame the context of an American Presidential election :

With two candidates, chances are we are going to feel any are fairly inadequate.
There has to be an incredible narcissistic influence on the personality of every successful candidate.
Our view of our present candidates is skewed by 20-20 hindsight, and the loving kindness of history. (Bottom line, many past Presidents were nowhere as highly regarded in their lifetime as they are by us now.)
Media. And I believe this actually good. But it has to be understood. Today if a candidate farts, we hear about it.

Therefore, images cannot be built as they once were. No more one life to give's, no more Cherry Trees, etc. Camelot ended not because Kennedy was any less moral than any other president, technology just got a whole lot better.

So our choice isn't that bad this time. It is status quo versus a new direction. It is about picking what we as Americans label as our values in this changing time.

My proof? Bernie Sanders inserted each of his issues into the Democratic platform. The Democratic Platform has not been attacked as Socialist once by any Republicans! Instead, some people want to be mad at Bernie. Like he 'sold out!'

What BS! First that Sanders hasn't been the most wildly effective candidate of the 21st century; this is what successful politics is all about folks. Bernie owns this election! He is the president maker, and if Hillary wins, she is force to include him in her administration, much as Obama had to include her. Because Hillary can't do anything if she has to work against him, with all her other opposition. And what is in it for him? He can get things done without have the criticism and extra scrutiny reserved for the POTUS!

So all those Sanders backers that think he sold out, they all want the person, Bernie, not what he stands for, so what do Americans really deserve? Those who want Hillary solely for her being a woman, what do Americans really deserve? And those that cannot get behind a candidate who never quits, even though they (and I am in this group) personally find her repugnant? What do Americans deserve.

Have any of you ever listened to a complete Donald Trump speech? So, any one that says yes and claims that his speech is cogent, organized, and makes any kind of sense? What do Americans really deserve?

 

[MJ12666]

If you go back to my original argument that the Republicans need to be more inclusive, then efforts directed at limiting the voting of particular voting blocks (Blacks, Hispanics, etc.) are exactly what is preventing them from being more inclusive. I'll grant you that Donald Trump does not represent the entire Republican party with his racist comments, but Donald Trump is not spear-heading these efforts to keep Democratic voting blocks from the polls. That is being done by Republican state legislatures and Republican governors.

If Democrats are trying to limit or hinder the ability of Republicans to vote, I condemn those actions as well. There should be no tolerance for either party's efforts to inhibit people from exercising their constitutional right to vote. But the overwhelming evidence is that this is a concerted Republican effort to minimize the effect of changing demographics that favor the policies of Democrats. The Democrats have no motivation for restricting voting. Smaller turnouts benefit the opposition.

Every American citizen should be encouraged to vote: Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party, Independent, etc. And obstacles should not be placed in their way. Do you have a problem with every American citizen exercising their voting rights?

The evidence is pretty compelling. Democrats benefit from large voter turnouts. Republicans benefit when turnout is smaller. In presidential election years when the turnout is larger, Democratic candidates do much better. In the off-election years, when the turnout is relatively small, the Republican candidates do much better. Now tell me, who benefits when voting rights are inhibited?

Agreed. But this study suggests that many more non-citizens are voting.

Nearly 200,000 Florida Voters May Not Be Citizens | NBC 6 South Florida

 

[EddytoNow]

Agreed. But this study suggests that many more non-citizens are voting.

Nearly 200,000 Florida Voters May Not Be Citizens | NBC 6 South Florida

The study you cite refers to the 2012 election, as it refers to Mitt Romney as the likely nominee. And I have no problem with removing people from the list of eligible voters if you discover mistakes or fraud. My problem is with rules, regulations, laws passed specifically to depress voter turnout among those who are eligible to vote.

 

[kmoose]

The study you cite refers to the 2012 election, as it refers to Mitt Romney as the likely nominee. And I have no problem with removing people from the list of eligible voters if you discover mistakes or fraud. My problem is with rules, regulations, laws passed specifically to depress voter turnout among those who are eligible to vote.

Here is the problem with this line of thinking..........

Your qualifier of "laws passed specifically to depress voter turnout". That's a matter of opinon. Laws that you claim are designed to depress voter turnout, their authors maintain are simply to guard against voter fraud. So you can't just say, "Well, the other party is obviously trying to suppress voter turnout amongst people that it cannot count on to vote 'the right way'."

How about this...........

How about a certain percentage of all campaign contributions in national elections goes into a fund. That fund pays for your(I think it was you) idea to register every citizen when they turn 18 and give them a voter ID card. In return, people HAVE to have a valid voter ID card in order to vote in any election, national or local. If you lose the card, or if the card is stolen, you are required to report it to the police. If someone is found to be illegally voting with your card, and you have not reported it lost or stolen, then you will face criminal charges as well. You must surrender your old card, and get a new card with an updated photo, every 12 years.

Sound fair?

 

[EddytoNow]

Here is the problem with this line of thinking..........

Your qualifier of "laws passed specifically to depress voter turnout". That's a matter of opinon. Laws that you claim are designed to depress voter turnout, their authors maintain are simply to guard against voter fraud. So you can't just say, "Well, the other party is obviously trying to suppress voter turnout amongst people that it cannot count on to vote 'the right way'."

How about this...........

How about a certain percentage of all campaign contributions in national elections goes into a fund. That fund pays for your(I think it was you) idea to register every citizen when they turn 18 and give them a voter ID card. In return, people HAVE to have a valid voter ID card in order to vote in any election, national or local. If you lose the card, or if the card is stolen, you are required to report it to the police. If someone is found to be illegally voting with your card, and you have not reported it lost or stolen, then you will face criminal charges as well. You must surrender your old card, and get a new card with an updated photo, every 12 years.

Sound fair?

I like the first part where everyone is registered to vote at 18. Not so much in favor of making a lost voter ID card a crime if not reported to police. Populations mistrustful of the police, which unfortunately includes most minority groups, would be less likely to report missing cards. And gun owners aren't held criminally liable when a lost or stolen gun is used to commit a crime, so it seems a stretch to make a lost voter ID card the basis for criminal charges.

 

[MJ12666]

The study you cite refers to the 2012 election, as it refers to Mitt Romney as the likely nominee. And I have no problem with removing people from the list of eligible voters if you discover mistakes or fraud. My problem is with rules, regulations, laws passed specifically to depress voter turnout among those who are eligible to vote.

There were quite a few articles on this topic but honestly I just referenced this one because it was from NBC (hardly to be confused with a right wing organization) and I took the time to read it. 2012 was the last presidential election so I am not sure why this story is not relevant. It is more likely then not that the number (at least in Florida) has gone up then gone down. My understanding is that when someone applies for a drivers license in Florida (whether they are a citizen or not) they get a voter application. This is resulting in non-citizens registering and voting. They are not hiding the fact that they are not citizens they are simply registering because they get the application and conclude it is legal to do so,

 

[kmoose]

I like the first part where everyone is registered to vote at 18. Not so much in favor of making a lost voter ID card a crime if not reported to police. Populations mistrustful of the police, which unfortunately includes most minority groups, would be less likely to report missing cards. And gun owners aren't held criminally liable when a lost or stolen gun is used to commit a crime, so it seems a stretch to make a lost voter ID card the basis for criminal charges.

Actually...... if you hold people liable for the use of their card if it is lost or stolen, how does that make people LESS likely to report the loss/theft? It makes them MORE likely to. That way, their ass is covered if someone else gets caught using it. I'm sick and tired of hearing about what minority groups are less likely to do. They have to contribute their fair share. They can't ask to be treated like everyone else, and then get special consideration when it comes to making laws.

So let's change the gun law as well.

 

[GoIrish41]

Are you really this blind to sarcasm? I feel sorry for you, man. What a miserable lot in life....

In fairness, I can't distinguish your sarcasm from your actual points because your actual points are usually so bizarre.

 

[pkt77242]

Child please. You have done nothing but LOL, whine, and throw out logic that my 7 year old niece could do better than, in this thread.

You're a sheep because you can't stand a single criticism of your party's candidate. A candidate that I doubt you even supported, at the start of the Primary cycle. But because she has a D next to her name, you are going to defend her against every single criticism, real or imaginary. I called you a sheep not because you think I lost an argument. I called you a sheep because you are acting like one. You're defying every single valid criticism of your candidate. But then again, you can find racism in every nook and cranny, too. So maybe my personal bar for you is set too high. I'll lower my expectations to meet your inadequacies. See! I can be a Democrat, too!!!

kmoose = ambidextrous! Wait, that makes me bi........... so any criticism you level at me is just further evidence of your bigoted sexual hate speech!! You are a TERRIBLE person!

Why do you hate puppies?

As usual you are wrong. There are real things to complain about Hilary (emails, Clinton Foundation etc). I did vote for Hilary during the primary (though I don't particularly love Hilary or Bernie, I find them both lacking). I have stated my ideal D ticket would have been Kaine and Julian Castro. I have also stated that I would consider voting for Kasich if he had won the R primary.

Your blind hatred of Hilary shows. You find every real and imagined reason to criticize her. You created an imaginary reason to criticize the Moody report (when the real criticism is that economic predictions are rarely very accurate). For some reason mentioning Hilary to you gets your panties in a bunch.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

It is interesting that people think the Second Amendment automatically gives every citizen the right to carry a gun.

Just as it is interesting to think it is legal to force anyone to have a voter ID card.

It is kind of backwards.

The only right to own guns citizens have is to protect everyone's rights, liberties, and safety. Free carry (not concealed carry) is the equivalent to eliminating those that practice medicine the requirement to obtain a license to practice.

Where we can actually point to the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights as a place that we can get a pretty good idea of what the Founding Fathers had in mind, we don't see any kind of specificity in the Constitution for voting. Why?

I don't think the Founding Fathers considered voting any different than breathing. They endeavored to create a government where the power of making decisions moved from a single individual exercising a divine right, through a group of enlightened aristocratic individuals who were the only ones educated to make important decisions, to a form of government where everyone had a say.

There were two problems that faced the Founding Fathers : No one had any idea of how such a government would actually work; and, their vision was so superior, and ahead of their actuality as humans that the distance created a large void, and the large void needed to be filled, and it was with the hypocrisy and shortcoming of the age.

The Founding Fathers specifically stated all men. And the use of men by them was not gender specific.

On the other hand, none of them actually believed that their was a common brotherhood that included all men, not as we do today! And we have the view we do today because of what we were able to learn from the privilege and advantage of growing up in the system they devised over 240 years ago! So they let the politicians and bureaucrats that came after them regulate things trusting that they were right, and those that followed them would transfer more benefits (as they saw fit) from the additional wisdom they gained from the pursuits they were able with the greatest freedoms the broadest group of individual have ever been afforded.

I like to believe that they knew they were 'imperfect,' and were trying to be 'more perfect,' but not yet as far along the way as they needed to be. Not with stewarding the most important social idea in human history!

So they specifically decided to not mention it, so as not to limit the results by their own imperfect or limited view. At the same time they considered it the most precious of the rights and duties of a citizen.

So they wanted no limitations on voters, as little burden as possible.

And remember a few facts about the Founding Fathers :

• They decided African and Irish slaves should count as 3/5 of a 'person;' Care to defend that today?
• They allowed the original politicians and bureaucrats to determine that the original voters be 'free, white, male, 21 years of age, and landowners;' Which of these restrictions is still held today?

We can go on and talk about the only place anything was specified about the electorate was much later in the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery,) the 14th Amendment (defining Citizenship, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause,), the 15th, 19th, and 20th Amendments.

But the point is it is our duty to extend the rights to vote as far as we can.

If you say this person is too stupid, I ask you what we need to do to educate them?
If you say this group is too mean spirited, I ask you what we need to do to ameliorate their spite?
If you say 'they' will change this great republic, I ask you is it righteous? Should this republic be changed?

Guess who said that?

Anyone with more than an uninformed view of history can see that as our nation became more inclusive, we became stronger and greater!

Our nation will not be measured in its greatness by any score card that rates issues of trade, commerce, morality, or war. Our country will only be measured by two things, the imaginations of our citizens as to what is possible, and the passion we pursue it and persevere until it becomes reality!

 

[kmoose]

As usual you are wrong. There are real things to complain about Hilary (emails, Clinton Foundation etc). I did vote for Hilary during the primary (though I don't particularly love Hilary or Bernie, I find them both lacking). I have stated my ideal D ticket would have been Kaine and Julian Castro. I have also stated that I would consider voting for Kasich if he had won the R primary.

So you were for Hillary before you were against Hillary? Brilliant!!!

It's funny how you find Hillary lacking, but you're planning to vote for her, for President.

Your blind hatred of Hilary shows.

Good, except that it's not blind! I think that woman and her husband exemplify everything that is wrong in American government today. I think that electing her will simply guarantee a continuation of the absolutely shitty governance that we have had for a long time now.

You created an imaginary reason to criticize the Moody report (when the real criticism is that economic predictions are rarely very accurate).

No, I didn't. I questioned the assessment that Hillary's economic plan will create 10.4 million NET jobs. You threw out the Moody report, and told me that it WAS net jobs. I still question the prediction. There might be 10.4M new jobs, 4 years from now. But nowhere did it predict how many jobs will be lost, due to the tax increases on businesses. It did assess the likely job loss due to the hike in the minimum wage, but not once did it mention job losses due to higher taxes on businesses. Nor did it guesstimate how many jobs will be lost to her involvement with even more shitty trade deals like NAFTA and TPP. It might well end up being 10.4M net. But you sure as hell can't say that with any confidence, today.

 

[johnnycando]

I wish we had better candidates.

Not gonna lie.

Ultimately we do have to vote our convictions, and the things our party stands for although I cannot recall the said party winners ever doing anything to change the world.

This Russia hack thing is getting complex and ugly. It's almost like they want us to know they're doing it.

The cold war was ugly too. I remember fear in the 80's of what could be.

Now, it seems Putin wants that back badly. They say a nation is most efficient during a "war." I hope he's not gunning to "Make Russia Great Again." <-- That never happened.

Amirite?

 

[dshans]

... My understanding is that when someone applies for a drivers license in Florida (whether they are a citizen or not) they get a voter application.

Let me tell you a little story .... Not about a man named Jed – or Jose or Stanislav or Olaf or Kahlid.

I relocated to FL back in January. In order to buy a car (I'd been without a car my last four or five years in MN – the bus and the kindness of friends and family were more than enough to suit my needs.) I decided to buy a car.

Well, I needed to provide, along with my MN license, a "hard" copy of both my Social Security Card, my Birth Certificate plus proof of auto insurance and proof of residency (I thought ahead and had a copy of my lease) in order to get a license – also necessary to buy the damn car and have it registered in my name in FL.

Well, I jumped through all the hoops. The state of NY (New York County, Manhattan) only asked for $15 to replace something that had been reduced to shreds and dust 30 years before. Reasonable. However, fees for processing and shipping upped it to $40. It only took a month and a half.

I was also required to present a "hard" copy of my Social Security Card. I don't think that I'd had or needed that flimsy piece of paper for 45 years. There was no cost, but I burned a day (and a bit of gasoline) to get it.

I got the license and was able to register to vote at the DMV. Although it was another long day and another gallon or two of gas, I felt good: a Twofer! Shortly after I got my voter registration card and the location of my polling place in the mail.

To wrap up this little saga, about a month later I strolled over to vote in the presidential primary. There might have been 2 other voters in the room with a poll staff of six. I casually mentioned that I'd recently relocated from MN. The staffer asked to see my drivers license/ID, commenting that she hoped it was from FL not MN. Who knows what might have happened had I only a MN DL or ID.

She swiped the magnetic strip on my brand spanking new never-been-out-of-my-wallet license three times. Rejected, Rejected, Rejected. Forty-five minutes later, with many questions and a ton of tip-ta-typing on her laptop I was allowed to vote.

As a matter of expediency and practicality I registered as a Democrat. It took all of 15 seconds to mark my ballot and feed it into the reader.

A whole lotta bullshit for 15 seconds.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Voter registration hoops are greater in real life than in fictional internet arguments, aren't they?

 

[kmoose]

Voter registration hoops are greater in real life than in fictional internet arguments, aren't they?

Not really. If you know that you are going to need those documents at 18 years of age, the odds are that you will have them someplace safe, where you can find them. If you lose track of them, then that's really on you, not the law.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

So you were for Hillary before you were against Hillary? Brilliant!!!

It's funny how you find Hillary lacking, but you're planning to vote for her, for President.

Can't imagine why anybody would do that...it's a good thing that the GOP nominated such a great candidate

Good, except that it's not blind! I think that woman and her husband exemplify everything that is wrong in American government today. I think that electing her will simply guarantee a continuation of the absolutely shitty governance that we have had for a long time now.

Care to elaborate on the "shitty governance" part? How many times in the last 8 years have we heard that Obama was the worst President ever?

Unemployment under 5 percent, 16 million more people have health insurance due to Obamacare, an end to major involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Doesn't seem that bad.

 

[kmoose]

Care to elaborate on the "shitty governance" part? How many times in the last 8 years have we heard that Obama was the worst President ever?

I don't have any big beef with Obama. I think he gave it an honest effort. But do the names Ted Cruz, Randall Tobias Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Jack Abramoff, and John Boehner ring any bells? Governance is not strictly limited to the Presidency, and my larger beef with piss poor governance is with the Congress and non-President members of the Executive Branch. But it is apt here because HRC was part of that, both in Congress and in the Cabinet.

Unemployment under 5 percent, 16 million more people have health insurance due to Obamacare, an end to major involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Doesn't seem that bad.

Yeah, the electorate is so pissed off because everything is hunky dory! Hell, even his own SecState is saying that government is broken and isn't serving large chunks of the nation.

 

[dshans]

Not really. If you know that you are going to need those documents at 18 years of age, the odds are that you will have them someplace safe, where you can find them. If you lose track of them, then that's really on you, not the law.

WTF?

The last time I needed a copy of my Birth Certificate was when I signed up for Little League in 1960. My mother had to go through the same BS to get a notarized copy from NYC.

My paper SS Card turned to pulp when I was tossed into St. Mary's Lake as an 18 year old freshman at ND in 1970. By then I had memorized the number and never needed the actual "card" until I hit FL this year.

The IRS and Social Security don't need to see the fucking card – they look up the number on their MS/DOS computers and recognize me as being me.

Any 18 year old worth their salt is fluid and a bit flakey. You expect them to have a Safe Deposit Box or a fire resistant lock box or even a dedicated drawer in their dorm room or even a dedicated drawer in the Ikea desk in their barely livable apartment shared with three other irresponsible slobs?

Get real.

 

[wizards8507]

A whole lotta bullshit for 15 seconds.

Three points.

1. Much of the bullshit you dealt with was vehicle-specific, and you wouldn't have had to deal with it if you were only getting a photo ID.

2. Every single state that has proposed voter ID has also proposed to make the process free and streamlined.

3. Many states don't require a trip to the DMV to register to vote. You can do it online in many states. The photo ID isn't necessary until polling day.

4. It sounds like something in the system was broken or glitchy when you went to vote and your ID was rejected. I don't think we should judge a system to be a failure based on the worst case scenario. I can say in the last ten years I've a drivers license from Rhode Island, Florida, and Connecticut at various points. I've voted in Indiana, Florida, and Connecticut, including the 2008 general election, during which I voted in Indiana with a Rhode Island driver's license.

5. You would have had to go through all the bullshit to drive your car in Florida even if you never wanted to vote. Odds are, the vast majority of people will have to get a photo ID anyways, so there is no marginal burden associated with using it to vote. And no, the small percentage of people who otherwise wouldn't get an ID are not the poorest and neediest, as state benefits are among the reasons to get an ID besides voting.

WTF?

The last time I needed a copy of my Birth Certificate was when I signed up for Little League in 1960. My mother had to go through the same BS to get a notarized copy from NYC.

My paper SS Card turned to pulp when I was tossed into St. Mary's Lake as an 18 year old freshman at ND in 1970. By then I had memorized the number and never needed the actual "card" until I hit FL this year.

The IRS and Social Security don't need to see the fucking card – they look up the number on their MS/DOS computers and recognize me as being me.

Any 18 year old worth their salt is fluid and a bit flakey. You expect them to have a Safe Deposit Box or a fire resistant lock box or even a dedicated drawer in their dorm room or even a dedicated drawer in the Ikea desk in their barely livable apartment shared with three other irresponsible slobs?

Get real.

Your irresponsibility is nobody's fault but your own, with all due respect.

 

[kmoose]

WTF?

The last time I needed a copy of my Birth Certificate was when I signed up for Little League in 1960. My mother had to go through the same BS to get a notarized copy from NYC.

My paper SS Card turned to pulp when I was tossed into St. Mary's Lake as an 18 year old freshman at ND in 1970. By then I had memorized the number and never needed the actual "card" until I hit FL this year.

The IRS and Social Security don't need to see the fucking card – they look up the number on their MS/DOS computers and recognize me as being me.

Any 18 year old worth their salt is fluid and a bit flakey. You expect them to have a Safe Deposit Box or a fire resistant lock box or even a dedicated drawer in their dorm room or even a dedicated drawer in the Ikea desk in their barely livable apartment shared with three other irresponsible slobs?

Get real.

I wasn't trying to insinuate that you were irresponsible. As you pointed out, you never really thought to safeguard those things. But you didn't expect to need them to register to vote, either. I would guess that, had you known that you were going to need them, you might have held on to a notarized copy of your birth certificate. I never needed one, until I couldn't get an Oregon DL because my SS card was laminated. The lamination was still protecting my 8 year old self's signature on the card. So I had to jump through hoops to get a replacement. I now have a certified copy that I keep in a legal sized envelope along with some other important papers. I don't expect them to have a safe deposit box, no. But I don't expect most 18 year olds to be living on their own, on their 18th birthday(in a barely livable apartment shared with three other irresponsible slobs), either.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

I don't have any big beef with Obama. I think he gave it an honest effort. But do the names Ted Cruz, Randall Tobias Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Jack Abramoff, and John Boehner ring any bells? Governance is not strictly limited to the Presidency, and my larger beef with piss poor governance is with the Congress and non-President members of the Executive Branch. But it is apt here because HRC was part of that, both in Congress and in the Cabinet.

Fair

Yeah, the electorate is so pissed off because everything is hunky dory! Hell, even his own SecState is saying that government is broken and isn't serving large chunks of the nation.

If the electorate was truly pissed off, Trump would be winning. His platform is: "here's a bunch of bad stuff, elect me and I can fix it".

I feel like the events between now and November will have a big impact. Will there be (many) more mass shootings? ISIS attacks? Anything along those lines plays to his favor.

Which is ironic, because Hillary is more likely to actually be aggressive from a military standpoint. Something that I think a lot of Democrats either don't really know, or are trying to not think about.

 

[kmoose]

Fair



If the electorate was truly pissed off, Trump would be winning. His platform is: "here's a bunch of bad stuff, elect me and I can fix it".

I feel like the events between now and November will have a big impact. Will there be (many) more mass shootings? ISIS attacks? Anything along those lines plays to his favor.

Which is ironic, because Hillary is more likely to actually be aggressive from a military standpoint. Something that I think a lot of Democrats either don't really know, or are trying to not think about.

If the electorate were NOT truly pissed off, we probably would have one or two GOOD choices...

 

[Irish Insanity]

Trump for President

HRC for Prison

 

[ACamp1900]

Trump for President

HRC for Prison

I'm absolutely all in on one of these,... No italics or humor at all... I'll let you all take a wild guess.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

If the electorate were NOT truly pissed off, we probably would have one or two GOOD choices...

Shrug. I think it's just because Kasich et al are terrible politicians. No message, no reason to get excited about them.

Often the best politicians are the least effective once they reach office, and vice-versa. Unfortunately.

Hillary was always going to be the Dem nominee regardless.