The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Deep Discussion (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   News Election Recounts (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=384288)

Somewhere_ November 28th, 2016 5:51 PM

Election Recounts
 
So Jill Stein has raised millions for recounts, and the pre-recount in Wisconsin is not going too well for Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le43c7cYeZA

Some of Trump's close victories have been outside the margin of error from exit polls (including Wisconsin).

Despite Hillary Clinton conceding the election to Donald Trump, her campaign fully supports the recounts.

Should recounts occur in all of the close states to be fair? Including the ones Clinton narrowly beat Trump? What do you think the results will be of the recount? Will the results change anything? Will questions be raised about Clinton's possible "shady" win in Ohio against Bernie in the primaries?

Klippy November 28th, 2016 6:43 PM

Stein missed the Pennsylvania deadline, but she's still working on it there. Michigan was also certified for Trump today.

It's a fruitless effort and Clinton conceded. Of course she supports a recount because it's a last ditch shot. She would've raised a bigger stink about it if there was anything fishy going on worth calling to attention. Stein is doing this for $$$ most likely, since there's really no other reason for it than to get people to feed into their hopes he didn't actually win and rake in the money. Consider she's raised a few million and now there's at least one state she potentially won't be pursuing a recount in (+ Michigan being certified means another).

EC November 28th, 2016 8:31 PM

If Hillary Clinton thought the vote was not legitimate, she would have been the one calling for recounts, not Jill Stein.

Somewhere_ November 28th, 2016 9:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilChameleon (Post 9501517)
If Hillary Clinton thought the vote was not legitimate, she would have been the one calling for recounts, not Jill Stein.

Her team even said there wasnt anything awry with the election process or casting ballots. No fraud.

If the recounts favor Clinton somehow, I fear massive backlash even though Trump will still win. Just a feeling.

0 November 28th, 2016 10:54 PM

Really, recounts?

I think Klippy is right about this one. These recounts aren't even being done by Clinton herself, and it sounds like a ploy to rake in a lot of money from angry people.

Hands November 29th, 2016 3:37 AM

If they recount the apparant hacked Trump states they really should recount states where Clinton was accused of rigging the primaries against Sanders

Ivysaur November 29th, 2016 3:48 AM

Remember how the only people arrested for election fraud this year were Republicans trying to vote twice (in Texas and Iowa) because they had heard about how half of Democrats do it? Did you notice how all "election integrity" laws have been designed to actually disenfranchise minority citizens (in most Republican-held states, special props to North Carolina)? It seems to me that all this talk about "election fraud" is essentially designed to work as a justification to pass bills effectively commiting "legal fraud" by disenfranchising actual people from the polls- all the while delegitimising victories from the Democrats, who we all know, "commit mass-fraud all the time". The fact that now even the left-wing people are convinced that Republicans commit mass fraud -mind you, the 300k people disenfranchised by Wisconsin's ID law were more decisive than any "fraud"- likely means that soon nobody will accept the results of any election. Because fraud. Always. By both sides. Even if nobody can actually point at a single substantiated case.

Now imagine this in four years, when Trump is the one controlling the administration and the security forces. What if he loses and then says "Fraud! I actually won!"?

Aliencommander1245 November 29th, 2016 5:27 AM

I agree with Ivysaur's sentiment- restrictive, targeted, voter ID laws are way more dangerous and prolific than fraud itself.

But yeah this is going to be mostly fruitless, and i'm not sure if i believe that Jill Stein is out for the money in this, but she's definitely misguided.

It's not surprising that Trump is now pushing a narrative that "three million people illegally voted" and that's why he lost the popular vote, but it's a little eye-roll inducing. Four years of this is incoming.

Somewhere_ November 29th, 2016 1:18 PM

Even some Republicans have admitted that voter ID laws were intended to prevent minorities from voting.

Aliencommander1245 November 29th, 2016 2:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9502194)
Even some Republicans have admitted that voter ID laws were intended to prevent minorities from voting.

Several republican voter ID laws (and lets be frank, they're all republican because minorities are generally democrat voters) were repealed because they explicitly targeted and disenfranchised minorities and were drafted with explicit intent to do so.

Since 2013 when the US supreme court decided that parts of the voting rights act that prevented these kind of discriminatory laws was "out of date" and thus unconstitutional, there's been a monstrous rise in this kind of thing

Somewhere_ November 29th, 2016 4:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9502283)
Several republican voter ID laws (and lets be frank, they're all republican because minorities are generally democrat voters) were repealed because they explicitly targeted and disenfranchised minorities and were drafted with explicit intent to do so.

Since 2013 when the US supreme court decided that parts of the voting rights act that prevented these kind of discriminatory laws was "out of date" and thus unconstitutional, there's been a monstrous rise in this kind of thing

Right. Thats why we have those laws. Literally as soon as some of the voting rights act was repealed, some states immediately reverted back (I think Texas was the first).

To be fair though, Democrats want to expand voting as much as possible to increase their own chances of winning. Neither side is exactly noble in their crusades against voter fraud or voting rights.

This is where true Progressives should get credit- they actually want voting rights on philosophical grounds. Not for political gain.

gimmepie November 29th, 2016 7:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9502356)
Right. Thats why we have those laws. Literally as soon as some of the voting rights act was repealed, some states immediately reverted back (I think Texas was the first).

To be fair though, Democrats want to expand voting as much as possible to increase their own chances of winning. Neither side is exactly noble in their crusades against voter fraud or voting rights.

This is where true Progressives should get credit- they actually want voting rights on philosophical grounds. Not for political gain.

I'd say that all things considered, the motivation for doing good should rarely if ever outweigh the action itself.

Somewhere_ November 29th, 2016 7:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9502512)
I'd say that all things considered, the motivation for doing good should rarely if ever outweigh the action itself.

I agree if you are looking at the action singularly. But in the grand scheme, do you really want a major political party in your country acting for their own benefit or for the people?

This is just testament to the Democratic Party's true intentions. For that matter, the Republicans as well.

gimmepie November 29th, 2016 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9502514)
I agree if you are looking at the action singularly. But in the grand scheme, do you really want a major political party in your country acting for their own benefit or for the people?

This is just testament to the Democratic Party's true intentions. For that matter, the Republicans as well.

So long as what benefits them is also benefiting the people/the country then I don't really care. The minute that ceases to be the case - like with the Republicans/Liberals/Whatever the UK's Jerkass party is - then my vote goes elsewhere.

Sektor November 30th, 2016 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9501835)
Wisconsin's ID law

Edit: Oops, got off track there. Jill Stein is either a loon or a con artist. There.

If you don't have an ID you:

Can't fly
Can't drive
Can't buy a gun *Legally
Can't get a credit card
Can't get a bank loan
Can't buy a house
Can't get medi-care or Obama Care
Can't get married
Can't get divorced
Can't buy insurance
Can't buy alcohol *unless over the standard age of 40
Can't purchase cigarettes *unless over the standard age of 40
Can't gamble at a casino
Can't get a library card *some cases
Can't go to college
Can't get a job *most cases require photo ID, birth certificate and a W-2
Can't buy a cellphone *most cases, prepaid excluded
Can't buy prescription drugs
Can't travel to another country
Can't get a passport

Trust me. Having a photo ID isn't the problem. Not having a photo ID is the problem. If you can in no way verify that you are who you say you are either with a birth certificate and a photo ID, then maybe a re-prioritized list of things to do is in your best interest. If you cannot get a photo ID due to transportation issues, public transportation is available in most cases. If you cannot pass the Driving License exam (if you can't, then you are most likely legally blind) then a State issued ID is available to you in most states, although a Driver's license is easier to obtain in most cases.

Honestly, I have no idea how people mosey on in life without a form of photo identification. Would it be wise not to have it? What if you're hit by a car? Did you know that certain photo IDs carry allergy information? If voting is really important to you, if traveling, boozing, shmoozing or having a job *in most instances, then you will get a photo ID. Making excuses on how 'the man has got me down' is not acceptable. Either you're too lazy to get one, or you're a liar. If you've been arrested, chances are that they have you on file, and you can then use that to obtain an ID. Obtaining an ID isn't rocket science and some people make it sound like it's the end of the world if you're supposed to have one when you vote.

Even you're own example proves this point. Claiming that voter ID is required isn't a way to disenfranchise. It's for verification and security. You mentioned Republicans being arrested in Texas and Iowa. Is it any wonder how they got found out? Texas and Iowa both have voter ID laws in place to protect against the very thing you are against! From your perspective, should the Texans and Iowans not be charged with fraud? Should all of the 30 states that require ID have those laws removed? Stating the need to have an ID isn't disenfranchising in my opinion. Even the mail in ballots require some kind of identification to even register.

Having an ID enables you to do so much more than those without one. This is Occam's Razor, really. 'How do we stop voter fraud?' is a simple enough question to answer, Require ID.

A simple search lead me to Texas and on how to obtain ID. The list below, which can be accessed from any public library with a computer with at least windows '95 and dial up.

Quote:

On August 10, 2016, a federal district court entered an order changing the voter identification requirements for all elections held in Texas after August 10, 2016 until further notice. As a result, voters who possess an acceptable form of photo identification for voting listed below are still required to present it in order to vote in person in all Texas elections. The acceptable form of photo identification may be expired up to four years. Voters who do not possess an acceptable form of photo identification and cannot obtain one of the forms of acceptable photo identification listed below due to a reasonable impediment, may present a supporting form of identification and execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration, noting the voter’s reasonable impediment to obtaining an acceptable form of photo identification, and stating that the voter is the same person on the presented supporting form of identification.

This requirement is effective immediately.

Here is a list of the acceptable forms of photo ID:

Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
Texas license to carry a handgun issued by DPS
United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
United States passport
With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the identification must be current or have expired no more than 4 years before being presented for voter qualification at the polling place.

Election Identification Certificates are available from DPS driver license offices during regular business hours. Find mobile station locations here.

Here is a list of the supporting forms of ID that can be presented if the voter does not possess one of the forms of acceptable photo ID and cannot obtain one due to a reasonable impediment:

Valid voter registration certificate
Certified birth certificate (must be an original)
Copy of or original current utility bill
Copy of or original bank statement
Copy of or original government check
Copy of or original paycheck
Copy of or original government document with your name and an address (original required if it contains a photograph)
After presenting a supporting form of ID, the voter must execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration.

Ivysaur November 30th, 2016 1:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9502774)
Edit: Oops, got off track there. Jill Stein is either a loon or a con artist. There.

If you don't have an ID you:

Can't fly
Can't drive
Can't buy a gun *Legally
Can't get a credit card
Can't get a bank loan
Can't buy a house
Can't get medi-care or Obama Care
Can't get married
Can't get divorced
Can't buy insurance
Can't buy alcohol *unless over the standard age of 40
Can't purchase cigarettes *unless over the standard age of 40
Can't gamble at a casino
Can't get a library card *some cases
Can't go to college
Can't get a job *most cases require photo ID, birth certificate and a W-2
Can't buy a cellphone *most cases, prepaid excluded
Can't buy prescription drugs
Can't travel to another country
Can't get a passport

Trust me. Having a photo ID isn't the problem. Not having a photo ID is the problem. If you can in no way verify that you are who you say you are either with a birth certificate and a photo ID, then maybe a re-prioritized list of things to do is in your best interest. If you cannot get a photo ID due to transportation issues, public transportation is available in most cases. If you cannot pass the Driving License exam (if you can't, then you are most likely legally blind) then a State issued ID is available to you in most states, although a Driver's license is easier to obtain in most cases.

Honestly, I have no idea how people mosey on in life without a form of photo identification. Would it be wise not to have it? What if you're hit by a car? Did you know that certain photo IDs carry allergy information? If voting is really important to you, if traveling, boozing, shmoozing or having a job *in most instances, then you will get a photo ID. Making excuses on how 'the man has got me down' is not acceptable. Either you're too lazy to get one, or you're a liar. If you've been arrested, chances are that they have you on file, and you can then use that to obtain an ID. Obtaining an ID isn't rocket science and some people make it sound like it's the end of the world if you're supposed to have one when you vote.

Even you're own example proves this point. Claiming that voter ID is required isn't a way to disenfranchise. It's for verification and security. You mentioned Republicans being arrested in Texas and Iowa. Is it any wonder how they got found out? Texas and Iowa both have voter ID laws in place to protect against the very thing you are against! From your perspective, should the Texans and Iowans not be charged with fraud? Should all of the 30 states that require ID have those laws removed? Stating the need to have an ID isn't disenfranchising in my opinion. Even the mail in ballots require some kind of identification to even register.

Having an ID enables you to do so much more than those without one. This is Occam's Razor, really. 'How do we stop voter fraud?' is a simple enough question to answer, Require ID.

A simple search lead me to Texas and on how to obtain ID. The list below, which can be accessed from any public library with a computer with at least windows '95 and dial up.

In my case, my complaint is a bit more nuanced. Here we need photo ID to vote as well... except we are legally required to obtain a photo ID at the age of 15, and there are drives at schools to get every kid an ID as required by law, so when you actually get to vote at 18, you don't have to spend a split-second thinking about it. The problem is when, after the law is introduced, the State doesn't do enough effort to actually offer everybody an ID, and it's more like "well most people already have a licence and the ones who don't only have to do X and Y if they want to vote/do other stuff". Especially when the people who tend to fall through the cracks are precisely blacks/hispanics/poor people.

If the States did a full-on ID handling drive accross the land or allowed you to get your IDs in every McDonald's for a year or two until everybody is properly registered, and then did things like the school thing to ensure every new generation is registered by default, I'd be 100% fine with it and wouldn't complain at all, because I do believe that ID is a good solution against the (vanishingly rare) fraud. But as long as the burden to comply falls on the citizens and the states don't do as much as they can to make it as simple as possible, I do have a complaint.

Sektor November 30th, 2016 1:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9502784)
In my case, my complaint is a bit more nuanced. Here we need photo ID to vote as well... except we are legally required to obtain a photo ID at the age of 15, and there are drives at schools to get every kid an ID as required by law, so when you actually get to vote at 18, you don't have to spend a split-second thinking about it. The problem is when, after the law is introduced, the State doesn't do enough effort to actually offer everybody an ID, and it's more like "well most people already have a licence and the ones who don't only have to do X and Y if they want to vote/do other stuff". Especially when the people who tend to fall through the cracks are precisely blacks/hispanics/poor people.

If the States did a full-on ID handling drive accross the land or allowed you to get your IDs in every McDonald's for a year or two until everybody is properly registered, and then did things like the school thing to ensure every new generation is registered by default, I'd be 100% fine with it and wouldn't complain at all, because I do believe that ID is a good solution against the (vanishingly rare) fraud. But as long as the burden to comply falls on the citizens and the states don't do as much as they can to make it as simple as possible, I do have a complaint.

Getting an ID isn't the most difficult thing in the world. I don't know. I still don't believe it's too hard to get one, given the ease and choices of alternative IDs. I don't feel the state should be responsible for someone else's responsibility. I was a poor person for a long time. Still had my state issued ID, in two different states even. I doubt Voting is someone's priority if they don't have ID is what I believe. Like the list I showed above, the benefits far outweigh the cons of owning an ID.

Aliencommander1245 November 30th, 2016 4:15 AM

The problem is when voter ID laws are done very clearly for the purposes of restricting certain groups.

Are the changes broadcasted and made sure that everyone KNOWS what they need to vote, or are they slipped through without and public information campaigns?
Why, explicitly, do you need photo identification to vote? For what purpose when voter fraud is near nonexistant?

Is it a coincidence that the form of identification they're asking for just happens to be the one their opponent's voter base is more likely to not have? (No, it's not)

Sektor November 30th, 2016 1:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9502871)
The problem is when voter ID laws are done very clearly for the purposes of restricting certain groups.

Are the changes broadcasted and made sure that everyone KNOWS what they need to vote, or are they slipped through without and public information campaigns?
Why, explicitly, do you need photo identification to vote? For what purpose when voter fraud is near nonexistant?

Is it a coincidence that the form of identification they're asking for just happens to be the one their opponent's voter base is more likely to not have? (No, it's not)

Considering the long list of acceptable identification purposes to obtain an ID I still maintain that if you don't have one you're either lazy or have no clue how to obtain one.

I feel that the argument of 'well, fraud is so rare we don't need these laws' is a poor one and is akin to 'well, hijacking planes is so rare that we don't need the TSA' or 'Well, electrocutions are so rare we shouldn't be mandated to have grounding wires in our power tools' or 'Oil spills are so rare that we don't need to regulate'. It's all the same argument and I feel that it's a poor one. Perhaps fraud is so rare because 30 states require some form of ID to prevent you from going from booth to booth voting? I would put money down that the states with more fraudulent votes per capita have no voter ID laws? This is Occam's Razor, and I'm sure that what makes sense is having a photo ID or some form of identification present when voting.

It is not that hard to get an ID. People who . . . wait. Do you even live in the states? If not, why worry about the electoral process?

Esper November 30th, 2016 3:24 PM

Recounts should just be mandatory in all elections. Or at least in any nation-wide vote like a presidential election.

It's important for our peace of mind to know that there isn't any rigging or hacking of elections. Especially in close races. And also with electronic voting machines, which practically invite election fraud. Of course if we didn't make the election process so difficult in the first place it might not be as necessary. Ivysaur's point is well taken. If you make it easy for people to get IDs then it's not a burden to ask for ID.

And yeah, lots of people don't have IDs because they don't need them. Think of people in cities who don't drive. Think of elderly people who haven't renewed a license in years. Think of young, poor, overworked people who don't can't afford to take a day off of work to stand in line. Red states have closed many DMVs in rural/poor/black areas so getting an ID is made more difficult for them as a result. It's the same tactic used in state government by people against abortion. Restrict access as much as you can without making it outright unobtainable and then say "if you really wanted it you could get it."

Also, election day should be on the weekend or be a holiday. It's frickin important and if we really thought that people should vote then we'd not make it as hard as it is. I'm not saying it's arduous. Obviously plenty of people can and do vote, but you look at places around the country where people are waiting 3, 4, 5 hours in line and you've got a systemic attempt to disenfranchise voters.

gimmepie November 30th, 2016 3:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9503338)
It is not that hard to get an ID. People who . . . wait. Do you even live in the states? If not, why worry about the electoral process?

Can we not do this. "You don't live here why do you care?" isn't a reasonable response at all when it comes to an intellectual discussion nor does one's location invalidate their opinion.

donavannj November 30th, 2016 8:30 PM

Recounts should always be pursued. The process isn't being used to its fullest if they aren't pursued.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9503338)
It is not that hard to get an ID. People who . . . wait. Do you even live in the states? If not, why worry about the electoral process?

If you've been actively paying attention to what this country has done the past 10 years, you know damn well that what the United States does, both domestically and internationally, have a global impact. The US has the world's largest economy, the most funded military, is a crucial player in NATO and the UN, and actively inserts itself in the affairs of other countries. The Great Recession had a global impact, and the first and biggest domino to fall in that was the US economy.

Getting an ID can be a challenge if you're living paycheck to paycheck and have no means to do any of the following at the same time:

1. Get enough time off work to get to the DMV while it's open. (that's potentially a day's wages you won't be earning)
2. Be able to afford to drive to the DMV or otherwise get a ride there ($20 more gone to pay your friend/family member/acquaintance for the ride there!)
3. Afford the $15+ to get the ID. Taking my state for example, Minnesota, one costs $19.25 unless you are over 65 ($16.25 if you are), are disabled mentally or physically or have a qualified mental illness ($0.50 in the case of the latter 3). (and that's another $20 gone!)


Quite a number of people without current IDs live paycheck to paycheck, and I've just outlined their struggle with affording a replacement.

But this is probably delving far enough into another topic that it would merit its own thread rather than dominating a thread about election recounts.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9503419)
Recounts should just be mandatory in all elections. Or at least in any nation-wide vote like a presidential election.

All elections without question. The easiest place to push for recounts being mandatory would probably be at the state level, though. A lot of states are already partway there with their percentage point based auto-recount thresholds as it stands. Wouldn't be too difficult in many states to convince expanding recounts.

Hands December 1st, 2016 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9503338)
wait. Do you even live in the states? If not, why worry about the electoral process?

Ivysaur lives in a NATO country, and is part of the EU. I live in a NATO country (the one you guys drag into the majority of your international messes) and am currently still part of the EU. We, and everyone in our respective countries, and our neighboring countries, are directly effected by the US. It would be insane for us not to worry about it.

Sektor December 1st, 2016 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9503419)
Recounts should just be mandatory in all elections. Or at least in any nation-wide vote like a presidential election.

It's important for our peace of mind to know that there isn't any rigging or hacking of elections. Especially in close races. And also with electronic voting machines, which practically invite election fraud. Of course if we didn't make the election process so difficult in the first place it might not be as necessary. Ivysaur's point is well taken. If you make it easy for people to get IDs then it's not a burden to ask for ID.

And yeah, lots of people don't have IDs because they don't need them. Think of people in cities who don't drive. Think of elderly people who haven't renewed a license in years. Think of young, poor, overworked people who don't can't afford to take a day off of work to stand in line. Red states have closed many DMVs in rural/poor/black areas so getting an ID is made more difficult for them as a result. It's the same tactic used in state government by people against abortion. Restrict access as much as you can without making it outright unobtainable and then say "if you really wanted it you could get it."

Also, election day should be on the weekend or be a holiday. It's frickin important and if we really thought that people should vote then we'd not make it as hard as it is. I'm not saying it's arduous. Obviously plenty of people can and do vote, but you look at places around the country where people are waiting 3, 4, 5 hours in line and you've got a systemic attempt to disenfranchise voters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9503478)
Can we not do this. "You don't live here why do you care?" isn't a reasonable response at all when it comes to an intellectual discussion nor does one's location invalidate their opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9503828)
Ivysaur lives in a NATO country, and is part of the EU. I live in a NATO country (the one you guys drag into the majority of your international messes) and am currently still part of the EU. We, and everyone in our respective countries, and our neighboring countries, are directly effected by the US. It would be insane for us not to worry about it.

For the record. My stance is on something else entirely. Since you do not live in this country, you do not know the way everyday life here works, how could you? It's not such a critique so much as a spouting out the obvious. In this country, most jobs . . nearly 95% of them, require you to have some form of identification, savvy? So you don't have ID. Well how can you change this?

I would like to point you all to our issuance system of the DMV, or the 'Department of Motor Vehicles'. Within the confines of it's walls, website and other devices you will find that obtaining your ID is not as hard as you all make it sound. So, you live in the city? Well too bad, in order to get a job, you must provide a photo ID and/or Social Security Card or a Birth Certificate.

Which companies mandate this? Nearly all, including 'starter jobs' like McDonald's, Burger King, WalMart, any fast food place, any retailer (not privately owned), construction, etc. Why is it so important and mandated to have ID? Because. If someone came into a place of business and demanded to see the employee manifest, they have a right to do so with the right credentials. Despite popular belief, hiring illegal and undocumented workers is illegal. Why? Due to regulation, a lot of these workers are considered to not be certified for the line of work they are in. Mandating ID is also a great way to figure out who'dunits.

The IRS, which is our Internal Revenue Service, requires you to have ID. Why? So they can collect taxes? How? From positions and places of work that offer you money. In order to collect data and taxes, you must fill out a W-2. That's our work order and is designed for tax collection purposes. In order to fill out a W-2 form? Yes, that's right, an identification card or some equivalence accepted by that state. Now, do all the homeless and poverty stricken have ID? No. Can they obtain one should they choose? Yes. Again, the library systems are largely free, and other resources are more than willing to assist with obtaining a form of Identification. You can find all of this on the DMV website. I'll tell you the same thing that I tell kids that refuse to do their homework, if you're not trying to do it, then you can't claim it's difficult. Go to the library, which is free, and follow the directions from there. Claiming that you don't have a computer isn't much of an excuse. Claiming that you live in a 'violent neighborhood' isn't an excuse either.

The argument of 'They have no where else to go' is hogwash and you should know that. I've been homeless before and yet, here I am. Take yourself on a bus bound for nowhere and remove yourself from your violent neighborhood where you're likely to die from a stray bullet. It's tough, yeah, but you do what you have to do to survive and ducking under windows and worried you'll get shot in school by some gangbanger punk is no way to live.

Who's responsible for knowing the laws in the state you live in? You are. You, as a citizen are expected to know your state laws, and as they say "ignorance is no excuse". The DMV, the USPS (that's our mailing system or Postal System) have pamphlets and information regarding how to obtain an ID. Obtaining some form of identification is not all too costly either, so that point is much moot as well.

We had about what? 120 million people vote, the majority of them in California (population wise, not vote wise). We have 300 million American citizens (approx. illegality doesn't count towards this total if I remember correctly) so the argument that the vast majority of the rest of the country doesn't have ID? Doesn't that just seem a bit . . . strange to you? That nearly two thirds of a nation didn't vote? Did you know that many businesses here in the states are mandated to allow paid leave to vote (depending on state law)?

If two thirds of the country didn't vote, then it's a safe assumption to say that roughly half of the people complaining about it didn't actually vote, no? Wouldn't it be weird to claim that 100% of the people complaining about this were all voters that voted in the current election? So, yes, claiming that half of the people complaining didn't vote is an accurate statement and one I'll adhere to, because it's logistically sound, claiming that it's not goes against the numbers and the odds of you winning that bet are less than 1:3 where the house wins on a tie.

The Electoral college collage. Oh boy. If there are any here that don't know what this is supposed to do, then I'll touch on it briefly. Roughly 120 million people voted, no? Okay. So each person has a 1:1 vote okay fine. But what about the college, the purpose it serves? There are roughly 55 million people living in California, of which holds absolutely no voter ID laws at all, so by this math if everyone in California stood up and voted one way for one party there is a high chance that California would shape federal law, savvy?

Still lost? Okay how's this, you're the fattest person at the table right? Right. So you get to decide what everyone gets to eat because you're the fattest in the room, right? Seem fair enough? I mean, you're not paying for everything, but hey you're fat and you obviously know what's best for everyone else in the room. You want to eat a big stack of waffles coated in butter, doused in bacon grease, smothered in fried chicken and topped mint icecream with whipped cream and a cherry on top. Yummy. This is despite the fact that you're not paying for everyone and disregard Karen's mint allergy or that Tom is a vegetarian and Meghan is diabetic. Does that make a little more sense? I haven't had to explain its use in quite a while, but the electoral college is the third party that says "Now wait just a minute there, fatty. We all are paying for this, so we all have the right to decide what we agree on to eat!". This was all very basic stuff I learned in, like, elementary school. Don't know how everyone forgot . . .

So I hope that helps clear that up a tad bit.

My beef with those outside the country is this: you don't live here, you have little to no experience in our governmental systems, don't pay taxes here or know which forms go where . . . see, all of this is just small potatoes and in no way an attack on anyone personally, but I find it odd that someone from the outside looking in at the big picture didn't take the smaller pieces into consideration. Getting an ID isn't that hard. I've pointed you towards some easy pickings there at the DMV. If you don't know what a birth certificate is or a social security card, the DMV will walk you through that. Don't know? They have a phone number.

The only reason why someone doesn't have ID as an adult is that either they're homeless, illegal, lame, or lazy. There are several things over here in the states that are provided free of charge to those that seek them out or ask for them. If you listen to the Obama administration, apparently unemployment is down at 5% which is about 15 million people going by a population of 300 million. So can someone please explain to me how these 15 million people are the majority of Americans? Why they don't have ID? This is the minority, and like I said, in order to get a job, you MUST have an ID! The government doesn't like being stiffed, so, either the Obama Administration is lying, or 15 million people don't have jobs or ID or both. So if these 15 million people are all voting age, then how come it's such a 'huge problem' these voter ID laws? I've been able to receive photo Identification in three different states with two of them being just my birth certificate and an envelope with my name on it to prove residency! Where was I able to get it? Washington, Oregon, and California! The big states that are vehemently opposed to Voter ID laws.

You can waltz in to a Texas voting booth and show nothing but a school ID! How do you get one of those? By going to school! Which is mandated by law! Am I smoking crack or something? To further put nails into the coffin using a nail gun, the Supreme court (the 'is all, be all' of courts) stated that 'Mandating ID to vote is not unconstitutional'.

I needed to plug this in somewhere, in case I forget to address it. In the case of not having a DMV in certain areas, I'd like to point you towards area least likely to have one. Gangland, USA is not the place for a school, library, Post Office or DMV. The reason why they don't have them in 'poor neighborhoods' is because these areas are more likely to 'up the ante' so to speak, meaning that they're more likely to be attacked, burgled, or robbed. If you're not thinking about the people who work there, you should take that into consideration. Would you appreciate having to work in an area rampant with gang violence? No? If you're willing to brave the streets of downtown LA be my guest, you're far braver than I ohoho! Really though, it's the same reason, I imagine, as the reasons over in the EU. Poor areas are more likely to produce crime, there fore you can't, in good conscience, place or force someone to work there. Imagine the lawsuits of employees that are attacked or die as a direct result from the neighborhood they service? Unless you want to see the post be escorted by soldiers again, I would ask someone to actually look into some of the areas where schools and businesses close down due to crime, not due to 'we don't want you to vote'. It seems very unlikely that someone would go around closing things down in anticipation for a four year bid (or two year). The vast majority of Americans don't vote following the election.

Of 50 states in the US, 30 of them require voter ID. Of those 30 states only 15 of them require photo ID. To get a photo ID you may need a birth certificate. Hey, you're in luck if you were born after 1930 or not born in a barn in the middle of Bumbang, Tennessee; you have a birth certificate. Boom. It's estimated that this (requiring ID) affects the elderly far more than it does younger voters, and most believe that requiring ID at the polls effects around 2% or 2.4 four million people. What makes this number seem smaller is still the fact that a couple hundred dead people voted back in June (CA). Dead people still turn out to vote it seems, but not in the millions. Probably more in the thousands and tens of thousands, maybe, but other than that I wouldn't be all too sure.

There are huge differences between the States and Europe across the sea (ocean, sea just sounded better). If anyone has any questions on how daily life works here in the states, I am happy to answer them the best I can. Call the DMV and see for yourself, I'm sure you'd be surprised at how far you can get before they wise up.

Nah December 1st, 2016 8:16 PM

I would think that one can still have a fairly good understanding about another country or thing without actually have been living in it for a long time. But really I just don't like the idea of barring people from discussion or claiming that their statements are basically invalid because they're not part of a certain group.

Anyway, when will we hear the results of this? And will it even matter? Clinton already won the popular vote, but even if she gets some more votes from the recount, will that really affect the electoral vote (the part that ultimately matters) at all?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.