The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

It was in a farm bill because for a while that was the quid pro quo, the R's get farm subsidies, the D's get food stamps

It's in the farm bill because the USDA handles food stamps. The ag bill is the perfect place for food stamps.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Which I'm fine with that as well. No reason food stamps should be in a farm bill. Very little reason to have them at all IMO.

So you worked at the USDA and didn't know that the "farm bill" isn't really about farms? It's just a catch-all for the country's food policy.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yeah, fuck people that can't afford food.

Grow a garden, losers.

Working at Safeway through college I was amazed at the actual foods bought on stamps and wic.

I would say in order of who benefits the most from food stamp prgrams it would be:
Corporate farmers
Retail stores
Medical industry
Politicians


The hungry

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is exactly why they aren't taken seriously. They want a world that is black and white, when reality is shades of gray.

Out of touch with reality? As opposed to a world of green pretending to be shades of grey. You can mock me and people who are opposed to the system all you want and say I am out of touch of reality just don't get pissed off that we think we are "superior" thinkers to the D/R followers when each side continually realizes their party just sells out to the highest bidder. The "occupy Wall Street/99%ers while ignoring Obama's big bank campaign contributions and cabinet members" Obama supporters and "Tea Party/smaller government/ignore Rubio's voting record on basically every issue" Rubio supporters stick out to me as far more out of touch with reality then I am.

Disclaimer: I realize of course that you are beholden to neither party you just happen to post liberal opinions on about 99% of your posts.

[panerd]

And for a good analogy of the out of touch Libertarians whose ideas will never be taken seriously so hence they should change their views to something that they don't believe in look no further than Atheism. Can't think of a more polarized group from all the more "acceptable" different sides who is almost certainly on the correct side of "reality". (Just wanted to throw something in there that posters like DT will have a hard time refuting )

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Out of touch with reality? As opposed to a world of green pretending to be shades of grey. You can mock me and people who are opposed to the system all you want and say I am out of touch of reality just don't get pissed off that we think we are "superior" thinkers to the D/R followers when each side continually realizes their party just sells out to the highest bidder. The "occupy Wall Street/99%ers while ignoring Obama's big bank campaign contributions and cabinet members" Obama supporters and "Tea Party/smaller government/ignore Rubio's voting record on basically every issue" Rubio supporters stick out to me as far more out of touch with reality then I am.

Disclaimer: I realize of course that you are beholden to neither party you just happen to post liberal opinions on about 99% of your posts.

You don't actually hold positions. Being against government isn't a plan, it's just a vague statement that means nothing. Just like saying I'm against war and I'm for helping children. Well great, but holding a vague position doesn't actually translate into real world action.

When someone actually holds your feet to the fire and asks for a realistic plan that will work, you bloviate and strawman like you just did. You bring up Rubio or Obama supporters or Occupy which has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. You don't actually have an idea that you think will work, you just think discrediting everyone else somehow makes you the de facto choice.

And it angers you that I don't have a party because it means you can't throw out a blanket strawman to cover that. You actually have to argue a real position which you're incapable of doing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

And for a good analogy of the out of touch Libertarians whose ideas will never be taken seriously so hence they should change their views to something that they don't believe in look no further than Atheism. Can't think of a more polarized group from all the more "acceptable" different sides who is almost certainly on the correct side of "reality". (Just wanted to throw something in there that posters like DT will have a hard time refuting )

On cue, a strawman that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

On cue, a strawman that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

A challenge for you: (The person that understands the "shades of grey" and pragmatism involved in American politics) Go ahead and go through this entire 10,000+ post thread and find one post you have made that is pragmatic. Not a snippet of a post either, the entire thing. You live in this world where I am a ideologue but you are not. I understand if you think its a waste of your time and don't do it but more likely is you will find every post you make is some liberal line that is no different than me posting my viewpoints.

EDIT: Or even easier just have one fellow board member say they don't think you have any party allegiance.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And it angers you that I don't have a party because it means you can't throw out a blanket strawman to cover that. You actually have to argue a real position which you're incapable of doing.

This line makes me laugh. You honestly don't think you are a liberal/democrat. You must not read any of your posts after you submit them. At least DT, JPhillips, Molson, JiMGa realize they are presenting a viewpoint of a major political party you seem to think you are somehow somewhere in the middle.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

This line makes me laugh. You honestly don't think you are a liberal/democrat. You must not read any of your posts after you submit them. At least DT, JPhillips, Molson, JiMGa realize they are presenting a viewpoint of a major political party you seem to think you are somehow somewhere in the middle.

I support the death penalty, 2nd amendment (to an extent), and I think the corporate tax rate should be lowered to 15%. I don't think we should be fighting wars in shithole countries in the Middle East or spending the kind of money we do on a gigantic military. I also think we should be beefing up our borders and not allowing anyone who wants in to come across. I think we should have a national health care system. But I also think we should be much more stringent on welfare benefits. I'm fine with small cuts to food stamps. I think we should be asking those who participate in welfare benefits for long periods of time to get on birth control. I think local governments should not give into union demands and have no problem with them refusing to negotiate. I think certain drugs should be legal and that I should be allowed to purchase my prescriptions overseas in a true open market. I think the Tea Party are a bunch of hypocritical, racist idiots and Occupy a bunch of self-entitled loser slacktivists.

So what party supports all that stuff? Obviously I have to be presenting the viewpoints of a major political party as you claim. Help me out here.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Out of touch with reality? As opposed to a world of green pretending to be shades of grey. You can mock me and people who are opposed to the system all you want and say I am out of touch of reality just don't get pissed off that we think we are "superior" thinkers to the D/R followers when each side continually realizes their party just sells out to the highest bidder. The "occupy Wall Street/99%ers while ignoring Obama's big bank campaign contributions and cabinet members" Obama supporters and "Tea Party/smaller government/ignore Rubio's voting record on basically every issue" Rubio supporters stick out to me as far more out of touch with reality then I am.

Disclaimer: I realize of course that you are beholden to neither party you just happen to post liberal opinions on about 99% of your posts.

Bolded for emphasis.

"Thinking outside the box" alone isn't enough to make you a superior thinker. Plenty of people have thought "outside of the box" and have had stupid ideas. In fact, lumping everybody else who doesn't think "outside the box" with you into one other box and calling yourself superior to that is (a) intellectually lazy (because you're not evaluating individuals or their ideas individually), and (b) a pretty douchebag thing to do.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

And for a good analogy of the out of touch Libertarians whose ideas will never be taken seriously so hence they should change their views to something that they don't believe in look no further than Atheism. Can't think of a more polarized group from all the more "acceptable" different sides who is almost certainly on the correct side of "reality". (Just wanted to throw something in there that posters like DT will have a hard time refuting )

Howso?

I'm an Atheist by the way.

Just because A holds true, doesn't mean that B holds true. That's a massive straw man argument there panerd. You're better than that.

[lungs]

re: Farm Bill

There was a little sideshow that doesn't amount to a hill of beans to most but does to me.

The article I linked to is a little off the mark in saying who supports what. As a dairy farmer, I'm glad Boehner torpedoed the Dairy Market Stabilization Act that was attached to this farm bill, despite the support of the National Milk Producers Federation. This is more of a regional fight than a political fight.

Basically, that language would have limited growth and expansion for farmers like myself in the name of market stabilization. Or from my own perspective, it would protect the unchecked expansion of production in the West that has already occurred against the new wave of expansion in the Midwest that is happening right now. The Western states expanded production during times of low commodity prices and low fuel prices and now that the tables have turned they are screaming like stuck hogs because they can't make any money trucking all their feed in from the Midwest. Obviously, those of us in the Midwest are at an advantage as we grow our crops and don't have to transport them far in order to feed cows..

So all in all, they defeated the market stabilization act, then the bill as a whole was defeated. It doesn't bother me either way.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I support the death penalty, 2nd amendment (to an extent), and I think the corporate tax rate should be lowered to 15%. I don't think we should be fighting wars in shithole countries in the Middle East or spending the kind of money we do on a gigantic military. I also think we should be beefing up our borders and not allowing anyone who wants in to come across. I think we should have a national health care system. But I also think we should be much more stringent on welfare benefits. I'm fine with small cuts to food stamps. I think we should be asking those who participate in welfare benefits for long periods of time to get on birth control. I think local governments should not give into union demands and have no problem with them refusing to negotiate. I think certain drugs should be legal and that I should be allowed to purchase my prescriptions overseas in a true open market. I think the Tea Party are a bunch of hypocritical, racist idiots and Occupy a bunch of self-entitled loser slacktivists.

So what party supports all that stuff? Obviously I have to be presenting the viewpoints of a major political party as you claim. Help me out here.

Hi Bill Clinton! How are you doing today?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Howso?

I'm an Atheist by the way.

Just because A holds true, doesn't mean that B holds true. That's a massive straw man argument there panerd. You're better than that.

I know you are an atheist, as am I. I feel like my viewpoint on religion is marginalized by almost every other viewpoint. So even though a Jew and a Christian can't both be right they are more apt to agree with and respect each other than an atheist. (IMO) The reason being somehow the burden of proof is on me to show I am right and not reasons why they are wrong. (Though this is as impossible to do)

Take us to politics. Why must there be a solution when my main claim is both the Republican and Democratic parties are wrong (i.e. on the take)? I do tend to agree often with the Libertarians but more in their views that the system is fucked up and corrupt and not necessarily with a lot of their proposed solutions. (I don't think I have ever been on here saying free market this, free market that. I just think a huge, corrupt, bloated bureaucracy is not the correct solution either) I guess I don't understand why I can't just point out the flaws without having to have a solution. (The most recent case in this thread being the utter waste of money we spend on defense)

I don't think its a complete strawman to compare the two situations and never intended to win a court case with it or anything. And as far as being arrogant or a "typical" atheist or Libertarian I pretty much only discuss religion or politics on places like this and unless specifically asked keep to myself on both topics in "real life". So I am only arrogant in so far as choosing to offend members of this board who I would think are aware of what is going to happen when they click on an internet message board topic titled "The Obama Presidency"

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Bolded for emphasis.

"Thinking outside the box" alone isn't enough to make you a superior thinker. Plenty of people have thought "outside of the box" and have had stupid ideas. In fact, lumping everybody else who doesn't think "outside the box" with you into one other box and calling yourself superior to that is (a) intellectually lazy (because you're not evaluating individuals or their ideas individually), and (b) a pretty douchebag thing to do.

That's why I put superior in quotes. I feel like it is a charge leveled at me for saying how ridiculous the political system is in this country. I never claimed to be superior in any way.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

I know you are an atheist, as am I. I feel like my viewpoint on religion is marginalized by almost every other viewpoint. So even though a Jew and a Christian can't both be right they are more apt to agree with and respect each other than an atheist. (IMO) The reason being somehow the burden of proof is on me to show I am right and not reasons why they are wrong. (Though this is as impossible to do)

Take us to politics. Why must there be a solution when my main claim is both the Republican and Democratic parties are wrong (i.e. on the take)? I do tend to agree often with the Libertarians but more in their views that the system is fucked up and corrupt and not necessarily with a lot of their proposed solutions. (I don't think I have ever been on here saying free market this, free market that. I just think a huge, corrupt, bloated bureaucracy is not the correct solution either) I guess I don't understand why I can't just point out the flaws without having to have a solution. (The most recent case in this thread being the utter waste of money we spend on defense)

I don't think its a complete strawman to compare the two situations and never intended to win a court case with it or anything. And as far as being arrogant or a "typical" atheist or Libertarian I pretty much only discuss religion or politics on places like this and unless specifically asked keep to myself on both topics in "real life". So I am only arrogant in so far as choosing to offend members of this board who I would think are aware of what is going to happen when they click on an internet message board topic titled "The Obama Presidency"

I don't think "Democrats are always right." I mean it's not some blind, knee-jerk type reaction with me. When I'm looking at something (or choosing who to vote for) I look at each problem/policy and evaluate all of the proposed solutions, and decide which one I think will work best.

It just so happens that most of the time that's the Democratic solution. This isn't helped by the sheer asshattery of a lot of the people that the Republican party puts out there as candidates for office, or what they view as solutions to problems. And yes, in some cases it is a "lesser of two evils" type thing. I freely admit that.

I'm not sitting here with blinders on saying there are no corrupt politicians and Obama shits gold bricks and his farts smell like rainbows. But unless/until there's another VIABLE option (if I lived in Vermont it'd be saying voting for Bernie Sanders) then it becomes a "lesser of two evils" type situation.

And I freely recognize that by choosing that way I'm not like...helping to create that other viable option, but there are enough problems and serious issues that I think need addressing that I can't afford to cast a vote that will in essence be a "protest vote" or a "symbolic vote" or a "vote for change." Because if enough people think like I do and do that, then the "greater of two evils" might come into power and mess things up even more.

There's a tremendous amount of money and entrenched self-interest behind the two major parties. I firmly believe (and wish) we had more parties, but I don't know how we ever get there unless/until we get big-money out of politics.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So you worked at the USDA and didn't know that the "farm bill" isn't really about farms? It's just a catch-all for the country's food policy.

Which is the whole point. It shouldn't be a catch all. They need to stop lumping funding together in a way that forces people to vote against 5% of the bill when the rest of it is just fine. But it's the way they do things so they can make comments like the post that JPhillips made in response to my original post. That's the American way, at least in political circles.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Which is the whole point. It shouldn't be a catch all. They need to stop lumping funding together in a way that forces people to vote against 5% of the bill when the rest of it is just fine. But it's the way they do things so they can make comments like the post that JPhillips made in response to my original post. That's the American way, at least in political circles.

I made my comment because you said food stamps should be eliminated.

As to lumping things together, at least things in the same department, that's a necessity. You can't create separate legislation for every item in the government. We don't vote on every individual spending in the Defense bill, because there isn't time to do that.

As for the 5%, the farm bill is loaded with crap subsidies well outside of food stamps. That "95%" should be a big problem for small government types, but the House GOP is more than willing to throw money at agri-business as long as they get to kick the poor a little, too.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I made my comment because you said food stamps should be eliminated.

The food stamp system is an unmitigated disaster at this point. You can say it needs to be dumped. That doesn't mean there isn't a need, but the current system is not even remotely close to the right solution.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The food stamp system is an unmitigated disaster at this point. You can say it needs to be dumped. That doesn't mean there isn't a need, but the current system is not even remotely close to the right solution.

So what is your plan to feed people that can't afford food? The addition of SNAP benefits among beneficiaries reduces that group's poverty percentage by about half. That $1200 average monthly benefit helps a lot of people.

So what do you do after you dump it, expand access to dumpsters?

[JPhillips]

A new IRS report says that 501(c)4 groups with names including progressive and occupy were also targeted. If the IRS was targeting all manner of political groups, the story changes rather dramatically. They should be denying a lot more political groups tax free status IMO.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service’s screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency said Monday.

An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides “tea party,” lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms “Israel,” ”Progressive” and “Occupy.” The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A new IRS report says that 501(c)4 groups with names including progressive and occupy were also targeted. If the IRS was targeting all manner of political groups, the story changes rather dramatically. They should be denying a lot more political groups tax free status IMO.

As I suspected all along, and yes...I too have zero problems with this. These primarily-political groups shouldn't be tax-free.

[Buccaneer]

Does Ginsburg ever argue on the basis of constitutionality? Not saying positions are wrong (they're not sometimes) but I perceive she is much less interested in what it says and its basis for law than on need and desires.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Does Ginsburg ever argue on the basis of constitutionality? Not saying positions are wrong (they're not sometimes) but I perceive she is much less interested in what it says and its basis for law than on need and desires.

Where do you perceive that? In the opening paragraph of her dissent, she mentions the enacting clause of the post-civil war amendments. Pretty sure those are in the Constitution. That's the whole basis for her opinion and she revisits it several times, ultimately concluding that the VRA is a proper exercise of Congressional power under the 15th Amendment.

[DaddyTorgo]

*Sigh*

What country do I live in again? Cuz it sure as shit ain't the beacon of liberty & democracy, the shining city on a hill of Winthrop.

[ISiddiqui]

You mean due to the Supreme Court ruling that it isn't 1972 any more and therefore Congress should realize that when violating state sovereign equality (which was only allowed due to "exceptional conditions" - South Carolina v. Katzenbach) it should take into account voter turnout and voting tests done a bit closer to the present (as the renewals in 1970 and 1975 did indeed undertake)?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You mean due to the Supreme Court ruling that it isn't 1972 any more and therefore Congress should realize that when violating state sovereign equality (which was only allowed due to "exceptional conditions" - South Carolina v. Katzenbach) it should take into account voter turnout and voting tests done a bit closer to the present (as the renewals in 1970 and 1975 did indeed undertake)?

It's a backhanded way of gutting the VRA because the Court knows that Congress can't get its shit together to pass anything these days, so therefore there will be no new map, so it's effectively neutered.

Then again I think we should have a Constitutional Amendment and impartial, apolitical federal oversight. How that's done I'm not sure...but hell...I'm open to inviting in UN monitors, or Canadian monitors or whatever (cue the "black helicopter conspiracy" crowd).

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

It's a backhanded way of gutting the VRA because the Court knows that Congress can't get its shit together to pass anything these days, so therefore there will be no new map, so it's effectively neutered.

That's true, but should the Supreme Court consider the ineptitude of Congress in determining what should be legal rulings? Though I'm sure both the majority and dissent were well aware of the practical results. I don't know the law in this area well enough to even try to parse out the legal analysis from the desired-results voting in this case though. Though I'm sure there's plenty of the latter on both sides.

Edit: I mean, just as a different-universe kind of hypothetical if it was the opposite side bringing the action, what if the government was relying on data from 40 years ago that showed zero racism, whereas modern data would have showed rampant racism? Should the government get to be bound by the old data and not react to the new data just because they suck?

[larrymcg421]

But Ginsburg makes a great point that expecting a similarly strong record of discrimination evidence now compared to then is a bit of a catch-22. If VRA is working, then there will be less evidence to present now. If there was similar evidence now as there was in the past, then the VRA was worthless and didn't work at all. The question shouldn't be what the voter turnout is or what roadblocks exist for voters today. It should be what would it be without the VRA. That's why looking at past discrimination is an important factor.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

It's a backhanded way of gutting the VRA because the Court knows that Congress can't get its shit together to pass anything these days, so therefore there will be no new map, so it's effectively neutered.

So the SCOTUS should allow an unconstitutional law because Congress can't get its shit together?! What kind of bullshit is that?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But Ginsburg makes a great point that expecting a similarly strong record of discrimination evidence now compared to then is a bit of a catch-22. If VRA is working, then there will be less evidence to present now. If there was similar evidence now as there was in the past, then the VRA was worthless and didn't work at all. The question shouldn't be what the voter turnout is or what roadblocks exist for voters today. It should be what would it be without the VRA. That's why looking at past discrimination is an important factor.

The VRA was originally intended to be a temporary measure, because it was due to extraordinary circumstances that it was allowed to pass muster to begin with (due to its trampling on federalism and sovereign equality). It was not supposed to be something to be with us forever. If it has worked, then it has worked. If there is still work to be done, then come up with better reasoning to decide discrimination today.

If there isn't evidence of discrimination today, then the preclearance is not required, the VRA did its job and good. However, relying on 1972 data to keep putting the screws on is ridiculous. You can't tell me that Atlanta, with African Americans going back the last three mayoral administrations, as well as Congressional districts, one being occupied by John Lewis, still is in danger of discriminating against African-Americans and thus needs preclearance by the Justice Department. That's just absurd on its face.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But Ginsburg makes a great point that expecting a similarly strong record of discrimination evidence now compared to then is a bit of a catch-22. If VRA is working, then there will be less evidence to present now. If there was similar evidence now as there was in the past, then the VRA was worthless and didn't work at all. The question shouldn't be what the voter turnout is or what roadblocks exist for voters today. It should be what would it be without the VRA. That's why looking at past discrimination is an important factor.

What we'd be without the VRA today isn't necessarily the same as what we'd be without the VRA in 1970.

Couldn't there be a modern analysis, with modern data, that attempted to make that distinction? Or are we just forever stuck with 1970 data, on the theory that we'd go right back to 1970 society immediately if the VRA isn't around? Even though demographics and other laws have changed in the meantime.

[Shkspr]

Rule of thumb: any legal decision that rules in favor of Alabama is flawed.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The VRA was originally intended to be a temporary measure, because it was due to extraordinary circumstances that it was allowed to pass muster to begin with (due to its trampling on federalism and sovereign equality). It was not supposed to be something to be with us forever. If it has worked, then it has worked. If there is still work to be done, then come up with better reasoning to decide discrimination today.

If there isn't evidence of discrimination today, then the preclearance is not required, the VRA did its job and good. However, relying on 1972 data to keep putting the screws on is ridiculous. You can't tell me that Atlanta, with African Americans going back the last three mayoral administrations, as well as Congressional districts, one being occupied by John Lewis, still is in danger of discriminating against African-Americans and thus needs preclearance by the Justice Department. That's just absurd on its face.

And as Ginsburg said, that line of logic is like putting your umbrella away in the rain because you were no longer getting wet. Just because it worked doesn't mean we no longer need it.

And Atlanta isn't one of the loaclities complaining about this. In fact, Mayor Kasim Reed and John Lewis both support the voting rights act and still want the preclearance in place.

[molson]

Part of me wants to say, well, if Congress wants to rely on 40-year old data in carrying out modern social policy, they have the authority to do that, and we elected them, so whatever. It's not the Supreme Court's role to second-guess Congress' utilization of its 14th amendment authority to do stuff like this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And as Ginsburg said, that line of logic is like putting your umbrella away in the rain because you were no longer getting wet. Just because it worked doesn't mean we no longer need it.

And when is it determined that VRA is not required? 200 years from now are we still going to be renewing it based on 1972 statistics because "we may still need it"? If you are going to allow a law that violates the Constitution due to extraordinary circumstances, it needs to be narrowly tailored. This is not that.

And Atlanta isn't one of the loaclities complaining about this. In fact, Mayor Kasim Reed and John Lewis both support the voting rights act and still want the preclearance in place.

They support it, but do you really think that the city needs it? Just because they are willing to take on the burden so that people they don't like have to take it on, doesn't mean it should be required upon them.

[larrymcg421]

Where are people getting this idea that only evidence from 40 years ago was considered? Ginsburg's opinion lists evidence as recent as 2006 (the year before the renewal), noting the number of discriminatory policies that were blocked as reason for the continuing need of the VRA. She lists several examples of them that were put in the Congressional record during the consideration of the renewal.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Where are people getting this idea that only evidence from 40 years ago was considered? Ginsburg's opinion lists evidence as recent as 2006 (the year before the renewal), noting the number of discriminatory policies that were blocked as reason for the continuing need of the VRA. She lists several examples of them that were put in the Congressional record during the consideration of the renewal.

The criteria that determines whether or not states are on the preclearance list take into account voter turnout and registration from 1972. In the 2006 renewal they looked at instances of discriminatory policies to continue the VRA, but kept the criteria for who would covered as of 1972 numbers (disregarding that likely the main minority voting concern these days is likely to be Hispanics rather than the African Americans).

That was mostly done (using 1972 voter turnout and registration numbers) due to stuff like this:

[JPhillips]

It is a little worrisome that not even a day has passed and states are already talking about redistricting and implementing voter ID laws.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It is a little worrisome that not even a day has passed and states are already talking about redistricting and implementing voter ID laws.

Why are voter ID laws worrisome again?

[JPhillips]

Because they disproportionately effect the poor and elderly while doing almost nothing to combat the kinds of voter fraud that actually happen. The number of people who are stopped from voting is much, much higher than the number of fraud cases stopped.

edit: Ohio just released a study of fraud in the 2012 election. They found a total of 135 cases to forward to prosecutors and of that number only a fraction would have been stopped by voter ID. The "cure" is far worse than the disease, unless the whole point is to make it harder for traditional Democratic voting blocks to vote.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It is a little worrisome that not even a day has passed and states are already talking about redistricting and implementing voter ID laws.

Shit - not even 2 HOURS passed before Texas said they were putting the Voter ID and gerrymandered-maps back into effect.

And people think we didn't need preclearance??

But as I said - I'm probably in the minority in that I'm in favor of national preclearance, for all states/areas.

[Buccaneer]

I would not understand the legal opinions, just reacting what was said in the CNN article. One side seemed to have provided examples of how the two Sections were outdated, while the other said "overwhelming bipartisan support," saying the representatives legitimately exercised their constitutional powers in doing so." A lot of Congress has done was not (and is not) constitutional so just because it was passed with "bipartisan support" means nothing under the law, I don't think. The solution, as it appears, is for Congress to tighten/change the law so it would be clearly constitutional.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Because they disproportionately effect the poor and elderly while doing almost nothing to combat the kinds of voter fraud that actually happen. The number of people who are stopped from voting is much, much higher than the number of fraud cases stopped.

I don't understand. Why is a voter ID card stopping poor and elderly from voting?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Mike D

I don't understand. Why is a voter ID card stopping poor and elderly from voting?

Because they are the most likely not to have the items demanded for proof of citizenship.

Because they are the most likely to have such items challenged.

[JPhillips]

Because in most cases it costs to get to the office and it costs to provide the documentation required to get the "free" ID. Now it's possible to design a voter ID bill that overcomes these obstacles, but when the goal is keeping people from voting the procedures need to be as difficult as you can get away with.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mike D

I don't understand. Why is a voter ID card stopping poor and elderly from voting?

Because some people think that being poor, black, or elderly means you are incompetent and can't do anything for yourself.

I don't really care to get into the voter ID stuff, but I wonder if people get sick of those on the left treating them like children.

[Dutch]

Doesn't it cost to get to the voting station and wait in line for 4 hours to vote?

Could the DNC and the RNC not use all of their resources to get all of their constituents "free" voter ID cards? And in those rare cases where people have NO PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, help those people get the required documentation provided that they are in fact citizens?

Wouldn't a Voter ID card system eliminate much of the suspicion of people being blocked to vote?

I mean, if we have 250 million driver's licenses and only 50 million voter ID cards....I'd say we have a national crisis on our hands. If we marry the two together, that covers over 90% of people aged 18 or older.

The benefit of moving to a voter id solution is that we can implement PKI certs and allow people to vote from home or from work one day....thus allowing the poor, the elderly, and the oft-forgot about employed-and-unable-to-leave-work citizens from voting.

Technology, maybe we should embrace it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mike D

the oft-forgot about employed-and-unable-to-leave-work citizens from voting.

I wonder how many people were like me & thought the laws requiring employers to allow workers a reasonable amount of time to vote were federal, rather than state by state?

And I say that as someone who not only could be described as more political than the average person but who also spent roughly 20 years covering elections as part of the media.

I don't know that it ever once crossed my mind that there were states where that wasn't the case.

Here's a table with the state-by-state requirements, in case anybody else is now wondering.