The General US Politics Thread

Probably because the current Supreme Court would just shoot it down without it being precedent.

Not Three Laws compliant.

It hasn't gotten there yet, folks. It's the court of last resort, we currently are at the circuit courts stage.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Quick perusal of the Wikipedia article reveals Crawford v. Marion County (Indiana): Law requiring a picture ID to vote is constitutional. Wisconsin's 2011 law is pretty much along the same lines (law upheld by 7th Circuit, SCOTUS denied an appeal request from the ACLU).

Well, that's sort of the inefficiency of having 51 different executive branches.

Requiring ID to vote is, in theory, not a terrible idea - except that getting ID in some states is made harder by deliberately-inefficient or nonexistent DMVs and by the fact that poverty sucks so badly in parts of the country where there isn't an efficient social safety net that people can't afford to take time off to get ID.

Apropos of nothing, I was looking at the headlines on my Reuters app earlier today and wanted to share something that amused me.

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong...◊

edited 29th Jul '16 11:43:38 AM by sgamer82

Is it as bad as the Dukakis tank ad?

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

I'll tell you what, that Pence fellow is some kind of bad dude, and it is very important that the media tell us all about it.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

If you mean me, the pic is just a bunch of serious political headlines with "Mike Pence Rides A Motorcycle" in the middle, which I found disproportionately amusing.

edited 29th Jul '16 12:15:30 PM by sgamer82

But is he a bad enough dude to rescue Hillary Clinton?

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

When people comment that they wish Bernie, or Joe Biden, or some other male was the nominee instead of Hillary, some part of me assumes implicit sexism (yes, I know this is totally unfounded). In the back of mind I'm thinking: "can't we just have a female nominee for once?!" I know gender probably does not influence most people in choosing a candidate, but when there's only one female candidate (and one that I think is very qualified) among many men, I tend to jump to subconscious conclusions. I just can't wait until we get to the point where the candidates are more gender balanced, so the female candidate doesn't have to, on some level, represent all females.

Can he really get much worse than "women who miscarry need to be jailed for manslaughter" crap?

"Yup. That tasted purple."

Frankly - as it comes to most things - I don't give a crap about the gender, race, or anything else about someone applying/running for a position so long as I think they're the best for the job. As it happens I think Clinton is the best for the job of the candidates, but I hate seeing people voting for her or not based on her gender. You shouldn't vote just to fill a quota.

"Can't make an omelette without breaking some children." -Bur

One can both support Clinton as the first woman President and believe she is the best candidate for the job. If her gender were the major criterion inspiring people to vote for her, she'd have won in 2008, wouldn't she?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, maybe not. 2008 was two minorities (in terms of Presidents) running against each other in the primary.

Not Three Laws compliant.

Valid point. Still, the Democrats have seen a pretty sharp deficit lately of clearly-defined "ideal candidates" for President. If there is such a thing as an obvious candidate, Hillary is it. There's some resentment of that fact, but it doesn't change it.

edited 29th Jul '16 12:35:58 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

On the topic of offensive Republican remarks (like they're ever in short supply), Ann Coulter landed in hot waters with both sides of the aisle for saying "You know what this convention really needed? An angry Muslim with a thick accent like Fareed Zacaria" in response to Khizr Khan's speech. Khizr Khan, whose son, Humayun, was an Army Captain who was killed by a car bomb in Iraq.

Well, considering that Coulter's books sell well enough to land on the Best Seller lists at a consistent rate, and that she appears on Fox News quite often... yeah. They kind of do, and that's why her getting flak from both sides in retaliation for that statement is just so damned satisfying.

edited 29th Jul '16 12:46:50 PM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

Ugh. People really need to learn how to shut their mouth.

People still care what she says?

Funny you should say that, because last night my mom commented on how it ever since Bill Clinton, there seems to be a stark deficiency of truly qualified candidates in the US presidential hopefuls pool. No more big names like Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy; Dubya was the son of a former president who was more or less a footnote in US presidential history despite the trumpeting of his "crucial role" in the end of the Cold War by the news media at the time, while Obama was no more well-known than your average US Senator, and for all the good things he managed to do, he still struggled a lot and failed to deliver on other major promises (e.g. the closure of Guantanamo Bay). Compare him to Eisenhower sending federal troops to enforce racial integration of schools in Arkansas after Governor Faubus tried to defy the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

edited 29th Jul '16 12:51:45 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

In Time of Discord, Bashing Trade Pacts Appeals To Both Parties

Basically, if there is a single issue that Democratic voters and Republican voters as a whole can agree on, it is that multilateral trade agreements suck for Americans and that this treatment of free trade as a political pariah may signal a shift away from advocating it for America in general.

Wizard Needs Food Badly

Which is unfortunate, since globalization is a net good if managed properly. The problem is the management, not the idea itself.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@Ironballs 16- Saw that on my feed. So typical of her that I'm neither surprised nor disappointed.

I had deja vu though as I could have sworn that Coulter had previously used Zakaria as an example of "Eevil brown people with forun accents".Found it.

Besides the awful racism, I find her apparent fixation on him weird because he doesn't have a particularly strong accent and I think is well-known generally as an educated commentator on geopolitics. He's like the worst possible example you could choose for a smear on the basis of insufficient assimilation.

edited 29th Jul '16 12:47:23 PM by Hodor2

I actually agree with that. I would actually say that the bad management of trade deals is a result of the current issue of corporations having too much influence on American politics.

Wizard Needs Food Badly

'd previous post.

Yeah, but try getting that point across to skeptical voters. As far as I can tell, Joe Average seems to prefer not straining his neurons trying to comprehend that international economics aren't a simple thing to do and take time and effort to work out, and thus would be more likely to call it a lost cause and support anti-globalization politicians.

edited 29th Jul '16 12:50:16 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

The only reason I'd want Biden to be the nominee over Clinton is that a Biden vs Trump debate would be a hilarious bloodbath.

Oh, and it looks like Ann Coulter is still a pile of garbage that people have mistaken for a human. Big surprise.

edited 29th Jul '16 1:25:30 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.