"Well, what's wrong with slavery?"

was said:

..Does Trump bring out the conservative radicals? Yes, he does.

Click to expand...

Problem: The polls don't single out conservative radicals. However, Trump leads in the polls by a wide margin. Thus, either the "radical" arm of the party is very large, or people not in the "radical" end are leaning Trump.

Dannyalcatraz said:

As I recall, all all of the current presidential hopefuls on the Democratic side are former Republicans.

Click to expand...

What?

I repeat - what? Cite, please, that Bernie Sanders was ever a Republican.

Janx said:

When somebody counters that Democrats want to be "Socialism" as if that's a bad thing, I'd have to ask, how is that singling out a demographic? How exactly is Socialism itself specifically wrong? How does it mean there won't be any capitalism.

Click to expand...

I agree. A lot of people forget that capitalism, socialism, and communism are part of spectrum and not wholly separate. The moment any regulation was added to the pure capitalist system, it slid a degree or two closer to socialism. And people can complain about regulation being overly onerous all they want, but look at what happens when regulations are removed, and what happens before they are imposed.

Before regulation, you have Sears selling morphine and syringes, cocaine toothache drops, and Bayer's children's cough syrup (whose active ingredient was heroin) in their mail order catalog. Before regulation, you have airlines legally able to detain passengers aboard a plane on the runway for three, five, or even twelve hours at a time without having to let them off.

After the removal of some regulations of financial institutions, you have an environment where banks were allowed to speculate when they formerly could not. This led directly to the widespread nature of the financial crisis when toxic loans packaged into toxic loan securities were revealed to be worthless.

Now, not all regulation is good, pot being a schedule one drug is idiotic, and not all regulation is effective, the FDA doesn't have the manpower to actually check a reasonable quantity of food and drugs, but some people think that's a valid reason to throw out all regulation. It's as if people have lost the will to actually fix anything, thinking instead that if it doesn't work with 100% effectiveness and efficiency then it needs to be thrown out.

billd91 said:

It may be unfortunate stereotyping to paint all Republican with the racist brush... but you also have to look at the collective output of GOP voters. Are racist policies coming out of the GOP? Look at the minority targeting voter suppression laws coming out. Now how is it that non-racist Republicans somehow generate racist policy? And can't the GOP voters be held accountable for the actions of the party they support considering their votes may well have contributed to that party's electoral success and taking the reins of government?

Click to expand...

..First, I don't really know how I got stuck playing Devil's Advocate on behalf of the Republicans. Sigh, here we go.

..Second, we'd have to look at each 'racist policy' individually to see if they actually qualify as such, or if they are being blown out of proportion by their opponents. Let's look at the voter suppression debate. I have no doubt that there are Republicans are trying to limit the minority vote. But does that mean that you shouldn't have to present any ID in order to vote? I need one to check out a book from my public library. Should checking out a book be held as a greater responsibility than voting for the president of our country? Aren't voter registration cards free?

.....The Democrats have compared the voter ID debate to past Jim Crow laws and poll taxes to create a furor over the issue. A somewhat ironic example due to the fact that such devices were created by their own party. But isn't that hypocritical considering long history of voter fraud and suppression in their own party? Look at the old Tammany Hall days in NYC? They coined the phrase "vote early and vote often" They also used to take immigrants fresh off the boats over to the polls to vote for their party.

..........Do we want to make voter fraud that much simpler? Should we take no steps whatsoever to ensure the integrity of the voting process?When I was in college, several students were arrested for voter fraud. All of them admitted voting Democrat, voting at four different polling stations. They registered there on the spot figuring that no one would ever check. They were wrong. Even so, there is simply no device for the removal of the fraudulent votes once cast.

..Third, I guess GOP voters could be held accountable for laws passed by those they elect. Of course, to do so would mean that those politicians actually do what they stated they would before they were elected. No politicians would dare to make promises to get elected and then stray from them would they?

Umbran said:

You want us to start finding the comments and policies from the various current GOP presidential candidates that show such positions? Do you really think we will have a problem doing so? If we find the majority of the GOP presidential candidates - the people who are going to represent the party in elections, and possibly hold the highest office in the land - hold such positions, how can we then say the party (as a collective, not as individuals) isn't such?

A little while back, a form of sexism argument came up. When women would say they'd experienced sexism, a man would retort, "Not all men do that!" It is a defensive deflection that 1) Make it about the man's righteousness, rather than the woman's experiences, and 2) effectively implies that there isn't a problem. The answer was, "Maybe not, but *all* women!" The fact of the matter is that *enough* men are sexist that the problem is real and ubiquitous for women, and therefore needs to be addressed.

Thus, in analogy, I say that the fact that not all Republicans are personally overt racists does not mean that the GOP's racist policy proposals are not a problem.

There is a point where, as a person of conscience, one should look at any group you affiliate with and say, "You know what? This group has gone too far," rather than protest, "Not all of us are like that!" At that point, you have two choices - leave the group, or work to change the group. Because, if you maintain affiliation as it is, and not worry about it, you are tacitly approving of the behavior.

Click to expand...

Let's be clear, when I say I am primarily Republican, especially regarding local elections, I vote regarding local elections only. Although I voted in the last Presidential election as a Republican, I didn't vote in the previous election, because I hated George W, and his opponent, so neither candidate fits my agenda - when there's no best candidate, to me there is no candidate. I have even voted Democrat once in a past election, however, as I've stated I'm a centrist Republican, and really haven't seen a centrist candidate. So don't get the idea that I somehow agree with most Republicans on anything - I usually don't, and have plainly stated that in previous posts. When I state that I haven't heard any Republicans state that, I am speaking North Central Illinois only and I'm not really speaking of candidates so much as Republican individuals such as myself and the people I know. I don't know the candidates at all, and am not speaking of them (and will not).

Really, I'm more an independant, though of the established parties that I sometimes vote for Republicans are closest to a party I have supported in the past. Don't assign the Trumps of the world as part of my group, I don't really have, nor want a group to be a part. So you can stop right there with your wrong assumptions right now. They don't apply to me. And locally, immigrants aren't what the issues are about.

goldomark said:

Saying negative things about immigrants, inner city kids, wanting build walls, favoring deportation, are pretty common comments among Republican candidates.

Click to expand...

Read, what I say to Umbram. These Republican candidates you speak of, are not speaking for me, so what their opinions are - are meaningless to me, I'm not voting for them. There is one candidate I'm on the fence on, but he's not a leading candidate. There are no leading Republicans that ever fit my "agenda".

Umbran said:

Problem: The polls don't single out conservative radicals. However, Trump leads in the polls by a wide margin. Thus, either the "radical" arm of the party is very large, or people not in the "radical" end are leaning Trump.

Click to expand...

...Don't trust any poll. Any poll can be easily manipulated using statistical data and group membership info.

gamerprinter said:

I didn't vote in the previous election, because I hated George W, and his opponent, so neither candidate fits my agenda - when there's no best candidate, to me there is no candidate.

Click to expand...

..Last time that I felt like this I used the write-in option and voted for Dennis Leary for president. It's funny to see the write-in votes. It turns out that Mickey Mouse is a popular candidate in every presidential election.

was said:

...Don't trust any poll. Any poll can be easily manipulated using statistical data and group membership info.

Click to expand...

You've made various claims, like Trump bringing out the conservative radicals not representative of the Republican party as a whole. I don't see why anyone should give those claims the least bit of thought if you deny any source of information with any sort of reliability that could back up those claims. Without polls, you're pulling those claims out of gut feelings and thin air.

Umbran said:

What?

I repeat - what? Cite, please, that Bernie Sanders was ever a Republican.

Click to expand...

forgot about Bernie.

Aren't voter registration cards free?

Click to expand...

According to a 2014 analysis of real economic costs of obtaining a "free" voter ID card done by researchers at Harvard, no:

http://today.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FullReportVoterIDJune20141.pdf

1. Time costs involved in learning about photo voter ID requirements and how to meet them.
2. Costs of purchasing required birth, marriage, naturalization and other certificates. In some
instances, the calculations include legal fees needed to secure these documents.
3. Costs of travel expenses to the departments of vital records and motor vehicles, and the
potential cost of hiring a driver and/or vehicle.
4. Costs of travel time and waiting time at the agencies.
For many people, paying the cost needed to meet voter ID requirements means spending the equivalent of more than a week’s worth of groceries. In fact, some citizens simply cannot afford the costs required to obtain these IDs. Still others can never get the documents they need to qualify for a voter ID. In short, under these laws, those citizens who cannot get IDs will pay the ultimate price in a democracy: they will lose their right to vote.

Here are the estimated expenses incurred by the three individuals in each of the three states in pursuit of a “free” voter identification card:

Pennsylvania:
Voter #1: $133.61
Voter #2: $172.39
Voter #3: $107.25

South Carolina:
Voter #1: $166.50
Voter #2: $92.50 ($1,047.50 if pro bono legal fees calculated)
Voter #3: $99.75 ($1,449.75 if pro bono legal fees calculated)

Texas:
Voter #1: $79.26
Voter #2: $87.96+
Voter #3: $148.46+

(Further down)

In sum, voter IDs are expensive, often prohibitively so. And their costs can produce the constitutionally impermissible effect of abridging or denying individual citizens their right to vote. The total costs to citizens in all voter ID states for “free” IDs, plus state government expenses for producing those “free” IDs, can reach into the multiple $100s of millions.

Click to expand...

(Typing on phone. Will clean up formatting later.). Edit: done.

To clarify: it is costing 100s of millions of extra dollars to implement and administer restrictive Voter ID laws which have been demonstrated to have a disparate impact upon the eligibility of the young, the elderly and minority voters.

All in the name of preventing/punishing in-person Voter ID fraud with an occurrence of @1 per 20,000,000 votes.

Not only does the disparate impact issue make this probably unconstitutional, a simple cost/benefit analysis makes it look fiscally irresponsible.