The End is Nigh: US Presidential Election Thread Part XVI

[gump]

The GOP and Roberts Court attack on the Voting Rights Act worked exactly as they expected:

https://www.thenation.com/article/th...-story-of-2016

The instances of hate crimes I've seen reported over the last 24 hours are fucking scary.

__________________

[TinKnight]

Google "hate crimes" and press news.

Law and Order folks.

[Moonlit_Angel]

And yet the Republicans have the nerve to act like they're so concerned about voter fraud.

Ugh.

[bono_212]

What does "strict" ID mean. Jw.

[LemonMelon]

A driver's license would be strict ID, I'm guessing. Maybe they just had a school ID or something.

[gump]

Yeah, I think WI law requires photo IDs. Not sure what strict means in that context.

[bono_212]

Why is it considered wrong to expect people to bring their ID to vote? Serious question, I always have mine with me so I'm struggling to connect with the issue. I want to understand, though.

[nbelcik]

There are people doing blackface on campus at my school. This is what Trump has brought. Fuck everyone who voted for that racist orange clown.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

The Berners who spent 12 months talking about her like she was the anti-Christ and then pretending she and Trump were no different have a lot to answer for.

There's a big difference. Big. Huge.

Virtually every person of color (or white personmarried to a POC and with mixed race children) I know has expressed fear and trepidation today. They don't know how to explain to their children that the incoming president believes their lives are inferior to white lives.

If you voted for Trump, you've contributed to a climate of fear for children of color everywhere. The man you voted for espoused nakedly racist policies and used nakedly racist language, and curried favor with the alt-right and the KKK.

But that's ok because Hillary sent some emails.

[TinKnight]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

If you voted for Trump, you've contributed to a climate of fear for children of color everywhere. The man you voted for espoused nakedly racist policies and used nakedly racist language, and curried favor with the alt-right and the KKK.

But that's ok because Hillary sent some emails.

I don't think people understand the gravity of this.

Sure, YOU may not be saying racist things, and YOU might not like the KKK, but the KKK LOVES Donald Trump.

You have elected a man that has normalized hatred. You cannot take the high road and say "Hey now, now you're just as ignorant as the racists!" You refused to stand up to bullies. You refused to stand up for people who are different than you.

There will be long lasting effects from this. Not just laws. Culture. I hope you're ready for the divide that YOU helped create. If you start to notice that PoC start judging you differently, that is because YOU have shown that you are complicit in a more dangerous America.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Why is it considered wrong to expect people to bring their ID to vote? Serious question, I always have mine with me so I'm struggling to connect with the issue. I want to understand, though.

It's a way of disfranchising people. I'm going to talk about this from an Australian perspective for fairly obvious reasons (and may overlook certain common American forms of ID), but you can draw obvious parallels to the US as the principles are broad. We don't require any voter ID here, but people - usually but not always on the right, with non-existent fears of voter fraud - sometimes call for it. But think about it: people in remote Indigenous communities usually do not have IDs; they can't afford it, or they lead traditional lifestyles, etc., and live massive distances from anywhere that can issue the IDs. Poor people cannot afford passports and those in particular hardship cannot afford to drive, or to learn to drive. Elderly, frail people no longer have driver's licences or passports because they are housebound.

Possessing ID such as a driver's licence or a passport implies a certain degree of wealth and a certain position within society - that you have enough money to be mobile and obtain the documents that permit you to enjoy that mobility. Even if other forms of ID are accepted, such as student cards, it requires a certain access to - and cultural value of - education, often beyond the means of some marginalised communities.

And speaking personally, the burden also falls on the disabled. As some of you know, I am legally blind (though in daily life I choose to pass as sighted, since my vision is sufficiently good to enable me to do so). Because of my social position I have a current passport and use it as my ID - though being the sort of document it is, I sure don't carry it on me all the time. But many disabled are poor and/or lack mobility, so they cannot afford and/or aren't able to undertake international travel, and therefore they don't have passports. They obviously can't drive either. If I did not have a passport, I would not have acceptable ID. There are "proof of age" cards, but they vary from state to state and when I was an undergrad I was too poor to afford one in Victoria (and whether they would be accepted as voter ID is an open question!).

If that's tl;dr, here's a sample of people who wouldn't be able to vote under strict ID rules:
- a young Indigenous man who lives a traditional lifestyle in a remote community and lacks money to acquire ID, let alone the access to anywhere that could issue one.
- an elderly lady in a retirement village who can no longer drive or travel internationally.
- a homeless person who begs for money and food in the inner city.
- somebody with the same visual problems as me, who does not have the disposable income for international travel.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by TinKnight

Google "hate crimes" and press news.

Law and Order folks.

And check out this Twitter account: https://twitter.com/ShaunKing

Some really unpleasant content.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

The Berners who spent 12 months talking about her like she was the anti-Christ and then pretending she and Trump were no different have a lot to answer for.

There's a big difference. Big. Huge.

I fully support the idea of third-party options. I understand the desire to vote one's conscience (though I don't really like the implication that comes along with that sentiment that anyone who voted for Hillary was somehow betraying their progressive ideals, because that's not true).

But people voted for Nader, too, as well as Perot, hell, for a time there was actually talk of that McMillian guy in Utah possibly beating Trump and Clinton...

...and guess what, third party voters STILL didn't get what they wanted in the end. Those third party votes haven't led to some transformation in our electoral process, all they do is leave people who supported either major party candidate pissed off, and in the end, one of the major candidates that third party voters didn't want still winds up winning anyway. They've put in their protest vote. That's it. That's all they've achieved.

If people are serious about wanting more options in an election, they need to do more than simply just put down a third party vote in a presidential election, because it's going to take a lot more than that to make that happen. And hold the major party candidates accountable for what they promise they'll do, too, while they're running.

And if you want to vote your conscience, fine...but there may come a time when you may not be able to do that. There may come a day when even the third party candidates don't appeal to you, and at some point, pragmatism may have to come into play. I find it exceedingly hard to believe that any liberals/progressives out there who weren't enthused about Clinton couldn't find at least ONE area of common ground with her, ONE possible stance of hers that would make them go, "Oh, she supports that, too? Okay, well, that's a good sign."

Like I've said before, in 2008, Dennis Kucinich was the politician I felt was closest to representing my views. He was coming out in support of same-sex marriage while other Democratic candidates were still hedging and dancing around the issue.

But when he didn't make it through the primaries, I went with Obama as my next choice, because even though, at the time, he wasn't completely on board with that particular issue, he still supported a hell of a lot more rights for gay people than the Republicans did, he still had a lot of other stances that I agreed with, and therefore, he got my vote.

And look what became legal under his presidency. Look who came out in support of transgender rights when the whole bathroom debate was going on. For all people on the left know, Clinton could've been a pleasant surprise to them in many ways.

But now we'll never be able to find out if that would've been the case.

[coolian2]

My dad couldn't vote if ID was required. Instead, he currently casts a special vote for the Green Party in my handwriting.

I joke, but if he needed photo ID, at 86 years old......um, not happening.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Axver

It's a way of disfranchising people. I'm going to talk about this from an Australian perspective for fairly obvious reasons (and may overlook certain common American forms of ID), but you can draw obvious parallels to the US as the principles are broad. We don't require any voter ID here, but people - usually but not always on the right, with non-existent fears of voter fraud - sometimes call for it. But think about it: people in remote Indigenous communities usually do not have IDs; they can't afford it, or they lead traditional lifestyles, etc., and live massive distances from anywhere that can issue the IDs. Poor people cannot afford passports and those in particular hardship cannot afford to drive, or to learn to drive. Elderly, frail people no longer have driver's licences or passports because they are housebound.

Possessing ID such as a driver's licence or a passport implies a certain degree of wealth and a certain position within society - that you have enough money to be mobile and obtain the documents that permit you to enjoy that mobility. Even if other forms of ID are accepted, such as student cards, it requires a certain access to - and cultural value of - education, often beyond the means of some marginalised communities.

And speaking personally, the burden also falls on the disabled. As some of you know, I am legally blind (though in daily life I choose to pass as sighted, since my vision is sufficiently good to enable me to do so). Because of my social position I have a current passport and use it as my ID - though being the sort of document it is, I sure don't carry it on me all the time. But many disabled are poor and/or lack mobility, so they cannot afford and/or aren't able to undertake international travel, and therefore they don't have passports. They obviously can't drive either. If I did not have a passport, I would not have acceptable ID. There are "proof of age" cards, but they vary from state to state and when I was an undergrad I was too poor to afford one in Victoria (and whether they would be accepted as voter ID is an open question!).

If that's tl;dr, here's a sample of people who wouldn't be able to vote under strict ID rules:
- a young Indigenous man who lives a traditional lifestyle in a remote community and lacks money to acquire ID, let alone the access to anywhere that could issue one.
- an elderly lady in a retirement village who can no longer drive or travel internationally.
- a homeless person who begs for money and food in the inner city.
- somebody with the same visual problems as me, who does not have the disposable income for international travel.

But in the states there are ID cards for those who can't drive, so that's why I'm confused. Like I can't figure out how anyone could accomplish anything, forget voting for a second, like purchasing alcohol, or even cigarettes for a basic example, without having an ID.

[deep]

Bernie is with him, now.


Sanders: I'm 'prepared to work with' Trump - POLITICO

[Headache in a Suitcase]

“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,” wrote Trump as part of a tweetstorm on election night 2012.

“We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!”

“He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!” said Trump in one deleted tweet, and “More votes equals a loss … revolution!” in another.

Finally, something Trump and I can agree on.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by bono_212

But in the states there are ID cards for those who can't drive, so that's why I'm confused. Like I can't figure out how anyone could accomplish anything, forget voting for a second, like purchasing alcohol, or even cigarettes for a basic example, without having an ID.

Like I said, we have such IDs as well, but they're uncommon and access to them isn't the easiest if you're poor or live in a remote area or experience some form of structural disadvantage.

And you're assuming certain desires/privileges, like a need or want to purchase alcohol or cigarettes.

Also, I don't know what things are like there, but I have literally been carded once in my entire life in Australia buying alcohol. I was actually quite fortunate, because I didn't have any ID on me (wasn't carrying my passport that day), and before I had to say anything another member of staff who knew me said "he's a regular, no need". New Zealand's a bit more strict at supermarkets/bottleshops, but I've still never been carded in a pub. The only time I ever need my ID is to get into gigs, and even then I usually only get carded when it's a largely younger audience and they're checking literally everybody.

I could easily go through life without needing photo/proof-of-age ID.

[bono_212]

In states like Indiana, the law is to card everyone. Or it was, that mightve got overturned.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by bono_212

But in the states there are ID cards for those who can't drive, so that's why I'm confused. Like I can't figure out how anyone could accomplish anything, forget voting for a second, like purchasing alcohol, or even cigarettes for a basic example, without having an ID.

Not every ID is equal in every situation. From what I understand it can sometimes be difficult (and/or expensive) to obtain such a state ID, especially when you're poor and/or working long hours. Also, in some states a college/university ID (with photo) is not accepted as an ID for voting, but a gun license is. Those distinctions are not random, but most of the time specifically tailored to disenfranchise voters who likely vote Democratic (students,).

My personal take is a bit divided on this issue. On the one hand, I understand the need to have an ID to combat voter fraud (even though in-person voter fraud is almost non-existent and certainly not in numbers to influence the election). We also have this requirement here in the Netherlands. But, everyone over 16 (I think) is legally required to be able to identify themselves with an official ID. However, it is possible for everyone to obtain such an ID (passport, driver's licence, official ID card).
With the situation in the US, if it is not possible for everyone to have such an official ID, then it should not be a requirement for voting. Or at least, not the only requirement but also allowing for IDs that everyone can have.

In fact, it still baffles me that the election is being controlled by all these partisan institutions.