politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I highly doubt that most of those people polled have any idea of what Republicans actually mean by "proof of citizenship". I would bet money they just think it means showing your driver's license and/or social security card.
In reality, it means having to show a valid passport (which is a massive pain in the ass to obtain) or having a copy of your birth certificate (also a huge pain in the butt to get).
Polls lie, always have and always will. It's not about the question but how you ask it.
And for people that have changed their name since birth (either marriage or other reasons), the birth certificate isn't valid under this proposed bill. So passport book ($130+$10 for a photo), or passport card only ($30+$10 for a photo). And since passport book/card requirement doesn't apply to every American, this is effectively a selective tax targeting largely married women.
How is this anything else besides a violation of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution:
Twenty-Fourth Amendment:
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
80% chance the traitors in SCOTUS rule is constitutional anyway.
They'll just decline to hear the case.
Yes. Very few photo ID options have citizenship status, and the combo government photo id (drivers license) and birth certificate combo affects people with name changes. 15%-20% of Americans lack the primary ID requirement, and there are fees to obtaining them. The lack of ID would skew towards lower incomes who don't need passports (realID is a domestic travel passport).
There's already massive voter suppression of urban areas through long lines, and specific agitation to increase voting time by challenging voters, Skewing voter eligibility to air travellers and 5 mostly blue states that include citizenship on drivers license is likely to harm rural bumfucks that don't travel, and not obviously benefit GOP. Still, legal challenges will likely block it before mid terms, though the politics of "Democrats want massive (nonexistant) voter fraud to let illegal pet eaters vote" is probably the point.
That is the most bizarre thing about this legislation; dem voters are shown to be more likely to own passports, and are more likely to keep their original name when getting married. This will obviously fuck over poor voters the hardest, so maybe that's the point, but it still seems ultimately self-defeating.
I think Trump is just throwing himself behind anything that vaguely sounds good for him because he's panicking.
And for the "Trump is going to rig the midterms, we're all screwed" crowd, yes, he'll try, but if he was confident he was going to succeed he wouldn't be acting so desperate right now, would he?
The political game is to avoid the actual legislation enacted into law by mid terms, but complain about the cheating radical left needing election fraud to win, and then recounts until 2028 to block change of congressional power. The less the election campaign is about policy, decline, and purposeful GOP destruction of America, the better the GOP's chance.
That would be the smart play, yes (although I don't believe, constitutionally, that they can actually prevent a new congress being seated... But that doesn't change the fact that it's politically valuable to have legislation fail so that you can invent a problem that you "tried" to fix). However Trump doesn't seem to have gotten the memo. The thing about that gambit is that you have to look like you tried, but don't actually, y'know, burn every bit of political capital you have trying to make it happen. Trump, on the other hand, is now saying he's going to completely roadblack all legislation until this passes. He's making it a do or die bill, a "If this is the only thing I pass in my entire term I'm fine with that' piece of tentpole legislation, which is definitely not what you do when the point is to fail nobly.
AFAIK, block all other future legislation. But its not as though the only other legislation he'd approve would make people angry. I doubt he'd roll back, coincidentally the only bill he passed in his first administration, "tax cuts for the rich".
I'm not sure he wants even a budget bill, or "shutdown avoidance" vote, but political capital will as usual blame democrats for process issues. You're using "political capital spending" as this is the last threat he will ever be able to make to anyone, when GOP is mostly supportive of the plan (though suicide if they lose philibuster after losing mid terms)
Political capital isn't just voter approval, it's your ability to cut deals and draw together coalitions within your own party. Trump is burning a lot of goodwill among Republican reps and senators pushing this do or die approach to this bill.
honestly any form of identification is bs. its to stop mail in voting where that would be impossible. you show id already when you register.
Not too mention 1999 people is a pretty small sample for a 160M voter population.
It's not.
Many polls use 1000, which gives ±3%, while 2000 gives ±2%.
Now, you can do things badly and screw that up, but assuming the polling is randomized, it's more than enough.
I'll take your word for it. Statistics was my worst subject. It just seems small logically. I mean if you polled 1999 people in my city you'd get probably 99% Trump support. I doubt you'd get that from a random sampling in California.
That's why national polls would not poll people in just one location :)
But that's like 40 people per state.
Imagine a big pot of soup - like 100 gallons of soup. I bet you could take out like a half cup of that soup and you'd know basically what the soup tasted like.
https://www.markpack.org.uk/168548/why-is-a-1000-sample-enough-for-an-opinion-poll/
To be honest that wasn't a very good article. Also the quality of the poll means everything. If you ask 10 people if they think voters should show ID, I bet you'd get 100% agreement. It would change a lot of you asked them if we should disenfranchise women. We'd have to see the actual poll.
Go find your own article. Pardon me for trying to help. I won't make that mistake with you again in future.
You can choose not to understand, or you can go fucking educate yourself then. Or don't. I don't fucking care.
Yeah I understand the purpose of sampling. Now take a cup of water from the Atlantic. Can you tell the health of all the world's oceans?
One final comment before I block you for your other comment: Polling doesn't take a cup of water from the Atlantic, it takes water from the ENTIRE OCEANS. Not very much water, but enough.
Now. Goodbye.