Question For Those That Voted For Trump

[vox]

From a leftist guy, I totally agree with Cardboard here! An ID should be an absolute requirement to vote, I don't see why there should be a debate about this!

 

I think that this is an idea that is fine in theory, but has to be implemented properly, something that's often not the case. Just as how voter education laws make sense (making sure that people have a clear understanding of who and what they are voting for), but have historically been used to discriminate against certain groups. See: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_rights_and_the_supreme_court_the_impossible_literacy_test_louisiana.html

 

The voter ID laws crafted by Republican state legislatures disproportionately affect poor and minority voters. https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsin-is-systematically-failing-to-provide-the-photo-ids-required-to-vote-in-november/

 

In Canada, it is not complicated, you show a driver licence or something and they check your name on the list, that's it. Is it bulletproof? No, but is way better than nothing IMO.

 

In my state, you are assigned a polling location. When you arrive, you give the election official your name and address and that is matched to your voter registration information. If you were to impersonate someone that has already voted or is not registered for that location, presumably you would get caught and not be allowed to cast a ballot.

 

Many non citizens get assistance.  The only ID that is only given to citizens is a US Passport, so why not require one to vote?

 

I've said this before, but democracy would work better (still not perfect, but better) if it allowed only stakeholders in society to vote.  Maybe require $100K equity in a property or $100K ownership in a business, plus a US passport.  Maybe allow someone to get around the $100k ownership rule if they are willing to pay a $500 voting fee for every election they wish to vote in.

 

Not all citizens have passports. My friend did not get one until last year when she was 30 years old. If you want to waive passport fees and give them at birth or age 18, that's fine. Why do you think that social policy should be set exclusively by the rich? Are they just more enlightened than everybody else?

 

 

As Alexis de Tocqueville correctly observed "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money".  That would be less likely to happen if the taxpayers voted and the tax receivers didn't.  I'd also prohibit anyone currently holding political office or working for any level of government from voting (along with their immediate family members).  Also the 100k ownership in a business is not valid if that business gets any subsidies from any level of government or makes any sales to any government department or agency.  The moment you take a direct payment of even one cent from government you should lose your right to vote.

 

Government does more than reallocate taxes and fees. Why should a public school teacher have no say on civil rights issues?

[Mephistopheles]

For those who support Trump, as a scientist, I find that it is what is the most scary thing: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-administration-restricts-news-from-federal-scientists-at-usda-epa/

 

This is a dangerous path.

 

Of course, a lot of you don't care about the subtle change and the erosion of your democracy, as long it is strengthening the economy in the sort term.

 

+1 Terrifying. Someone on this thread said well this is not as bad as Chinese censorship when I compared the two. Well, no, it's not. But is that the standard we have to live up to? And then you have Trump's attacks on the media.

 

Personally, I am moderate to maybe even slightly right on the issue of the environment. I'm glad to see Keystone go through. Economically/Fiscally I'm conservative/libertarian. I own a whole bunch of Fannie and Freddie and have made a ton of money thanks to Trump. I hate CNN and MSNBC, and I get my news from newspapers.

 

Nonetheless, I am disgusted by this sort of behavior. It is just madness and dangerous. Shame on anyone, left or right, who's willing to defend this or approve of it. Imagine if Obama attacked Fox News the way Trump attacks CNN? Or if he censored any government agency? Probably would have been impeached.

[jeffmori7]

For those who support Trump, as a scientist, I find that it is what is the most scary thing: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-administration-restricts-news-from-federal-scientists-at-usda-epa/

 

This is a dangerous path.

 

Of course, a lot of you don't care about the subtle change and the erosion of your democracy, as long it is strengthening the economy in the sort term.

 

+1 Terrifying. Someone on this thread said well this is not as bad as Chinese censorship when I compared the two. Well, no, it's not. But is that the standard we have to live up to? And then you have Trump's attacks on the media.

 

Personally, I am moderate to maybe even slightly right on the issue of the environment. I'm glad to see Keystone go through. Economically/Fiscally I'm conservative/libertarian. I own a whole bunch of Fannie and Freddie and have made a ton of money thanks to Trump. I hate CNN and MSNBC, and I get my news from newspapers.

 

Nonetheless, I am disgusted by this sort of behavior. It is just madness and dangerous. Shame on anyone, left or right, who's willing to defend this or approve of it. Imagine if Obama attacked Fox News the way Trump attacks CNN? Or if he censored any government agency? Probably would have been impeached.

 

Thanks! I think this has nothing to see with left or right.

[DTEJD1997]

Maybe Okeefe has engaged in shady things, perhaps that is true. If so, he should be held to higher scrutiny.  HOWEVER, if you watch that video of the NYC election commissioner, he let the cat out of the bag.  The video is about 4 minutes.  There is NO WAY that thing has been taken out of context or misrepresented.  The only way is if they somehow tricked him into reading que cards OR were holding a gun to his head.

 

At the end of the video, he discusses that ALL SORTS of fraud is going on with the state issued ID's.  It is not limited to voter fraud...

 

I watched the video, here's where I see camera cuts: 0:08, 0:26, 0:58, 1:13, 1:23, 1:38, 1:57, 2:39, 2:50, 3:01, 3:09, 3:37. They should release the full video in addition to this edited version. That said, most of his comments are opinion or conjecture, not an admission or fact. The context of busing voters seems to very clearly relate to NYS assembly primary candidates.  The full fraud quote is "You can see a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud" and the response was "what a waste of taxpayer money," his comment is not specific to state issued IDs. Given O'Keefe's track record, I see no reason to give him any benefit of the doubt that this conclusively proves vast voter fraud.

 

I will concede that it might not be VAST voter fraud, BUT that is certainly evidence that things are going on in NYC.  If buses of people are being moved around in local elections, might that not be going on in national elections?  This coming from one of the guys in charge of voting!

 

What he is saying could be termed "an admission against interest"...

 

If you don't think that video is alarming, I guess we just see things differently.

 

It seems pretty clear that the difference between local elections and state/national elections are that a few people can make a difference in the prior, whereas it takes tens or hundreds of thousands to make a difference in the latter. The Trump campaign asked its supporters to be poll watchers on election day, how come none of them were able to spot massive irregularities - like the busing of thousands of people across different polling places?

 

A few thousand people can make a difference in a national election.  Trump won by narrow majority in MI & WI.

 

As to not seeing anything "weird" going on at the polling place in NYC...who knows...maybe people were inside & did not see out a window...perhaps a bus left people a 1/2 or 1 block away?  Maybe they didn't take a bus?  Maybe they rode in a van, subway?

 

Also, NYC probably went very, very heavily for Hillary & against Trump, heck, there were districts in OH & PA where 100% or 99.9% of the votes went Democrat, maybe there was not a Trump poll watcher at all districts?

 

What is not in contention is what the election commissioner said.  Of course, maybe he was just making all that stuff up.

 

If you also think that a political machine that will "rig" local and state election is suddenly NOT going to do anything in a NATIONAL election, I've got bad news for you.

[Jurgis]

LOL, so now the uberlibertarians are advocating against universal voting and promoting rich-voting only.

 

This thread would be hilarious if it wouldn't show how screwed up apparently intelligent human beings are.

[Peregrine]

"I call things like I see it, Cardboard. What you were advocating for would lead to very tenuous ground. For China, deliberate action to break up One China and other actions to divide the country is tantamount to war."

 

Right and in your infinite wisdom (when you call someone deeply ignorant then I guess that makes you deeply knowledgeable) you didn't think that I had foreseen that possibility?

 

Cardboard

 

So let me get this straight: if that is indeed true and you do understand its significance and the magnitude of consequences that would follow from that, you would still suggest that the US carry out an action that would dramatically escalate into a war between two nuclear powers?

[rkbabang]

LOL, so now the uberlibertarians are advocating against universal voting and promoting rich-voting only.

 

This thread would be hilarious if it wouldn't show how screwed up apparently intelligent human beings are.

 

I'm all for shutting down the federal government completely.  But if it must exist and voting must take place, then yes.

[vox]

A few thousand people can make a difference in a national election.  Trump won by narrow majority in MI & WI.

 

As to not seeing anything "weird" going on at the polling place in NYC...who knows...maybe people were inside & did not see out a window...perhaps a bus left people a 1/2 or 1 block away?  Maybe they didn't take a bus?  Maybe they rode in a van, subway?

 

Also, NYC probably went very, very heavily for Hillary & against Trump, heck, there were districts in OH & PA where 100% or 99.9% of the votes went Democrat, maybe there was not a Trump poll watcher at all districts?

 

What is not in contention is what the election commissioner said.  Of course, maybe he was just making all that stuff up.

 

If you also think that a political machine that will "rig" local and state election is suddenly NOT going to do anything in a NATIONAL election, I've got bad news for you.

 

Do you have a count for the total number of ballots cast in the OH & PA districts that you claim went 99.9% or 100% for Clinton?

 

Do you honestly believe that the Democratic party is organized enough to charter vans or buses, get drivers to load them up with hundreds or thousands of volunteers or paid actors and travel from polling site to polling site without being detected or arousing suspicion? That people are surreptitiously let off a block away and trickle in a few people at a time to hoodwink election officials (including Republicans) with false voter registration information for every new location? That they are so good at this that despite happening en masse, no one has ever caught a picture or video of this or interacted with those fraudulent voters or organizers in an age where everyone has a smartphone in their pocket? Is this really easier for you to believe than large scale voter fraud not existing in the US?

[rkbabang]

LOL, so now the uberlibertarians are advocating against universal voting and promoting rich-voting only.

 

This thread would be hilarious if it wouldn't show how screwed up apparently intelligent human beings are.

 

I'm all for shutting down the federal government completely.  But if it must exist and voting must take place, then yes.

 

Actually, "rich only" isn't really a fair description.  Just people with something to lose voting. Tens of millions of Americans would fall into the category I described.  And many younger people who don't now, will later in their lives.

 

[vox]

Actually, "rich only" isn't really a fair description.  Just people with something to lose voting. Tens of millions of Americans would fall into the category I described.  And many younger people who don't now, will later in their lives.

 

Unless there was a way for those already wealthy and in power to institute policies that restrict economic mobility... ::)

[20ppy]

"I call things like I see it, Cardboard. What you were advocating for would lead to very tenuous ground. For China, deliberate action to break up One China and other actions to divide the country is tantamount to war."

 

Right and in your infinite wisdom (when you call someone deeply ignorant then I guess that makes you deeply knowledgeable) you didn't think that I had foreseen that possibility?

 

Cardboard

 

Cardboard, I appreciate your views on investments, however, please explain to us how it is ok for a potential war between US and China?

[rkbabang]

Actually, "rich only" isn't really a fair description.  Just people with something to lose voting. Tens of millions of Americans would fall into the category I described.  And many younger people who don't now, will later in their lives.

 

Unless there was a way for those already wealthy and in power to institute policies that restrict economic mobility... ::)

 

Yep, that's the downside.  There is no way to give government power to anyone and not have problems.

 

[tengen]

i take comfort in the fact that mexicans can now fly to canada and walk across the northern border, should it prove necessary.

 

Haha!  That's hilarious!

 

Don't tell anyone, otherwise Trump's going to build a wall along Canada's border, and make us pay for it!

 

Do Mexicans have boats?    I think we might have to build a wall along our coastlines too.

 

The Dutch have reached out to Trump on just this idea (about the 1'40 mark):

[20ppy]

No other nation does that. Threathening with force Taiwan if they ever wanted to become independent.

Cardboard

 

Yes, the US would never threaten a state with force if it wanted to become independent.  That would never happen/has never happened.

 

Lol - that pretty much describes our foreign policy strategy...

 

Never mind about the U.S. Civil War either...

[Cardboard]

Now once again 20ppy, someone has put words in my mouth since it was about the South China Sea. I will still answer your previous question:

 

"Cardboard, I appreciate your views on investments, however, please explain to us how it is ok for a potential war between US and China?"

 

I am not saying that it is ok but, I am a student of history and I can listen and see the actions of governments.

 

I thought that Trump would focus mainly on trade issues with China but, that call from the Taiwanese president to Trump before his innauguration is a game changer IMO. Then the really harsh language used by Tillerson on the South China Sea.

 

While Reagan is among other things famously remembered for telling Gorbatchev to: "Tear down that wall." I do believe that some of Trump's foreign policies will be directed at making fall the communist regime in China. Especially, if he does get in good terms with Putin and with on-going issues in North Korea, the South China Sea, Taiwan, there is enough here to put significant pressure on the regime from an international point of view.

 

The Soviet Union and the U.S. came very close to nuclear war at a few occasions and this re-ignited arms race and pressure from Reagan still went forward. It is very likely IMO that Trump and his team will push for something somewhat similar.

 

Cardboard

[rb]

The idea that Trump is going to bring down the regime in China is a fantasy.

 

Firstly, in the 80 most people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Block countries were fed up with their situation and wanted to see their regimes go. This is not the case with China. Mess around with the One China stuff and they become more entrenched.

 

Secondly, Russia was an isolated/isolationist country. China is a top trading partner to most of the world. Oppose it at great cost at home.

 

Thirdly, why would the international community go to bat for the US when the US is threatening their security (NATO stuff), intervening in internal affairs (talk about EU breakup, etc). On top of this large swaths of the world - South America, Africa, Australia have a quite happy with their relationship with China.

[rkbabang]

This is probably the best analysis I've read on the Trump phenomenon.

 

Donald Trump is the First President to Turn Postmodernism Against Itself

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/23/donald-trump-first-president-turn-postmodernism/

[ccplz]

What's the difference between a lie and an alternative fact?

[ccplz]

This is probably the best analysis I've read on the Trump phenomenon.

 

Donald Trump is the First President to Turn Postmodernism Against Itself

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/23/donald-trump-first-president-turn-postmodernism/

 

This kind of interesting but also completely wrong in its conclusions and analysis.

[20ppy]

Now once again 20ppy, someone has put words in my mouth since it was about the South China Sea. I will still answer your previous question:

 

"Cardboard, I appreciate your views on investments, however, please explain to us how it is ok for a potential war between US and China?"

 

I am not saying that it is ok but, I am a student of history and I can listen and see the actions of governments.

 

I thought that Trump would focus mainly on trade issues with China but, that call from the Taiwanese president to Trump before his innauguration is a game changer IMO. Then the really harsh language used by Tillerson on the South China Sea.

 

While Reagan is among other things famously remembered for telling Gorbatchev to: "Tear down that wall." I do believe that some of Trump's foreign policies will be directed at making fall the communist regime in China. Especially, if he does get in good terms with Putin and with on-going issues in North Korea, the South China Sea, Taiwan, there is enough here to put significant pressure on the regime from an international point of view.

 

The Soviet Union and the U.S. came very close to nuclear war at a few occasions and this re-ignited arms race and pressure from Reagan still went forward. It is very likely IMO that Trump and his team will push for something somewhat similar.

 

Cardboard

 

Ok, this sounds really some strategic thinking then. I can understand.

 

With respect to history, I submit that Reagan, Gorbachev and the Collapse of the Soviet Union all had to do with lots of luck and the timing of inner workings of social systems, arguably more than the actions of the US and that of Reagan's famous line and all these are some debate for another day perhaps. 

 

As to the hope of making fall of the system in China, depending on one's viewpoint, is obviously very debatable. I'd argue for caution. Of course we should make China play fair & nice in trade and other aspects in world affairs. Yet the pragmatic social-system that is currently working for the Chinese, one can call it "communist regime" or whatever, is there for some real world reasons, just as direct "western democracy" couldn't have worked well for many places, take Singapore for example at initial stages.  The Soviet Union even had enough faith to try it and we all know what happened. Now if the US and world powers somehow pressure the Chinese system to collapse in similar way or even change dramatically or too fast, God forbid, I can see millions upon millions of poor people suffer or even die, imagine blood, hunger, lawless prosecutions, civil wars, atrocities...,  is it really going to be good and for who? Gradual change is the theme for human evolution and progress, and thru science and technology, we can reasonably hope to well accommodate all the needs of all and growing number of humans on earth. Then why all the needless suffering? I do suspect THE hidden and true WMD throughout human history is: ideologies.

 

 

[ccplz]

Now once again 20ppy, someone has put words in my mouth since it was about the South China Sea. I will still answer your previous question:

 

"Cardboard, I appreciate your views on investments, however, please explain to us how it is ok for a potential war between US and China?"

 

I am not saying that it is ok but, I am a student of history and I can listen and see the actions of governments.

 

I thought that Trump would focus mainly on trade issues with China but, that call from the Taiwanese president to Trump before his innauguration is a game changer IMO. Then the really harsh language used by Tillerson on the South China Sea.

 

While Reagan is among other things famously remembered for telling Gorbatchev to: "Tear down that wall." I do believe that some of Trump's foreign policies will be directed at making fall the communist regime in China. Especially, if he does get in good terms with Putin and with on-going issues in North Korea, the South China Sea, Taiwan, there is enough here to put significant pressure on the regime from an international point of view.

 

The Soviet Union and the U.S. came very close to nuclear war at a few occasions and this re-ignited arms race and pressure from Reagan still went forward. It is very likely IMO that Trump and his team will push for something somewhat similar.

 

Cardboard

 

Ok, this sounds really some strategic thinking then. I can understand.

 

With respect to history, I submit that Reagan, Gorbachev and the Collapse of the Soviet Union all had to do with lots of luck and the timing of inner workings of social systems, arguably more than the actions of the US and that of Reagan's famous line and all these are some debate for another day perhaps. 

 

As to the hope of making fall of the system in China, depending on one's viewpoint, is obviously very debatable. I'd argue for caution. Of course we should make China play fair & nice in trade and other aspects in world affairs. Yet the pragmatic social-system that is currently working for the Chinese, one can call it "communist regime" or whatever, is there for some real world reasons, just as direct "western democracy" couldn't have worked well for many places, take Singapore for example at initial stages.  The Soviet Union even had enough faith to try it and we all know what happened. Now if the US and world powers somehow pressure the Chinese system to collapse in similar way or even change dramatically or too fast, God forbid, I can see millions upon millions of poor people suffer or even die, imagine blood, hunger, lawless prosecutions, civil wars, atrocities...,  is it really going to be good and for who? Gradual change is the theme for human evolution and progress, and thru science and technology, we can reasonably hope to well accommodate all the needs of all and growing number of humans on earth. Then why all the needless suffering? I do suspect THE hidden and true WMD throughout human history is: ideologies.

 

Who cares?

 

America First, remember? Fuck all the other guys.

[Parsad]

When people are coming in ILLEGALLY to hurt people, infringing on their rights, sometime killing them, how is that interpreted by Libertarian Greats?

 

 

How many people were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by these illegals?

 

Compare that number to how many were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by guns?

 

Restricting illegals or firearms...which would have more impact on the safety, livelihood and freedoms of Americans? 

 

I'm also guessing restrictions on firearms would be far cheaper than the $25B that is going to be spent on a wall!  Cheers!

 

 

[Parsad]

Keep in mind that building 'a wall' serves 2 purposes; (1) defense of territory to keep others out; and (2) defense of ideology, to keep people in. The 'wall' doesn't need to be physical, or even secure - it just needs to be a barrier (trade tariff etc.).

 

Most folks get the keeping others out.  It's why we have militaries, and the projections of might - its always better to defuse tensions via proxy wars on other peoples lands, than have those bombs go off at home. Of course if you're one of those stuck in that proxy war, your viewpoint might be a little different.

 

Defense of ideology is about using fear to manufacture 'us versus them'. A citizen living in a wealthy, gated enclave with security to keep the riff-raff out, usually feels pretty good. The enclave, or skyscraper, allows the opportunity to display a little wealth - & show you've 'arrived'. So it doesn't go down well; when one points out there's little difference between the inmates in a gulag, and the wealthy in that enclave - same fence, guns, people living inside a compound, etc. Gilding the cage changes point of view, but it doesn't change what it is. 

 

To 'tear down the wall' (Reagan), is to allow 'hybridization' to the societal benefit of all - except those in power.

Hence 'set' the game by putting up 'a wall', & sell tickets to live within the compound  ......

 

Trump Tower?

 

SD

 

Eloquently put!  Cheers!

[Paarslaars]

 

Restricting illegals or firearms...which would have more impact on the safety, livelihood and freedoms of Americans? 

 

I'm also guessing restrictions on firearms would be far cheaper than the $25B that is going to be spent on a wall!  Cheers!

 

That's a bit of a silly argument. Kinda like smokers saying "but cars pollute and give you cancer too".

Like cars vs smoking, guns vs immigration are two separate issues that need to be taken care of.

It is not a matter of choosing between the two.

 

Would it be better to focus on gun safety first? Any non-american would strongly say yes to this as the current situation seems ludicrous to us.

But the Americans have gotten used to it so they might actually prefer the immigration issue handled first.

 

And Trump already announced (as expected) that he would forward the bill to Mexico by taxing their export. They simply cannot afford not to be able to sell their goods in the US.

[rb]

When people are coming in ILLEGALLY to hurt people, infringing on their rights, sometime killing them, how is that interpreted by Libertarian Greats?

 

 

How many people were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by these illegals?

 

Compare that number to how many were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by guns?

 

Restricting illegals or firearms...which would have more impact on the safety, livelihood and freedoms of Americans? 

 

I'm also guessing restrictions on firearms would be far cheaper than the $25B that is going to be spent on a wall!  Cheers!

Sanjeev, You are really off point here. It's not the way it works. By the way, I've made a version of that argument on this very board.

 

I understand your thinking. It is one of efficiency. Along the lines of Buffett and Gates. Save the most lives per dollar spent. If you're being logical it makes total sense. However that's not the way it works in America. In America if an American life is at risk from a foreigner/foreign threat the budget is unlimited. Satellites will like up in outer space, carrier battle groups will set sail, and SEAL teams will deploy. It an American life is at risk from a domestic threat it's "well shit happens....better luck next time".

 

It's just the way it is.