PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on January 27, 2017, 07:10:35 AM
-
I support Trump's decision to investigate voting fraud. Even if he is wrong and the investigation doesn't show any significant amount, we still need to know. And I think it is proper for the winner of the election to initiate the investigation.
-
Shouldn't it be pretty easy to find out in California. There should be a list of those illegals that have gotten drivers licenses and then check that list against the roles of those who voted.
-
Every study I've ever seen suggests that identity fraud, the kind voter ID laws protect against, is nearly nonexistent. Makes sense, it is a truly stupid way to try and rig an election. Of course, Trumpty Dumpty knows better, and is happy to use all the kings horses and all the kings men to uncover it no matter hat the facts may be.
-
Shouldn't it be pretty easy to find out in California. There should be a list of those illegals that have gotten drivers licenses and then check that list against the roles of those who voted.
Part of the investigation is to find out how many people are registered to vote in more than one state. I suspect Florida will show some snowbirds that vote in two states. They are also going to investigate dead people voting. Look out Chicago!
But if they conduct an honest and thorough investigation and it turns up very little, then we need to know that too.
-
Every study I've ever seen suggests that identity fraud, the kind voter ID laws protect against, is nearly nonexistent. Makes sense, it is a truly stupid way to try and rig an election. Of course, Trumpty Dumpty knows better, and is happy to use all the kings horses and all the kings men to uncover it no matter hat the facts may be.
Notice that in my follow up post (which was being typed while you were posting) mentions nothing about photo ID.
So do you agree with the investigation, or not.
-
Shouldn't it be pretty easy to find out in California. There should be a list of those illegals that have gotten drivers licenses and then check that list against the roles of those who voted.
Racist!
-
Every study I've ever seen suggests that identity fraud, the kind voter ID laws protect against, is nearly nonexistent. Makes sense, it is a truly stupid way to try and rig an election. Of course, Trumpty Dumpty knows better, and is happy to use all the kings horses and all the kings men to uncover it no matter hat the facts may be.
Was this one of the studies that you used? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.
Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.
Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.
Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.
-
I'm alright with the investigation as long as the results are published fairly no matter the outcome. I do think it's important to note that being registered to vote in two states is not illegal, something that Mr. Bannon knows to be true since he did it. Our voter rolls are garbage, so there is no efficient system to do something as simple as remove voters from the roll once they move to another location. If we had a modern opt-out system with information sharing, that might be different.
-
Every study I've ever seen suggests that identity fraud, the kind voter ID laws protect against, is nearly nonexistent. Makes sense, it is a truly stupid way to try and rig an election. Of course, Trumpty Dumpty knows better, and is happy to use all the kings horses and all the kings men to uncover it no matter hat the facts may be.
Your blind devotion to progressive positions like vote fraud is another reason why actual working people don't trust useless academics.
Vote fraud is a big problem but seems to only benefit democrats, which the only reason why you floated this ignorant lie and continue to babble it.
Try this. if your tiny little IQ can embrace facts that refuse to be altered to suit your agenda.
Clinton Received 800,000 Votes From Noncitizens, Study Finds
Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
-
I'm alright with the investigation as long as the results are published fairly no matter the outcome.
I'm happy to hear that.
I do think it's important to note that being registered to vote in two states is not illegal, something that Mr. Bannon knows to be true since he did it.
But it is illegal to vote in two states, and once it is determined who is registered in two states, it is easy to find out if they voted in two states.
-
Was this one of the studies that you used? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
I specified identity fraud because voter ID laws are designed specifically to block it (actually, they're designed to block voting by African Americans, if you believe their designers. But I digress). I would not rule out other sorts of more organized dirty tricks, and I have little doubt that such things are used widely by partizans of many stripes. There is evidence to suggest that they have influenced elections in the past. That said, voter ID laws do nothing to prevent the latter.
Even that said, most reports of massive fraud winds up being faulty records. I've seen this over and over again, the big story about the find, then the little virtually unpublished stories about the retraction. I don't know the specifics about what has been cited, but the brief report sounds specious at best.
-
What Steingar and others mean when they dismiss vote fraud is that the reports refuse to publish only the partisan agenda's opinions, therefore they are lies.
Vote fraud ALWAYS seems to favor democrats which explains Steingar's rejection of the obvious truth. If he could cite a single republican committing vote fraud his panties would be on fire, he'd be so infuriated.
-
I specified identity fraud because voter ID laws are designed specifically to block it (actually, they're designed to block voting by African Americans, if you believe their designers. But I digress). I would not rule out other sorts of more organized dirty tricks, and I have little doubt that such things are used widely by partizans of many stripes. There is evidence to suggest that they have influenced elections in the past. That said, voter ID laws do nothing to prevent the latter.
Even that said, most reports of massive fraud winds up being faulty records. I've seen this over and over again, the big story about the find, then the little virtually unpublished stories about the retraction. I don't know the specifics about what has been cited, but the brief report sounds specious at best.
So you haven't read it, but you deflect with a response of "the brief report sounds specious (suspicious) at best".
And yet you have lambasted others on this forum for disparaging your "colleagues" in academia when they have posted countering opinions. So Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University has worked with his colleagues to do this research it's not suspect by you without any evidence of why it would be suspect?
I think what is suspect is an extremely biased academic who refuses to believe anything outside his protected bubble.
-
Shouldn't it be pretty easy to find out in California. There should be a list of those illegals that have gotten drivers licenses and then check that list against the roles of those who voted.
Shredders are running full time.
-
I'm happy to hear that.
But it is illegal to vote in two states, and once it is determined who is registered in two states, it is easy to find out if they voted in two states.
Voting records are generally public data. We could already find out whether people voted in two states.
-
I'm alright with the investigation as long as the results are published fairly no matter the outcome. I do think it's important to note that being registered to vote in two states is not illegal, something that Mr. Bannon knows to be true since he did it. Our voter rolls are garbage, so there is no efficient system to do something as simple as remove voters from the roll once they move to another location. If we had a modern opt-out system with information sharing, that might be different.
This seems to be true. I was in the process of moving to Texas during the primaries last year. I ended up voting in the NC primary. When I got to Texas I registered in Texas. Then I got a ballot in the mail from NC because they were doing a runoff or a re-vote or something. I was to fill it out and mail it back. I called the election board in NC and told them my primary residence is now Texas and I should be removed from the NC voter rolls. She did so and asked me to just tear up the ballot.
As far as I know, if I had not called and asked to be removed, my name would still be on the rolls. There would be nothing stopping me from voting early in Texas, then flying back to NC and voting. Or if I didn't, somebody else impersonating me and voting under my name. As far as I know, the states do not compare databases to look for this sort of thing.
-
Voting records are generally public data. We could already find out whether people voted in two states.
Crossed with my post. Yes, but are we doing this? Has anyone made up an EDI for all the states, imported the data and written a query looking for this? I'd be surprised.
-
Part of the investigation is to find out how many people are registered to vote in more than one state. I suspect Florida will show some snowbirds that vote in two states. They are also going to investigate dead people voting. Look out Chicago!
But if they conduct an honest and thorough investigation and it turns up very little, then we need to know that too.
As far as I understand it is not illegal to be registered to vote in more than one state. Let's say you move from KY to IL. Would you automatically think to have your name removed in KY?
-
Voting records are generally public data. We could already find out whether people voted in two states.
slight correction: we can already find out whether people claiming to be a voter voted in two states.
At least in taxachusetts, when I show up at the polling place to vote, I don't have to show any proof that I'm the eligible voter.
-
So you haven't read it, but you deflect with a response of "the brief report sounds specious (suspicious) at best".
And yet you have lambasted others on this forum for disparaging your "colleagues" in academia when they have posted countering opinions. So Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University has worked with his colleagues to do this research it's not suspect by you without any evidence of why it would be suspect?
Actually, Dr. Richman himself has claimed to be misquoted and has claimed that his findings have been twisted beyond recognition. He also claims that the sort of vote fraud under scrutiny could not have cost Trump the election. Yes, I do stand up for my colleagues. I thought it smelled, and as usual I'm right.
-
Actually, Dr. Richman himself has claimed to be misquoted and has claimed that his findings have been twisted beyond recognition. He also claims that the sort of vote fraud under scrutiny could not have cost Trump the election. Yes, I do stand up for my colleagues. I thought it smelled, and as usual I'm right.
In reading more on Jesse Richman there is this:
Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which interviews tens of thousands of people every election year, the ODU study concluded that, at most, “maybe 14 percent of non-citizens engaged in some type of voting behavior,” Richman said.
Repeat: That’s not 14 percent of all voters. That’s 14 percent of all non-citizens.
“And keep in mind that non-citizens are a fraction of the total U.S. population,” Richman said, around 20 million adults. “So they maybe make up, at the very, very high end, 1 percent of an electorate.”
So is this acceptable? Even at this number? Should we accept voter fraud only if it doesn't exceed a predetermined number?
-
Crossed with my post. Yes, but are we doing this? Has anyone made up an EDI for all the states, imported the data and written a query looking for this? I'd be surprised.
No idea if we're doing this. I doubt it.
-
Looking at his original work the estimate is between 38,000 and 2.8 million. That said, his sample size is vanishingly small and depends largely on honest answers, something I wouldn't trust given the illegal nature of the activity. Hey, I'm not denying this happens. For much of our history it was legal, too. I am denying that it is the problem you all claim. Let the Cheeto Jesus have his investigation. I doubt he'll come up with anything, but I've been wrong before.
-
Looking at his original work the estimate is between 38,000 and 2.8 million. That said, his sample size is vanishingly small and depends largely on honest answers, something I wouldn't trust given the illegal nature of the activity. Hey, I'm not denying this happens. For much of our history it was legal, too. I am denying that it is the problem you all claim. Let the Cheeto Jesus have his investigation. I doubt he'll come up with anything, but I've been wrong before.
Unlike the chocolate commie, at least President Trump has the balls to call for an investigation.
-
Voting records are generally public data. We could already find out whether people voted in two states.
You're point being? . . .
We could already find out, but we haven't. Trump is proposing that we do find out. He is not proposing that we violate any existing privacy laws.
I would think that liberals that honestly believe voter fraud is minuscule would get behind this to prove their point. Only if someone thinks that they have something to hide would they resist. After all the millions we spend to study things like why hookers in Hong Kong smoke more than most we can spend a few bucks on this.
-
I would think that liberals that honestly believe voter fraud is minuscule would get behind this to prove their point. Only if someone thinks that they have something to hide would they resist.
I thought liberals were all about looking for voter fraud. Wasn't that why Jill Stein did all the recounts in the blue belt states? If they were behind that, shouldn't they be all for what Trump's doing?
-
slight correction: we can already find out whether people claiming to be a voter voted in two states.
At least in taxachusetts, when I show up at the polling place to vote, I don't have to show any proof that I'm the eligible voter.
Don't you have to sign the register? Presumably the poll person is checking to see if the registration signature matches the voting one.
-
Don't you have to sign the register? Presumably the poll person is checking to see if the registration signature matches the voting one.
Nope.
Just tell them your name and address.
-
Also, I don't even know that being registered in two states is illegal or even wrong. You probably don' get taken off the voting rolls when you move. And lots of folks live part time in two states. Like I said, most of these things turn out to be benign misunderstandings.
-
Also, I don't even know that being registered in two states is illegal or even wrong. You probably don' get taken off the voting rolls when you move. And lots of folks live part time in two states. Like I said, most of these things turn out to be benign misunderstandings.
Irrelevant.
Is it legal to vote in two states in the same election? Should anyone be checking that out?
-
How many college students are voting twice? I have no idea,but I sure would like to know.
-
If the President wants to launch an investigation, I'm all for it. Set up a neutral team, and have at it. In the big scheme of things the cost will barely register, and the results useful.
-
You're point being? . . .
We could already find out, but we haven't. Trump is proposing that we do find out. He is not proposing that we violate any existing privacy laws.
I would think that liberals that honestly believe voter fraud is minuscule would get behind this to prove their point. Only if someone thinks that they have something to hide would they resist. After all the millions we spend to study things like why hookers in Hong Kong smoke more than most we can spend a few bucks on this.
Uh, my point ain't rocket science. And are you sure we haven't looked?
-
Is it legal to vote in two states in the same election? Should anyone be checking that out?
As far as I know it is not only not illegal to be registered in two states, but almost unavoidable if you move. Voting in two states in the same election is of course illegal. I doubt it would be a simple thing for states to cross check voter logs, however. It would take quite a bit of checking to make certain that matching names were not matching people. There will be lots of instances with multiple voters having the same name in a nation as large as ours. Unless we have biometrics associated with voting registration this could be a thorny issue.
However, someone voting in two different elections has their work cut out for them. They'd need aerial transport unless the two elections were in neighboring states, and even then its a lot of driving for many. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to, not to mention risking prison and/or hefty fines, just to ineffectively try and swing an election.
-
As far as I know it is not only not illegal to be registered in two states, but almost unavoidable if you move. Voting in two states in the same election is of course illegal. I doubt it would be a simple thing for states to cross check voter logs, however. It would take quite a bit of checking to make certain that matching names were not matching people. There will be lots of instances with multiple voters having the same name in a nation as large as ours. Unless we have biometrics associated with voting registration this could be a thorny issue.
However, someone voting in two different elections has their work cut out for them. They'd need aerial transport unless the two elections were in neighboring states, and even then its a lot of driving for many. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to, not to mention risking prison and/or hefty fines, just to ineffectively try and swing an election.
Names may be redundant, but ss numbers and dl numbers aren't.
And this is the 20th century! We can vote by mail or vote early.
(ok, I know it's the 21'st century, but we have been voting by mail and voting early for years).
So even if we don't catch voters voting multiple times, I am sure we would find a bunch of people using illegal id.
-
Lots of ways to fraud. NYC election official Alan Schulkin is shown on YouTube describing how he saw Dems bussing people between polling places to vote more than once. Considering the low bar for validating one's right to vote, a myriad of go-arounds is possible.
Before the 2016 election I saw a number of videos and documented cases of Dems outright changing the ballots and destroying ballots. Whether enough to sway an outcome? My state had a governor's race that came down to around 200 votes, and we had three recounts.
Some of Trump's state leads were down to 10,000 votes. When you think about it, if a state has, say, 30 counties, around 3,000 fraudulent votes per county would do it. But fraud is usually carried out more easily in urban areas, or the "Clinton Archipelago." :) There, more undocumented, non-English-speaking people reside.
In the investigation on voter fraud, vote farming should also be addressed. That is, purposefully allowing your dedicated voter bloc undeserved access to the country and to ballots. And using the media to suppress and distort truth, thus affecting votes.
Vote farming may have a greater effect than voter fraud.
-
California ... big surprise.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/01/27/voter-fraud/
-
California ... big surprise.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/01/27/voter-fraud/
The Brietbart link is an interesting read... long on innuendo and potentials, short on any factual evidence. Their best reference is a report "Perfect Storm Report" on the Election Integrity Project website which does have lots of data on how voter fraud could occur, but again, zero evidence that it has actually occurred. In your quest to look deeply at all sides of the issue, do you have any other references that provide the evidence?
How would you characterize this report?
http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/truth-about-voter-fraud
The President has proposed an investigation on the issue. So, let's get that in gear and get all the information out there for all to see. I have no doubt voter fraud occurs, any system devised by man can be gamed. The question is whether this a big problem, a medium problem, a small problem, or, not a problem at all. Would seem to me that if voter fraud was anything above not a problem, the losers of these elections would be in court the next day with their evidence in hand to overturn the results - yet this rarely happens. Quite a bit of voting is indeed on the honor system, and Americans are amazingly honest about it.
-
The Brietbart link is an interesting read... long on innuendo and potentials, short on any factual evidence. Their best reference is a report "Perfect Storm Report" on the Election Integrity Project website which does have lots of data on how voter fraud could occur, but again, zero evidence that it has actually occurred. In your quest to look deeply at all sides of the issue, do you have any other references that provide the evidence?
How would you characterize this report?
http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/truth-about-voter-fraud
The President has proposed an investigation on the issue. So, let's get that in gear and get all the information out there for all to see. I have no doubt voter fraud occurs, any system devised by man can be gamed. The question is whether this a big problem, a medium problem, a small problem, or, not a problem at all. Would seem to me that if voter fraud was anything above a small problem, the losers of these elections would be in court the next day with their evidence in hand to overturn the results - yet this rarely happens. Quite a bit of voting is indeed on the honor system, and Americans are amazingly honest about it.
Agree that voter fraud is an established meme, has historical roots, and generally is attributed to Democrats, with elements of hype. I consider, however that the many ways fraud can occur should be investigated and blocked as much as possible.
Definitely agree some investigation and "closure" might be a good thing.
I didn't read the 50-page report you linked, but they red flagged me in their little intro, where they state that they work "to make it as simple as possible for every eligible American to vote ..."
Sorry, we've had threads on this before and I know asechrest feels differently, but I happen to believe that voting should be a little effortful, with some serious buy-in, and preferably in person.
-
Agree that voter fraud is an established meme, has historical roots, and generally is attributed to Democrats, with elements of hype. I consider, however that the many ways fraud can occur should be investigated and blocked as much as possible.
Yes. rightly or wrongly that attribution does exist in certain subsets of information.
Definitely agree some investigation and "closure" might be a good thing.
Good!
I didn't read the 50-page report you linked, but they red flagged me in their little intro, where they state that they work "to make it as simple as possible for every eligible American to vote ..."
That's a bit disappointing. Sorry that the report started out with a phrase you disagree with, causing you to deem the remainder irrelevant. Perhaps you will in the future, reconsider. It is a long report, some things just can't be summed up in a 30-second soundbite. We do have a problem with voter turnout. Seems to me we should make it as simple as possible and get the best participation rate as possible.
Sorry, we've had threads on this before and I know asechrest feels differently, but I happen to believe that voting should be a little effortful, with some serious buy-in, and preferably in person.
Yes we have discussed this before. Asechrest has a very valid point, the way we keep and maintain voting roles is horrible and riddled with errors. No doubt voting is a serious matter, wish more people would take it seriously.
-
We do have a problem with voter turnout. Seems to me we should make it as simple as possible and get the best participation rate as possible.
Ease of voting doesn't address the real issue, which is lack of good choices on the ballot. Voters unaffiliated with any party often don't vote because the choices presented generally suck. Consider these facts:
As of Jan. 1, 2016, Oregon had made it as easy as possible by enacting automatic voter registration when a person gets or renews a motor vehicle license. In fact the person has to explicitly opt out if they don't want to be registered. Voters had also been able to register online, by mail, or in person at their county election office.
Not only that, Oregon also automatically mails ballots 20 days prior to election day to all registered voters, which the voter can mail back or drop at a ballot box. No need to go to a voting booth and plenty of time to make a choice.
Even with all that, the 2016 election saw a turnout of 78.9%. This was less than the 86.51% turnout of the 1960 election (when Oregon voters voted for Nixon over Kennedy, or the 86.48% turnout of the 2004 election, when Oregon voters chose Kerry over Bush.)
Turnout among registered Democrats in 2016 was 86.6% while it was 88.1% for Republicans. Among unaffiliated voters it was just 59.3% (http://www.opb.org/news/series/election-2016/oregon-voter-turnout-numbers/ (http://www.opb.org/news/series/election-2016/oregon-voter-turnout-numbers/))
The county with the biggest turnout (85.2%) was Harney, which is a rural county that was in the national news because of the occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Like all the rural counties of Oregon, it went heavily Republican (75.4% - http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/oregon/ (http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/oregon/))
-
Ease of voting doesn't address the real issue, which is lack of good choices on the ballot. Voters unaffiliated with any party often don't vote because the choices presented generally suck. Consider these facts:
What makes that "the real issue"? Some other statistics: Oregon saw a record number of voters in 2016. And voter turnout percentage was higher than in 2000, 1996, '84, '80, '76 and '72. A single data point from a shitty election doesn't tell us a whole lot.
Ease of voting addresses _an_ issue, in the opinion of some, though comprehensive modernization must involve much more than that.
-
What makes that "the real issue"? Some other statistics: Oregon saw a record number of voters in 2016. And voter turnout percentage was higher than in 2000, 1996, '84, '80, '76 and '72. A single data point from a shitty election doesn't tell us a whole lot.
Ease of voting addresses _an_ issue, in the opinion of some, though comprehensive modernization must involve much more than that.
"Shitty election" seems to be a partial affirmation of my statement "lack of good choices on the ballot." For additional, go ask the Libertarian or Green party managers just how hard the two major parties have made it to get on the ballot in a lot of states. The "Never Trump" Republican conservatives discovered last spring just how hard they had made getting an alternate on the ballot.
Oregon basically registered people who couldn't or wouldn't make the trivially easy effort to do so (previously when they went to the DMV to get their license they could also register with minimal extra effort - but some didn't anyway.) Oregon changed the law so those people become registered voters unless they make an effort not to. Yet 40.7% of the unaffiliated still didn't vote!
Even my wife chose not to make any choice for president, though she voted on most other local issues. She was well-informed and has her own political philosophy that wasn't served by any candidate.
Not only do I see nothing wrong with people not wanting to vote, I wish people weren't hounded or urged to vote for the sake of voting. It generates random noise at best, an emotion-driven choice at worst.
-
"Shitty election" seems to be a partial affirmation of my statement "lack of good choices on the ballot." For additional, go ask the Libertarian or Green party managers just how hard the two major parties have made it to get on the ballot in a lot of states. The "Never Trump" Republican conservatives discovered last spring just how hard they had made getting an alternate on the ballot.
Oregon basically registered people who couldn't or wouldn't make the trivially easy effort to do so (previously when they went to the DMV to get their license they could also register with minimal extra effort - but some didn't anyway.) Oregon changed the law so those people become registered voters unless they make an effort not to. Yet 40.7% of the unaffiliated still didn't vote!
Even my wife chose not to make any choice for president, though she voted on most other local issues. She was well-informed and has her own political philosophy that wasn't served by any candidate.
Not only do I see nothing wrong with people not wanting to vote, I wish people weren't hounded or urged to vote for the sake of voting. It generates random noise at best, an emotion-driven choice at worst.
You're conflating two separate things, as evidenced by the thought experiment wherein the US has a quad-party system with four of the best, most popular nominees the world has ever seen, but only those individuals who can do 300 pushups in a single sitting are allowed to vote.
I don't disagree with the meat of your point about shitty candidates. But I'll take better candidates (meaning a better system, really), AND voting that is as easy as makes sense. The two are not mutually exclusive.
PS - Emotion-driven voting is par for the course and always has been. Is that way of voting "wrong"?
-
Not only do I see nothing wrong with people not wanting to vote, I wish people weren't hounded or urged to vote for the sake of voting. It generates random noise at best, an emotion-driven choice at worst.
You can't eliminate the emotion driven choice although I agree it's not a good one. But there might be reasons it's appropriate. Stay with me here, understand I think Obama is the single worst president we have ever had. I talked to several blacks about why they voted him in and got answers that were 100% about the first black president. When I pushed for thoughts about issues and policy, they had nothing to say. The more conservative ones did not disagree that fiscal progressivism is bad, but that didn't matter, just the fact that a black is voted into the White House will "heal" the racial divide blah blah blah blah. Of course, these are purely racist motives because they voted on skin color alone. Nevermind the irony, hypocrisy, etc., this was an emotional vote, and if I step into their shoes and look at it from their perspective, I can understand where they're coming from.
The Trump win also was driven largely by emotion. People who have lost jobs, had their quality of life decline for the first time in U.S. history, and are losing their dreams for a future, voted for Trump out of desperation. They did something outrageous, like Spock jettisoning and igniting the shuttle craft fuel. The risk is if you're wrong, you crash back on the planet. But at this point what have you got to lose? You're going to die anyway.
In fact, the following pretty much nails my own state of mind when I pulled the lever for Trump:
KIRK: Mister Spock.
SPOCK: Captain.
KIRK: There's really something I don't understand about all of this. Maybe you can explain it to me. Logically, of course. When you jettisoned the fuel and ignited it, you knew there was virtually no chance of it being seen, yet you did it anyhow. That would seem to me to be an act of desperation.
SPOCK: Quite correct, Captain.
KIRK: Now we all know, and I'm sure the doctor will agree with me, that desperation is a highly emotional state of mind. How does your well-known logic explain that?
SPOCK: Quite simply, Captain. I examined the problem from all angles, and it was plainly hopeless. Logic informed me that under the circumstances, the only possible action would have to be one of desperation. Logical decision, logically arrived at.
KIRK: I see. You mean you reasoned that it was time for an emotional outburst.
SPOCK: Well, I wouldn't put it in exactly those terms, Captain, but those are essentially the facts.
KIRK: You're not going to admit that for the first time in your life, you committed a purely human emotional act?
SPOCK: No, sir.
KIRK: Mister Spock, you're a stubborn man.
SPOCK: Yes, sir.
-
You can't eliminate the emotion driven choice although I agree it's not a good one. But there might be reasons it's appropriate. Stay with me here, understand I think Obama is the single worst president we have ever had. I talked to several blacks about why they voted him in and got answers that were 100% about the first black president. When I pushed for thoughts about issues and policy, they had nothing to say. The more conservative ones did not disagree that fiscal progressivism is bad, but that didn't matter, just the fact that a black is voted into the White House will "heal" the racial divide blah blah blah blah. Of course, these are purely racist motives because they voted on skin color alone. Nevermind the irony, hypocrisy, etc., this was an emotional vote, and if I step into their shoes and look at it from their perspective, I can understand where they're coming from.
The Trump win also was driven largely by emotion. People who have lost jobs, had their quality of life decline for the first time in U.S. history, and are losing their dreams for a future, voted for Trump out of desperation. They did something outrageous, like Spock jettisoning and igniting the shuttle craft fuel. The risk is if you're wrong, you crash back on the planet. But at this point what have you got to lose? You're going to die anyway.
In fact, the following pretty much nails my own state of mind when I pulled the lever for Trump:
KIRK: Mister Spock.
SPOCK: Captain.
KIRK: There's really something I don't understand about all of this. Maybe you can explain it to me. Logically, of course. When you jettisoned the fuel and ignited it, you knew there was virtually no chance of it being seen, yet you did it anyhow. That would seem to me to be an act of desperation.
SPOCK: Quite correct, Captain.
KIRK: Now we all know, and I'm sure the doctor will agree with me, that desperation is a highly emotional state of mind. How does your well-known logic explain that?
SPOCK: Quite simply, Captain. I examined the problem from all angles, and it was plainly hopeless. Logic informed me that under the circumstances, the only possible action would have to be one of desperation. Logical decision, logically arrived at.
KIRK: I see. You mean you reasoned that it was time for an emotional outburst.
SPOCK: Well, I wouldn't put it in exactly those terms, Captain, but those are essentially the facts.
KIRK: You're not going to admit that for the first time in your life, you committed a purely human emotional act?
SPOCK: No, sir.
KIRK: Mister Spock, you're a stubborn man.
SPOCK: Yes, sir.
(https://www.autostraddle.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/192-640x480.jpg)
-
The original Star Trek was a ground breaking show.
-
The only way to stop liberals from fighting the concept of accurate voting is to prove that a republican engaged in vote fraud and watch how fast they change 180 degrees
-
Ha! Love me some Spock! Excellently done.
Voter turnout is not a problem that I care about. I have never understood why someone would choose to not vote. I do think it should take effort, and I stand firmly by that position.
And it should take robust ID. I read that a new food bank opened up in a nearby town. To receive food, one must present a photo ID and proof of residency, such as a utility bill matching the ID.
Awful candidates are our own fault. Our government, to truly serve us, also requires some effort. Ideally, the people find and put forth the candidate they think will best do the job. Instead, we sit back and complain about candidates who self select.
Granted, the truly capable and integrous often flee the notion of being a body politic. Still, it is well known that those who seek power often do so for reasons that do not serve the populace.
That is why I like that President Trump demurred to run for decades, and stepped in when he could no longer stand to see his country dissolving.
-
And it should take robust ID. I read that a new food bank opened up in a nearby town. To receive food, one must present a photo ID and proof of residency, such as a utility bill matching the ID.
Those racist bigots! How dare they make it difficult for the needy to have food!
-
Awful candidates are our own fault. Our government, to truly serve us, also requires some effort. Ideally, the people find and put forth the candidate they think will best do the job. Instead, we sit back and complain about candidates who self select.
Look at what Trump endured. Look around and see what other new comers to politics have endured to run. Not many people are up to the nastiness of politics and having their names and reputations dragged through the mud.
There are good people who could run and would be good at the job. Would you put yourself through such a grinder to get one of those jobs?