CURRENT EVENTS July 31-Sept 27

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 61K
  • Politics 
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no real issue with Lutnick except for his visibility. He's the commerce secretary. Eh. Vance and Vought aren't in the cabinet. Obviously the worst of the worst are Zeldin, Noem, Bondi, Hed, and RFK, in no particular order. Probably Gabbard as well.

You're of course correct that somehow America (not "us") have become numb to the shitfuckery of all of this. We should expect excellent cabinet members, not stock noir villains.
Trump says they both are. Vought is explicitly included on the website, and while Vance is not, he's mentioned in the link copied below. Not sure what's up with that.

 
It created the only process. Before the constitution, states could recognize citizenship because the federal government was weak. That's why the constitution was written and adopted.
Right, each state had their own process.
So it is your theory that, in 1791, a person could show up in America and gain citizenship through some other process than provided for in the Naturalization Act? Even to ask the question is to answer it.
No. I'm saying before 1790, people could be granted citizenship by individual states.
And it's also clear that the Framers thought a lot about citizenship. If they had wanted the census to have counted citizens, they would have said so.
I'm sure they did think about citizenship. They also don't have the ability to see into the future, so they didn't know what they didn't know. Among the things the didn't know is that it would be possible to get to the US from any country in the world in a matter of hours, which would allow pregnant women to land just in time to squeeze out a "citizen". They also couldn't have predicted that the US would be positioned next to a "third" world country whose citizens would be illegally, but easily, entering the country and being counted in our census....

.... stuff like that.
 
Last edited:
I fear I may have hurt your feelings and for that I apologize. I don't believe you have sunk to ad hominem attacks in our discussions/debates before now. I have considered you a reasonable MAGA board poster , but it seems like you have unraveled a bit over the past couple of weeks.

According to the conservative RCP average of polls, Dems are favored over GQPers by 4% .

So let's get back to a rational discussion/debate regarding whether a majority of Americans support Democratic policies when it comes to the major issues.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm raveled pretty tight right now. Have a friend visiting this weekend and bringing a bottle of pappy van winkle 15yr reserve that is likely to cause me to unravel though.
That poll doesn't mean anything to me. I would think you guys would have learned your lesson about polls. The left's policies on illegal immigration, the economy, Defense, DEI, education, and crime to me were the most important issues in the election. Election results are a better indicator than polls. I think you guys lose on all those issues.
 
According to the Georgia Secretary of State's office, a person may obtain the voting ID through any County Registrar's office or any Department of Driver Services
No mail option? From a quick look it appears these offices are open M-F 8am-5pm, so someone working normal hours might have to take time off of work. That would cost them money, along with travel to the office, even if the ID is free.
 
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm raveled pretty tight right now. Have a friend visiting this weekend and bringing a bottle of pappy van winkle 15yr reserve that is likely to cause me to unravel though.
That poll doesn't mean anything to me. I would think you guys would have learned your lesson about polls. The left's policies on illegal immigration, the economy, Defense, DEI, education, and crime to me were the most important issues in the election. Election results are a better indicator than polls. I think you guys lose on all those issues.
I don't think you appreciate the extent to which Americans hold the party in power responsible for whatever they don't like. No doubt those issues (except maybe defense) were good for the GOP in 2024 when Biden was in power. But all the shit happening now will be pinned on the Pubs, whether it's fair or not. And especially where it's absolutely fair, such as prices, jobs, inflation, etc.
 
Right, each state had their own process.

No. I'm saying before 1790, people could be granted citizenship by individual states.

I'm sure they did think about citizenship. They also don't have the ability to see into the future, so they didn't know what they didn't know. Among the things the didn't know is that it would be possible to get to the US from any country in the world in a matter of hours, which would allow pregnant women to land just in time to squeeze out a "citizen". They also couldn't have predicted that the US would be positioned next to a "third" world country that would be illegally, but easily, entering the country and being counted in our census....

.... stuff like that.
Right. Before the constitution, the constitutional provisions I'm referring to didn't apply. Did you come up with that all by yourself?

The whole "Framers can't see the future" is not relevant for this question. That's a jurisprudential consideration that could be discussed on a legal theory thread. Originalism denies this as relevant. I am not an originalist. But here, we have original intent, text, and policy and nothing else going the other way. Not going to debate you on this any more, now that you've revealed your point to be pure tautology.
 
No mail option? From a quick look it appears these offices are open M-F 8am-5pm, so someone working normal hours might have to take time off of work. That would cost them money, along with travel to the office, even if the ID is free.
and don't worry, everyone has a car. Or perhaps Georgia has location all these offices in walkable or transit accessible areas?
 
Right. Before the constitution, the constitutional provisions I'm referring to didn't apply. Did you come up with that all by yourself?

The whole "Framers can't see the future" is not relevant for this question. That's a jurisprudential consideration that could be discussed on a legal theory thread. Originalism denies this as relevant. I am not an originalist. But here, we have original intent, text, and policy and nothing else going the other way. Not going to debate you on this any more, now that you've revealed your point to be pure tautology.
Zen is just forecasting the next stage of "originalism" to be embraced by the Trump Court.
 
No mail option? From a quick look it appears these offices are open M-F 8am-5pm, so someone working normal hours might have to take time off of work. That would cost them money, along with travel to the office, even if the ID is free.
Bullshit. If people want to vote they will find a way. The insistence that any effort at all required = disenfranchisement is just an excuse. The cost of an ID has been addressed. Again, the biggest disenfranchisement in history occurred in the last election.
 
What is your objection to requiring a free ID in 2025? Please don't tell me because people can't get to where ID's could be made? Because that doesn't apply to 34 million people.

I don't have an objection in theory. But I find the 34 million number astounding, and I'd like to understand why 34M people don't have IDs - and how they are able to manage life without one - before I offer a specific remedy.
 
What is perplexing to me is why an undocumented immigrant would be motivated to cast a fraudulent vote in an election ?
There is no evidence this has happened in elections.

But I remain open to see documentation from Calla and ram that this is a problem that requires "voter ID" beyond the normal checks regarding my name and address to be sure I am voting in the correct precinct.
 
Bullshit. If people want to vote they will find a way. The insistence that any effort at all required = disenfranchisement is just an excuse. The cost of an ID has been addressed. Again, the biggest disenfranchisement in history occurred in the last election.
Isn't it weird that the "BIGGEST DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN HISTORY!!!!" is only complained about by the people who were not impacted by it? Maybe that's one of those hyperboles you've been so determined to call out?
 
I don't have an objection in theory. But I find the 34 million number astounding, and I'd like to understand why 34M people don't have IDs - and how they are able to manage life without one - before I offer a specific remedy.
Not my number. Someone else threw it out. Doesn't matter if its 34 million or 24 million. The number, as you said is astounding.
 
Isn't it weird that the "BIGGEST DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN HISTORY!!!!" is only complained about by the people who were not impacted by it? Maybe that's one of those hyperboles you've been so determined to call out?
If you don't care that you had no say in who the dim nominee was that's on you. Still doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also, kind of undermines the left's argument about disenfranchisement with respect to any other issue. "Hey, its ok if we do it to our own peeps, but....."
 
First, I see little to no burden in presenting an ID to vote in an election. We show ID for almost everything we do so why exempt voting? You can't enter a Federal Courthouse without presenting a valid ID and surrendering your phone.

Second, requiring ID adds confidence in voting in elections. You may dismiss the R's concerns in the voting in 2020 but the concerns were real and actually discouraged hundreds of thousands of citizens to not vote in the Senate run off the election in January 2021. Isn't the goal to encourage more, not less, people to vote? Georgia's new voting laws helped re establish confidence in voting in elections - the law has received almost universal praise in the State.

Third, deterrence. Requiring a valid ID will discourage any individuals or groups even thinking about committing voter fraud.

I'm not for making people jump through meaningless hoops just for the fun of it, but I don't think requiring an ID to vote falls into that category.
I guess this qualifies as a thoughtful response from you, so thank you. I still have questions:

1. What do you mean, "the concerns were real"? Sure, they were real, but they were completely unfounded. So is that how we should be making policy? It's the government's job to protect people from threats that don't actually exist? This is the goal?

2. What about concerns among minorities and liberals that polling place voting requirements are going to be used for disenfranchisement? I mean, those concerns are both real and founded, given that many of the people most affected by these requirements literally grew up and reached adulthood in an era when they were not allowed to vote because of poll taxes, literacy tests, and so forth.

But let's say those concerns are outdated, and today are not founded. If we're making policy to protect people from non-existent threats, then how do you resolve this dispute? One group says, without foundation, that there's voting fraud. One group says the anti-fraud measures are disenfranchising. What principle do you suggest to sort this out, other than just a preference for white people?

3. People who didn't vote because they thought the election was rigged were stupid. That was a bad decision. I don't care about that at all.

4. You've spoken negatively about preclearance. I find that hard to reconcile with your current stance, since one of the points of preclearance was to establish confidence in the elections. The Voting Rights Act said, basically, "the DOJ is always on the case and will protect you from disenfranchising shenanigans, so the elections are not actually rigged." So if you want people to be confident in elections, you would favor preclearance. Is there any actual reason you don't, other than a preference for white people?

5. You didn't answer my question about deterrence so I will pose it again: how much should we invest in deterring non-threats? Should the school have spent $100 to put a button lock to prevent someone from stealing a 1000 pound, $1500 machine? Should we also have anti-alligator patrols in the sewers, to make sure that they don't get out and start chomping people in downtown Manhattan.

At what point is deterrence overkill, and even harmful because of its side effects? Are there any other non-problems you'd like to focus on? Why isn't the deterrence that we already have enough?

And as long as we are into deterrence, let's game this out. Homicide is illegal, but that's clearly not enough deterrence because still have homicides. What if we imposed a prophylactic measure to add additional deterrence? You know, like gun control. Is there any reason you are hostile to deterrence in one area but not the other, except for a preference for white people?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top