• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Hasn't that been done successfully in several blue states? I specifically recall in Maryland OFA played a big part in convincing state legislators to support the state's version of DREAM Act and gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Yup, but overall the progress has been very underwhelming in most states. So much can and should be done on the state and city level. School boards, community boards, etc. Ferguson is a great example of a city ruled by the wrong people due to a passive community. Just a few thousand active people could take control of that town.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Lots of black people from Michigan are moving down south, or moving moving to other cities in Michigan. The property has been driven down so far that the gentrification process is in full effect, and who knows how they'll vote (I'd expect a rise of "we saved Detroit, don't let them take it back" shit). There are a couple big neighborhood development projects in the works as well. Ultimately the state's financial future seems pretty bleak to me, could continue to benefit republicans.

The state went bright red in 2010 and it won't change anytime soon. There is still Washtenaw County which is a liberal/college but overall this isn't really a traditionally blue state.

I agree Hillary should win it in 2016 though.
Click to expand...
But if the blacks are still staying within state borders and not fleeing the state, the net effect is still zero.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
RustyNails said:
But if the blacks are still staying within state borders and not fleeing the state, the net effect is still zero.
Click to expand...

More are moving down south, out of the state though. But those moving out of Wayne County and into other areas of Michigan end up in the more rural, deep red areas where their vote becomes less important (in congressional races).
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Wilsongt said:
I would make a thread about this, but we know how government assistance threads go on GAF.

Indiana reinstates time limits for some food stamp recipients



So... Yeah. Indiana, ladies and gentleman.
Click to expand...

Everything they've said for the last 30 years is that the problem is the problem of unemployment on the supply of jobs which is constrained by government regulations and taxes on businesses. The smallest regulation, no matter how much good it does, will always be opposed by them because the supply side of employment is just so squeezed by government regulation as it is.

And now they have the gall to come out and say unemployment is because people are just too lazy to go out and get jobs?
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
APKmetsfan said:
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/20/6997315/voting-rights-amendment-affirmative-right-to-vote
Click to expand...

Aha! There, you see it? A perfect example of "voxsplaining." At the above link, Yglesias spins an obviously false premise into an entire article about why the Constitution should be amended. It all sounds very well-informed, but just the slightest amount of research would have sufficed to show the error.

Let's start with the title, which also serves as the premise of the article: "Americans don't have a constitutional right to vote." This is false. You needn't look further than the district court's opinion in the Texas case that spawned Yglesias' article to realize this: "The individual’s right to vote is firmly implied in the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution and is protected as a fundamental right by both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment." In saying this, of course, the district court is supported by numerous Supreme Court opinions which have so held.

And Yglesias' is not merely a semantic error, as his false premise permeates the article and leads him to make additional mistakes. For example, he claims that it is a fact "that the legal, political, and constitutional arguments [about voter ID laws] need to get pushed into a narrow racial discrimination frame. . . . The legality of these kinds of laws hinge on whether they violate the Constitution's protections against race and gender discrimination, not on whether they prevent citizens from voting." Yet, consider how the district court in Texas summarizes the challengers' arguments: "The Plaintiffs and Intervenors (collectively “Plaintiffs”) claim that SB 14, which requires voters to display one of a very limited number of qualified photo identifications (IDs) to vote, creates a substantial burden on the fundamental right to vote, has a discriminatory effect and purpose, and constitutes a poll tax." Here's the district court's holding: "The Court holds that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax." Note that only two of those arguments fit within "a narrow racial discrimination frame," and one of them is based on the (fundamental) constitutional right to vote!

Likewise, he mistakenly claims that "[a] constitutional right to vote would instantly flip the script on anti-fraud efforts. States would retain a strong interest in developing rules and procedures that make it hard for ineligible voters to vote, but those efforts would be bounded by an ironclad constitutional guarantee that legitimate citizens' votes must be counted." But, as I've noted, such a right already exists. Making such a right explicit in the Constitution's text wouldn't "flip the script"--it would perpetuate the status quo. Given that the courts already consider voting to be a fundamental right, there's no reason to believe that their approach to reviewing voting regulations would change if the Constitution were amended to expressly state what they've already held.

Finally, simply as a basic matter of Constitutional interpretation, very few of our constitutional rights are expressly stated in the Constitution. Consider the constitutional right to free speech; nowhere does the Constitution state that Americans have a right to free speech. Instead, it says that that right, the existence of which is assumed, may not be abridged by the government, much like the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged" on certain bases. Or, wading even deeper into the penumbras, nowhere does the Constitution provide that women have a right to obtain an abortion, yet it's widely recognized that such a right exists.

TL;DR: It's metamorphing time and Yglesias doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
This is much more interesting discussion

http://ballotpedia.org/2014_ballot_measures

  • Forbids state's recognition of laws violating its policies, including all foreign law
  • Protects right to bear arms; requires strict scrutiny of any restriction on the right
  • Requires a two-thirds majority vote by the state legislature to increase local education expenditure by $50,000 or more
  • Clarifies that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to reasonable regulations

WHAT COULD GO WRONG
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
New Ky Poll:

15mQYk.AuSt.79.jpg
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Aha! There, you see it? A perfect example of "voxsplaining." At the above link, Yglesias spins an obviously false premise into an entire article about why the Constitution should be amended. It all sounds very well-informed, but just the slightest amount of research would have sufficed to show the error.

Let's start with the title, which also serves as the premise of the article: "Americans don't have a constitutional right to vote." This is false. You needn't look further than the district court's opinion in the Texas case that spawned Yglesias' article to realize this: "The individual’s right to vote is firmly implied in the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution and is protected as a fundamental right by both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment." In saying this, of course, the district court is supported by numerous Supreme Court opinions which have so held.

And Yglesias' is not merely a semantic error, as his false premise permeates the article and leads him to make additional mistakes. For example, he claims that it is a fact "that the legal, political, and constitutional arguments [about voter ID laws] need to get pushed into a narrow racial discrimination frame. . . . The legality of these kinds of laws hinge on whether they violate the Constitution's protections against race and gender discrimination, not on whether they prevent citizens from voting." Yet, consider how the district court in Texas summarizes the challengers' arguments: "The Plaintiffs and Intervenors (collectively “Plaintiffs”) claim that SB 14, which requires voters to display one of a very limited number of qualified photo identifications (IDs) to vote, creates a substantial burden on the fundamental right to vote, has a discriminatory effect and purpose, and constitutes a poll tax." Here's the district court's holding: "The Court holds that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax." Note that only two of those arguments fit within "a narrow racial discrimination frame," and one of them is based on the (fundamental) constitutional right to vote!

Likewise, he mistakenly claims that "[a] constitutional right to vote would instantly flip the script on anti-fraud efforts. States would retain a strong interest in developing rules and procedures that make it hard for ineligible voters to vote, but those efforts would be bounded by an ironclad constitutional guarantee that legitimate citizens' votes must be counted." But, as I've noted, such a right already exists. Making such a right explicit in the Constitution's text wouldn't "flip the script"--it would perpetuate the status quo. Given that the courts already consider voting to be a fundamental right, there's no reason to believe that their approach to reviewing voting regulations would change if the Constitution were amended to expressly state what they've already held.

Finally, simply as a basic matter of Constitutional interpretation, very few of our constitutional rights are expressly stated in the Constitution. Consider the constitutional right to free speech; nowhere does the Constitution state that Americans have a right to free speech. Instead, it says that that right, the existence of which is assumed, may not be abridged by the government, much like the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged" on certain bases. Or, wading even deeper into the penumbras, nowhere does the Constitution provide that women have a right to obtain an abortion, yet it's widely recognized that such a right exists.

TL;DR: It's metamorphing time and Yglesias doesn't know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...
This post is all kinds of wrong and completely misses his fundamental point of such an amendment. Im on my phone thought but will respond later

Your Tl:dl is "let us lawyers (again not personal obfuscate the law, just trust us that your rights are in here"

Btw id support clarifying most rights into amendments. Including an abortion.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
APKmetsfan said:
This post is all kinds of wrong and completely misses his fundamental point of such an amendment. Im on my phone thought but will respond later
Click to expand...

I'm on the edge of my seat. Don't take too long.

EDIT:

APKmetsfan said:
Your Tl:dl is "let us lawyers (again not personal obfuscate the law, just trust us that your rights are in here"

Btw id support clarifying most rights into amendments. Including an abortion.
Click to expand...

You're making a new argument not raised by Yglesias. His problem isn't that the constitutional right to vote is merely a matter of jurisprudence rather than expressly stated; it's that there is no constitutional right to vote. But, as I've shown, that's false--there is a constitutional right to vote, and it's on surer footing (thanks to the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments) than (to continue my earlier example) a constitutional right to obtain an abortion, which is, you know, somewhere in there or whatever. Yglesias' proposed solution is no solution at all--it would merely codify existing precedent, and so we shouldn't expect it to have any impact whatsoever on how courts review voting regulations.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I never expected Metasplainer to agree with the Texas district court over the supreme court on voter ID. You're right, the desired outcome doesn't need a constitutional amendment when the constitutional already gives the rights required.

I think Yglesias just might agree with the supreme court's reading of the law and wants to fix it through a new amendment. I suppose they might still technically say that voter id laws don't inhibit the right to vote, but like you said, the implicit meaning is important, and the implicit meaning behind such an amendment would be pretty clear that congress thinks any restriction like voter id needs a much stronger government interest to be put in place.

I still don't think it is needed for this issue, but it wouldn't hurt to make it explicit so that misunderstandings like that supreme court decision doesn't happen.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Metaphoreus said:
Aha! There, you see it? A perfect example of "voxsplaining." At the above link, Yglesias spins an obviously false premise into an entire article about why the Constitution should be amended. It all sounds very well-informed, but just the slightest amount of research would have sufficed to show the error.

Let's start with the title, which also serves as the premise of the article: "Americans don't have a constitutional right to vote." This is false. You needn't look further than the district court's opinion in the Texas case that spawned Yglesias' article to realize this: "The individual’s right to vote is firmly implied in the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution and is protected as a fundamental right by both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment." In saying this, of course, the district court is supported by numerous Supreme Court opinions which have so held.

And Yglesias' is not merely a semantic error, as his false premise permeates the article and leads him to make additional mistakes. For example, he claims that it is a fact "that the legal, political, and constitutional arguments [about voter ID laws] need to get pushed into a narrow racial discrimination frame. . . . The legality of these kinds of laws hinge on whether they violate the Constitution's protections against race and gender discrimination, not on whether they prevent citizens from voting." Yet, consider how the district court in Texas summarizes the challengers' arguments: "The Plaintiffs and Intervenors (collectively “Plaintiffs”) claim that SB 14, which requires voters to display one of a very limited number of qualified photo identifications (IDs) to vote, creates a substantial burden on the fundamental right to vote, has a discriminatory effect and purpose, and constitutes a poll tax." Here's the district court's holding: "The Court holds that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax." Note that only two of those arguments fit within "a narrow racial discrimination frame," and one of them is based on the (fundamental) constitutional right to vote!

Likewise, he mistakenly claims that "[a] constitutional right to vote would instantly flip the script on anti-fraud efforts. States would retain a strong interest in developing rules and procedures that make it hard for ineligible voters to vote, but those efforts would be bounded by an ironclad constitutional guarantee that legitimate citizens' votes must be counted." But, as I've noted, such a right already exists. Making such a right explicit in the Constitution's text wouldn't "flip the script"--it would perpetuate the status quo. Given that the courts already consider voting to be a fundamental right, there's no reason to believe that their approach to reviewing voting regulations would change if the Constitution were amended to expressly state what they've already held.

Finally, simply as a basic matter of Constitutional interpretation, very few of our constitutional rights are expressly stated in the Constitution. Consider the constitutional right to free speech; nowhere does the Constitution state that Americans have a right to free speech. Instead, it says that that right, the existence of which is assumed, may not be abridged by the government, much like the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged" on certain bases. Or, wading even deeper into the penumbras, nowhere does the Constitution provide that women have a right to obtain an abortion, yet it's widely recognized that such a right exists.

TL;DR: It's metamorphing time and Yglesias doesn't know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...
You can say there is an implied right to vote, some judges might agree, the point is that there isn't explicit right in the constitution.
Also, note that in those decisions you quote the judges always go to discrimination and poll taxes, two things that are explicitly prohibited in the constitution.

Now I'm not sure this will be the magic bullet that will kill all voter ideas laws, but I think it is a very important right that should be amended in, and if nothing else, it will make the US examine criminal disenfranchisement which is an abomination (though I'm not sure the country is ready for this discussion).

Your reading of the first amendment is bizarre, but in any case, you honestly make the case that the founders wanted a right to vote there and assumed it was implied?
That is historically wrong.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Chichikov said:
You can say there is an implied right to vote, some judges might agree, the point is that there isn't explicit right in the constitution.
Also, note that in those decisions you quote the judges always go to discrimination and poll taxes, two things that are explicitly prohibited in the constitution.

...

Your reading of the first amendment is bizarre, but in any case, you honestly make the case that the founders wanted a right to vote there and assumed it was implied?
That is historically wrong.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of "some judges" possibly agreeing; the matter has been settled by the Supreme Court--there is a constitutional right to vote. That's the end of it. In the single decision I quoted, the judge went through all four challenges raised by the plaintiffs, as any good trial judge will do, because, to reverse, a reviewing court would have to reverse the district court on all four arguments, rather than just one. There's an entire, lengthy section of the district court's order that is devoted to the question of whether the Texas voter ID law violates the plaintiffs' constitutional right to vote, and holding that it does. Also, bear in mind that the discrimination claims were brought under both the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, and so were not purely constitutional claims. Also also, poll taxes are only expressly unconstitutional in federal elections, not state elections.

Concerning the First Amendment, I'm not arguing that the founders wanted a right to vote and therein implied it; I'm pointing out that that's how the courts have interpreted it. But if by "my reading," you mean to refer to my argument that the rights secured by it are not expressly granted in it, that's commonly understood, and not at all bizarre.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So some dumbass congressman says he doesn't trust the government when it comes to ebola because he's seen a lot of zombie movies and knows how they all start out.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Just want to vent.

I read this comment on a climate change article . . . it got 11 thumbs up . . .

There is no global warming. I have been wondering for a long time what affect all the great rivers of the world have on rising ocean levels. The Amazon puts a 1000 cu. Meters of water into the Atlantic every minute of every hour of every week of every month of every year of every decade of every century of every millennium. With all that water from the Amazon and all the other rivers, should not the level go up? How come it is not going up by volumes?
Click to expand...

FFS.
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
WayneMorse said:
God the '96 welfare reform bill was an absolute disaster, I hope Sanders or Warren run on changing it.
Click to expand...

The most amusing part of it is that it ended up actually encouraging abuse through a too early cutoff point for benefits as well as pioneering the disability rewards system.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
speculawyer said:
You know . . . if they think this is fair game then I wonder if someone on the left should do the same. I'm sure you could get some gray-haired white guy to go to back-room conservative meetings and get some hair-raising racist stuff.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't take a whole lot of effort, you'd need a white guy, some hair dye, a pair of glasses and a make-up artist.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
speculawyer said:
You know . . . if they think this is fair game then I wonder if someone on the left should do the same. I'm sure you could get some gray-haired white guy to go to back-room conservative meetings and get some hair-raising racist stuff.
Click to expand...

Does the 47% video count?

Oblivion said:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/michael-heckuva-job-brownie-brown-responds-to-ebolafema-comparison/

Fuck Don Lemon for making this asinine comparison.
Click to expand...
That comparison is so very CNN. It's kind of amazing how CNN has staked out such a unique and distinguishable brand of stupid.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Gardner leads by 3 in new PPP poll.

It over for Udall. x(

Udall blew this race so hard. I have more hope in Braley over Udall at this point.

How does Udall come back from a 37/51 disapproval rating?

Save us Aaron. Give me some hope.

Gardner RCP: 3.8
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
^ Focusing on one issue. Remember voters want to trust a candidate.

Aaron will probably counter with the LV screens being suspect and there is something to be said, everyone is getting a ballot. We'll see.


And sorry meta, my brain fried last night after work and I couldn't respond. I promise one today.


But I had to share this

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/us/politics/iowa-senate-election.html?_r=2

Susie Mayou, a 55-year-old conservative, described herself as heartsick that Democrats had carried Iowa in six of the last seven presidential elections. “If Iowa gave power based on land ownership, the state would swing 180 degrees,” she said. “The city people push the agenda.”
Click to expand...
Conservatives don't like democracy

BTW Harkin is stitting on 2.4 million, why he hasn't given it to braley is unknown
 
Sub_Level

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
I am gonna vote for Wendy Davis because I support abortion, drug policy reformation, and she does not appear to be a gun grabber. In the last televised debate she appeared to be more competent and knowledgeable. She is going to get rekt so hard though lol. dem polls.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
^ Focusing on one issue. Remember voters want to trust a candidate.

Aaron will probably counter with the LV screens being suspect and there is something to be said, everyone is getting a ballot. We'll see.
Click to expand...
Well hey, you said it.

Their sample for female voters looks kind of weird, Udall is only leading by 4? Bennet won women by 17 in 2010 when he won by under 2 points.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Gays have been called a lot of things before, but Gremlin is a new one.

South Carolina Congressional Candidate Calls Gay Couples ‘Gremlins’

A South Carolina Congressional candidate called same-sex couples “gremlins” out to “destroy our way of life” in a seven-minute Facebook video released Monday.

The video followed a lengthy statement the candidate posted to Facebook on Oct. 14 urging South Carolina voters to stand with him if they were for traditional marriage. “I made a comment that same-sex couples that want to destroy traditional marriage and our way of life, they’re gremlins,” said Republican Anthony Culler, who is challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. James Clyburn. “They’re these creatures that are so destructive.”

Culler went on say that while the 6th District where he’s challenging Clyburn is often referred to as “the black district” he believes it’s also a “Christian district” where many people share views like his.

“The people here—black, white, Democrat, Republican—we believe in family,” Culler said. “We believe in traditional family. We believe in the way that is has always been: one man, one woman. Government can make up any laws it wants to, it doesn’t make it right. Evil is evil. Wrong is wrong. “

The Republican has almost no chance of beating the 11-term congressman in the strongly Democratic district. The state Republican Party denounced Culler’s statements, saying “most people learned in kindergarten not to call other people names.”

“Our party believes in the conservative definition of marriage, but we also believe in loving our neighbors and treating them with respect,” South Carolina GOP chairman Matt Moore said. “Mr. Culler’s desperate, attention-seeking antics in no way represent the good, decent South Carolinians I’ve met across our state.”
Click to expand...

Smacked down by your own party no less. Gotdamn
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Gardner leads by 3 in new PPP poll.

It over for Udall. x(

Udall blew this race so hard. I have more hope in Braley over Udall at this point.

How does Udall come back from a 37/51 disapproval rating?

Save us Aaron. Give me some hope.

Gardner RCP: 3.8
Click to expand...

Even PD said this seat wasn't going to flip, looks like we'll all have an egg on our faces on Election Night.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
WayneMorse said:
Even PD said this seat wasn't going to flip, looks like we'll all have an egg on our faces on Election Night.
Click to expand...

i called 52-48 a few weeks ago I thought. I didn't see CO though, I'll aaron this though, I think there is gas in the tank for udall. Its not over.

Might be 53-47. That's not the end of the world. It requires 3 pick ups in 2016 along with the presidency. WI, FL, IL, PA, OH, IA again, NC again, NH.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Twice in less than 24 hours I've had two people post two separate articles from National Report about Ebola thinking they were true.

Facepalm.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
I think Udall will win but jeez these polls...I understand CO is hard to poll, but perhaps we are assuming the methodology of past years will continue over. Maybe the difference will be that Udall loses by 1-2 instead of 4-7 for instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom