Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 62

Thread: An institutional revolution in North Carolina

  1. #31
    A birth certificate doesn't ID a person in the legal sense. No picture, or other identifiers like height or signature. The SSN is for tax purposes only but I agree with fuzzy that it could become more, and the birth certificate for work is likely for legal ass covering, IE not hiring minors.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  2. #32
    Birth certificate for work here is for proof of right to work in the UK (ie to prove you're not an illegal immigrant).

    I know its not a photo ID, never said it was, but it is a form of identification the government has for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  3. #33
    If you put 100 people in a room with 100 birth certificates what do you think the chances are that you could id any of them individually?
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  4. #34
    I couldn't. I never said photo ID.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I couldn't. I never said photo ID.
    If it doesn't identify a person, then it is not an ID. That's what an ID does, what it is. And I'm not aware of anyone who requires a birth certificate for employment. See, here employers require something that actually IS an id, if they're going to require such verification at all.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,088
    So now that we've got that out of the way; why the double standard on mandatory ID's.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I've not seen any source yet to show these alleged high numbers of people without any valid form of ID. Especially when many proposals include offering free ID.
    I know of no proposals in the US that offer completely free photo ID. Nor do they make things sufficiently easy and inexpensive for people who do not already have valid ID. To get photo ID you have to identify yourself, after all.

    You do realise every single American already has mandatory ID from the state?
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    It's not mandatory to have a birth certificate? Or a social security number? I thought both were mandatory.
    How is a birth certificate not an ID?
    A birth certificate is not photo ID, which is typically what is required by Republican-backed voter ID laws in the US. A birth certificate is not mandatory to "have". They can be lost. They can be difficult and costly to replace, eg. for people who've moved out of state, or who were born long ago, esp. if they were born at home, or in the event of clerical errors.

    SSN is just a number, it's the least reliable form of identification.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    For employment here for every single person I employ I am required to take forms of ID - standard for British citizens being either a passport or a birth certificate AND paperwork showing an NI number (out SSN equivalent). Without either a passport or birth certificate [or equivalent] it isn't possible to legally get a job in this country.
    Afaik the US doesn't have "right to work" documentation requirements similar to the UK. If there are similar requirements, I expect they are recent enough that you'll have a lot of retirees who worked when things were different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    a lazy response for a subject thats been covered on this and the other board NUMEROUS times deserves one in kind

    http://bfy.tw/A9Cl
    Fake news liberal leftist MSM so-called "expert" opinion just one step removed from Corbyn's bowel-movements, you can't expect RB to accept that kind of source.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  8. #38
    There's been so much fucked up news out of North Carolina that it's hard to keep but I thought this might be a good way to summarize the state of this aspiring garbage fire:

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    There's been so much fucked up news out of North Carolina that it's hard to keep but I thought this might be a good way to summarize the state of this aspiring garbage fire:

    Eh? If the Democrat was going to get most of the vote it wouldn't be an issue. This is not that different of a scenario if Bush won the Republican Primary and Trump didn't concede. On the general election he wouldn't be listed as an R.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Eh? If the Democrat was going to get most of the vote it wouldn't be an issue. This is not that different of a scenario if Bush won the Republican Primary and Trump didn't concede. On the general election he wouldn't be listed as an R.
    I don't know about your state, but he would in my state. He wouldn't have a subscript saying he was the Republican Party Nominee but he would have that he was (R).
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  11. #41
    Seems like a reasonable change to be honest. A registered Democrat changed his registration to Republican and filed as a Republican in order to siphon away Republican votes. This would prevent him from running as a Republican on the basis that he was a registered Democrat within 90 days of filing, not for any other reason.

    It doesn't make "one of two R's run as unaffiliated", it makes the Democrat who's ran as an R appear as unaffiliated.

    I'm sure if a GOP spoiler had entered the ballot as a (D) then that would be viewed as inappropriate here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  12. #42
    Notoriously antidemocratic and racist polticians attempt to change the rules in the middle of a campaign for partisan purposes and this strikes you as "reasonable". I mean, I'm not surprised, given what we know from other discussions about your respect for rules, laws and norms, but still.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  13. #43
    Being antidemocratic and racist is not reasonable whether they change the rules or keep the rules. Do you think that if they don't make this change then these antidemocratic racists will somehow be better? Or will they still be antidemocratic racists?

    Early in the campaign before the ballots are printed they're trying to fix a loophole that's being blatantly exploited to try and suppress voters. They're not trying to suppress voters for once, they're trying to stop voter suppression. You just don't like that its an attempt to suppress the racists votes that is being stopped but that doesn't make voter suppression right. Don't fall down into the hole of backing voter suppression just to try and beat the greater evil, that makes you about as bad as them.

    If the shoe was on the other foot and a GOP spoiler was running as a Democrat in order to siphon off Democrat votes then you'd be outraged at such blatant abuse. Or would you honestly be like "well that's the rules and the campaigns begun already" despite knowing it was an abuse of process?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post

    If the shoe was on the other foot and a GOP spoiler was running as a Democrat in order to siphon off Democrat votes then you'd be outraged at such blatant abuse. Or would you honestly be like "well that's the rules and the campaigns begun already" despite knowing it was an abuse of process?
    The issue is in that left live by the saying "There are no bad tactics, just bad targets."

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    The issue is in that left live by the saying "There are no bad tactics, just bad targets."
    I'm sorry but in light of the GOP's conduct over the past few years, and esp in light of the NC GOP's antics, that comment is so fucking stupid that you're going to have to go stand in the corner and keep wearing the dunce-hat.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I'm sorry but in light of the GOP's conduct over the past few years, and esp in light of the NC GOP's antics, that comment is so fucking stupid that you're going to have to go stand in the corner and keep wearing the dunce-hat.
    But where do you stand? In favour of voter suppression or against it?

    Forget who is doing the suppression, do you back it or not?

    Saying I oppose all suppression except when my opponents votes get suppressed is not principled.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    But where do you stand? In favour of voter suppression or against it?

    Forget who is doing the suppression, do you back it or not?

    Saying I oppose all suppression except when my opponents votes get suppressed is not principled.
    I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how this would be considered voter suppression.

  18. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how this would be considered voter suppression.
    It's a trick to try and get your opposition (in this case Republicans) to see the name on the ballot paper and vote for a candidate who isn't really from the party named. Thus people believing they are casting votes in good faith for a party aren't actually. The votes cast for the incorrect candidate are voided essentially, they are suppressed by deception.

    A similar trick was outlawed here when a spoiler entering a race with the party name Literal Democrat cost the Liberal Democrat candidate the election.

    In that instance my party won from the spoiler but I don't approve of it. The principles of democracy and fair play trump (no pun intended) my party over all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    But where do you stand? In favour of voter suppression or against it?

    Forget who is doing the suppression, do you back it or not?

    Saying I oppose all suppression except when my opponents votes get suppressed is not principled.
    This is nearly as stupid as saying that Sanders should've been prevented from running as a Democrat. What, are we to believe that a person switching party affiliation a week before an election is substantially less sincere than one who makes the switch 3 months before an election? The decision should be left to the candidates. It's up to the parties to give or withhold their endorsement. It's up to the voters to decide who they believe is the best candidate.

    I don't regard this as voter suppression so much as a tactical play by one candidate to oust an unpopular incumbent. If it were suppression, it'd certainly pale in comparison to the NCGOP's vote-suppressing and otherwise antidemocratic antics over the years (that have been stepped up this past year). What they're trying to do is retain judicial control in order to ensure that their other antidemocratic efforts aren't overturned. Legislators corrupting and exploiting the system they themselves are in control of is far worse in my view than individuals exercising their rights.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    It's a trick to try and get your opposition (in this case Republicans) to see the name on the ballot paper and vote for a candidate who isn't really from the party named. Thus people believing they are casting votes in good faith for a party aren't actually. The votes cast for the incorrect candidate are voided essentially, they are suppressed by deception.

    A similar trick was outlawed here when a spoiler entering a race with the party name Literal Democrat cost the Liberal Democrat candidate the election.

    In that instance my party won from the spoiler but I don't approve of it. The principles of democracy and fair play trump (no pun intended) my party over all.
    I still don't think I would consider that voter suppression - it isn't doing anything to voter turnout, or preventing people from exercising suffrage.

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I still don't think I would consider that voter suppression - it isn't doing anything to voter turnout, or preventing people from exercising suffrage.
    Of course it is if their exercise is voided due to deception. Exercising suffrage is meaningless if the votes don't get counted as the voter reasonably intended. If you don't like the word suppression then how about fraud?

    Fraud in other areas of life is a criminal offence and that is precisely what this is. It is trying to suppress your oppositions vote count, deny people their votes being counted, through fraud and duplicity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    This is nearly as stupid as saying that Sanders should've been prevented from running as a Democrat.
    No Sanders shouldn't be prevented from running as a Democrat but were Rudy Giuliani to switch parties, run as a Democrat and get the Democrat label on his ballot all the whilst staying in practice a Republican, hiring Republican strategists and advisors then that would be dodgy. Or someone

    The flaw in the current system is that it seems there's no way for a party to withhold their endorsement preventing a partisan from the other party fraudulently putting their name in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Of course it is if their exercise is voided due to deception. Exercising suffrage is meaningless if the votes don't get counted as the voter reasonably intended. If you don't like the word suppression then how about fraud?

    Fraud in other areas of life is a criminal offence and that is precisely what this is. It is trying to suppress your oppositions vote count, deny people their votes being counted, through fraud and duplicity.
    It's smarmy, underhanded, in bad faith, and duplicitous, sure. In short, politics as usual. What it is not is suppressing the vote.

  24. #54
    Votes cast for a party aren't going to count.

    If that was because the party concerned had screwed up then that would be incompetence. It's not though, its due to the actions of an opponent seeking to get votes not to count.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  25. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Votes cast for a party aren't going to count.

    If that was because the party concerned had screwed up then that would be incompetence. It's not though, its due to the actions of an opponent seeking to get votes not to count.
    I guess I can't claim to know what North Carolina's ballots look like, but at least in the state I live in this isn't an issue. If you vote down the party line it will fill in the candidate for the party where available, and if there are multiple candidates in the same party running for the seat then you choose from them.

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I'm sorry but in light of the GOP's conduct over the past few years, and esp in light of the NC GOP's antics, that comment is so fucking stupid that you're going to have to go stand in the corner and keep wearing the dunce-hat.
    Something is either right or wrong.

    "Is increasing the size of the Supreme Court to get decisions you want because the previous president got picks in you didn't like right or wrong?"

    Oh look we had a thread where the liberals here thought if Donald Trump did it, it was bad but if whoever the next Democrat POTUS did, it was good.

    "Is discrimination based on race right or wrong?"

    Oh look we have the Democratic Party who still supports race based discrimination (affirmative action).

    The double standard by the left is always there. Whats good for women isn't good for men. What's good for one group of people isn't good for another. This happens time and time again. While not every leftist is like this, the general leftist movement has always ignored the idea that both sides should be held to the same standard.

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Something is either right or wrong.
    No, that is so stupid that even you don't believe it. I will not entertain such asinine bad-faith arguments from someone who believes killing is wrong when black people kill cops but right when cops kill black people, and neutral when white people pretend to kill black people in self defense while standing their ground, or that torture is wrong when Middle Eastern terrorists torture white Americans but right when white Americans torture Middle Eastern terrorists, or that kidnapping is bad when a private citizen kidnaps and locks up a white American but okay when the govt. kidnaps and locks up some Middle Eastern dude, or that govt surveillance of civilians is okay when it's directed against some angry Muslim dude but beyond the pale when it's directed against a white American asset of Russian intelligence.

    If you're too dumb to know what you yourself believe, then I strongly urge you to think things through first.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  28. #58
    Not to be outdone by NC, local officials in Georgia strike a blow against PC concepts like democracy:

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b1febb04fc?d7m
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  29. #59
    NC hits back with a devastating kick right in the norms:

    https://www.newsobserver.com/news/po...216886935.html
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  30. #60
    A dazzling display of principled conservatism:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/u...tt-walker.html
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •