Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

dwayneshintzy

wassie wrote: »

Hong Kong is part of China's territories, so they can do what they want unimpeded in reality. Taiwan would be where you want to see real action by the US if called for.

That's not what's under the Basic Law

wassie

The ruling Chinese National People’s Congress see otherwise I would suggest. They are very busy with their rubber stamps at the moment.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/0522/1140064-hydroxychloroquine/

ANOTHER study that shows that hydroxychloroquine does nothing to treat covid-19 and can increase likelihood of patients dying.

How about we bet that he still says he is still taking it?

StringerBell

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Exactly - A bit like the ratio of "People Trump has threatened to sue" vs. "People Trump has actually sued" ?

22 Times Trump threatened to sue people during the 2016 election.

22 Threats of legal action over the course of about 18 months...

He actually sued only 2 of them - One was settled out of court so we don't know if he won or not (The Univision case) , the other was thrown out for not being valid (The Hotel workers union one).

So - Trump threatens a lot of people for a lot of things , but he rarely follows through and when he does , his success rate isn't all that great..

Remember when he was gonna sue all the women who accused him of sexual harassment and assault sure once the campaign was over, and how many did he actually sue? Not one.

pixelburp

StringerBell wrote: »

Remember when he was gonna sue all the women who accused him of sexual harassment and assault sure once the campaign was over, and how many did he actually sue? Not one.

Remember how Trump promised to open an investigation into Hillary Clinton, to her face, during one of their 1:1 debates? With much orgasmic applause from his supporters in the audience of course.

Trump's word is garbage, and more fool anyone who takes his promises seriously.

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

States do require you to carry an I/D when you're voting. That said, a carry-gun permit will suffice as I/D in some states.

I never understood why people complain about that. I didn't have to go through a background check for my driver's license, I did for my carry permit. Both are issued by Texas Dept of Public Safety, they look similar, they even are linked in the database (to the point that they use the same photograph). If one is going to accept a state ID card or driver's license, a state carry permit certainly should be accepted (and, indeed, here in TX, they are).

Compare https://woocommerce-262453-958953.cloudwaysapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/License-to-Carry-Texas.jpg vs https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2019/06/Drivers-license.jpg?w=1920&h=1080&crop=1

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

I never understood why people complain about that. I didn't have to go through a background check for my driver's license, I did for my carry permit. Both are issued by Texas Dept of Public Safety, they look similar, they even are linked in the database (to the point that they use the same photograph). If one is going to accept a state ID card or driver's license, a state carry permit certainly should be accepted (and, indeed, here in TX, they are).

Probably because it promotes gun ownership. Something federal agencies shouldn't be doing

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

Probably because it promotes gun ownership. Something federal agencies shouldn't be doing

Two things.

1) There is no federal license to carry, so the federal agencies aren't involved.
2) It does not promote gun ownership. It enables those who wish to carry their gun to so do in a regulated manner. As opposed to an unregulated manner in either legal areas (where no permit is required at all) or illegally where no permissions are granted at all.

FrostyJack

Manic Moran wrote: »

I never understood why people complain about that. I didn't have to go through a background check for my driver's license, I did for my carry permit. Both are issued by Texas Dept of Public Safety, they look similar, they even are linked in the database (to the point that they use the same photograph). If one is going to accept a state ID card or driver's license, a state carry permit certainly should be accepted (and, indeed, here in TX, they are).

Compare https://woocommerce-262453-958953.cloudwaysapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/License-to-Carry-Texas.jpg vs https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2019/06/Drivers-license.jpg?w=1920&h=1080&crop=1

The reason people don't like it is because it is mild form of voter suppression, it is seen as mainly right wing folks love the 2A so they are more likely to have a permit hence easier for them to vote so it is advantageous to Republicans not Democrats. If there was Mensa permit or licence that allowed you to vote, the Republicans would be up in arms saying it was advantageous to Democrats. Things that make it easier for Republicans to vote is easier in some states, things that would make it easier for Dems to vote are ruled out, making turn out lower. Lower turn out in most states is what gets GOP elected.

duploelabs

listermint wrote: »

Probably because it promotes gun ownership. Something federal agencies shouldn't be doing

Probably because the official is less likely to argue if the person shows that they own a gun

Manic Moran

FrostyJack wrote: »

The reason people don't like it is because it is mild form of voter suppression, it is seen as mainly right wing folks love the 2A so they are more likely to have a permit hence easier for them to vote so it is advantageous to Republicans not Democrats. If there was Mensa permit or licence that allowed you to vote, the Republicans would be up in arms saying it was advantageous to Democrats. Things that make it easier for Republicans to vote is easier in some states, things that would make it easier for Dems to vote are ruled out, making turn out lower. Lower turn out in most states is what gets GOP elected.

That's a daft argument.

The State issues ID cards which are easier to get than a firearms permit. If you can get a firearms permit, you can damned well get a state ID card. I got my Kentucky State ID card in fifteen minutes from walking into the county office to leaving with it in my pocket. The reason I don't have a Texas State ID card is that I already have the harder-to-get drivers' license and firearms permit which do the ID functions and more.

It may be that conservative folks are statistically more likely to seek to obtain a carry permit, but that has no relevance when it comes to the difficulty of seeking to obtain any form of accepted State ID for voting at all. If you're a conservative (or not) who wants to carry a gun, then jump through the extra hoops. If you're not a conservative (or not) who wants to carry a gun, don't jump through those extra hoops. Most people jump through the extra hoops of getting a driver's license. If you don't want a driver's license, don't jump through those hoops either. Aren't conservatives more likely to have a driver's license? After all, they are less likely to live in cities with good public transport like San Francisco or New York City.

Texas State ID card requirements. https://www.dps.texas.gov/driverlicense/applyforid.htm

Texas carry card requirements. https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/faqs/index.htm

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Two things.

1) There is no federal license to carry, so the federal agencies aren't involved.
2) It does not promote gun ownership. It enables those who wish to carry their gun to so do in a regulated manner. As opposed to an unregulated manner in either legal areas (where no permit is required at all) or illegally where no permissions are granted at all.

I never said there was a federal license to carry.


2 of course it promotes gun ownership. You know it does

Manic Moran

Edited. Deleted argument. It’s not relevant to the validity of a carry permit for establishing identity in voting.

FrostyJack

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's a daft argument.

The State issues ID cards which are easier to get than a firearms permit. If you can get a firearms permit, you can damned well get a state ID card. I got my Kentucky State ID card in fifteen minutes from walking into the county office to leaving with it in my pocket. The reason I don't have a Texas State ID card is that I already have the harder-to-get drivers' license and firearms permit which do the ID functions and more.

It may be that conservative folks are statistically more likely to seek to obtain a carry permit, but that has no relevance when it comes to the difficulty of seeking to obtain any form of accepted State ID for voting at all.

Texas State ID card requirements. https://www.dps.texas.gov/driverlicense/applyforid.htm

Texas carry card requirements. https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/faqs/index.htm

Why are people poor, why don't they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps? That is the same as your argument. The legislation isn't to stop you or I voting.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's a daft argument.

The State issues ID cards which are easier to get than a firearms permit. If you can get a firearms permit, you can damned well get a state ID card. I got my Kentucky State ID card in fifteen minutes from walking into the county office to leaving with it in my pocket. The reason I don't have a Texas State ID card is that I already have the harder-to-get drivers' license and firearms permit which do the ID functions and more.

It may be that conservative folks are statistically more likely to seek to obtain a carry permit, but that has no relevance when it comes to the difficulty of seeking to obtain any form of accepted State ID for voting at all. If you're a conservative (or not) who wants to carry a gun, then jump through the extra hoops. If you're not a conservative (or not) who wants to carry a gun, don't jump through those extra hoops. Most people jump through the extra hoops of getting a driver's license. If you don't want a driver's license, don't jump through those hoops either. Aren't conservatives more likely to have a driver's license? After all, they are less likely to live in cities with good public transport like San Francisco or New York City.

Texas State ID card requirements. https://www.dps.texas.gov/driverlicense/applyforid.htm

Texas carry card requirements. https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/faqs/index.htm

Making presumptions here based on your previous posts but it sounds like you're middle or upper class and live in a nice area which grants you that easy access to IDs and voting itself with minimal delays.

GOP states make it much more difficult for poor minority areas for both voting and access to IDs. There are examples of DMVs to get IDs open once a month and no public transport to get to others.

Manic Moran

FrostyJack wrote: »

Why are people poor, why don't they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps? That is the same as your argument. The legislation isn't to stop you or I voting.

Absolutely not the same.

There are two different discussions one can debate.

1. Should ID be required to vote?
1b. If yes, how difficult should it be to get such an ID? (That’s the voter suppression bit people argue over. The “easiest” ID to get is the standard by which such a requirement must be judged)
2. Where ID is required, should a carry permit issued by the state be accepted as proof of ID in the case that the person in question has neither a driver’s license or ID card, also issued by the State?

Item 2 is not a voter suppression issue. If you cannot get the easiest level of ID required to vote, you certainly cannot get the tougher one, so the lack or otherwise of the tougher one is irrelevant.

Overheal

Foxtrol wrote: »

GOP states make it much more difficult for poor minority areas for both voting and access to IDs. There are examples of DMVs to get IDs open once a month and no public transport to get to others.

This is the crux of the issue.

ID or voting ends up being systemically harder for minorities to access, whom the GOP has acknowledged, repeatedly and often in since leaked documents, tend to vote Democrat.

Quin_Dub

FrostyJack wrote: »

Why are people poor, why don't they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps? That is the same as your argument. The legislation isn't to stop you or I voting.

This is the thing about the acceptable forms of ID.

If you're a working class , urban younger person you may not have a driving licence (almost certainly don't have a gun permit) and because it's America you don't have a passport either unlike here where most people do because of summer holiday travel etc.

A student or work ID isn't accepted so in order for you to vote you potentially have to shell out anything up to $200 to get a drivers license , when you don't drive and don't have a car , just so you can vote.

If you are living pay-check to paycheck like a lot of people are , who is going to spend that much money just so you can vote??

That's the problem - How about allowing other forms of photo id (like a work id) along with another identifying document like a pay-slip with your name and social security number on it ?

Photo ID is fine , but people should not have to fork over a weeks wages to be able to vote - And that's before all the potential time off you might need to actually get the ID as well.

Manic Moran

Quin_Dub wrote: »

A student or work ID isn't accepted so in order for you to vote you potentially have to shell out anything up to $200 to get a drivers license , when you don't drive and don't have a car , just so you can vote..

The above is incorrect. I am unaware of any State which requires a driver’s license to vote and does not accept a State ID.

Data from 2015, but presumably not much changed since. 7 States charge more than $25 for a State ID. California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Florida.

10 States charge less than $10. Tennessee, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, North Dakota, South Carolina, Arkansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kansas.

All other States charge between $10-25, the median being $16 (which, as it happens, is Where Texas is)

Of the 50, for those who cannot afford the price of the ID card, which isn’t exactly exorbitant, 33 do hardship waivers. One does not need to learn to drive a car to vote.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

Absolutely not the same.

There are two different discussions one can debate.

1. Should ID be required to vote?
1b. If yes, how difficult should it be to get such an ID? (That’s the voter suppression bit people argue over. The “easiest” ID to get is the standard by which such a requirement must be judged)
2. Where ID is required, should a carry permit issued by the state be accepted as proof of ID in the case that the person in question has neither a driver’s license or ID card, also issued by the State?

Item 2 is not a voter suppression issue. If you cannot get the easiest level of ID required to vote, you certainly cannot get the tougher one, so the lack or otherwise of the tougher one is irrelevant.

What you haven't dealt with is the angle of suppression when other forms of IDs that are tougher to get than the easiest level are not accepted but carry permits are.

Those folk that have carry permits but not one of the other forms, like yourself, aren't put through the hassle of getting one of the other forms of ID to vote but other people are. I'm sure it is purely coincidence that carry permit holders are more likely to vote conservative

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

The above is incorrect. I am unaware of any State which requires a driver’s license to vote and does not accept a State ID.

Data from 2015, but presumably not much changed since. 7 States charge more than $25 for a State ID. California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Florida.

10 States charge less than $10. Tennessee, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, North Dakota, South Carolina, Arkansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kansas.

All other States charge between $10-25, the median being $16.

Of the 50, for those who cannot afford the price of the ID card, which isn’t exactly exorbitant, 33 do hardship waivers. One does not need to learn to drive a car to vote.

Do they also pay for their taxis across the city to the nice suburb to get their ID?

Manic Moran

Foxtrol wrote: »

Do they also pay for their taxis across the city to the nice suburb to get their ID?

Of course not. Personally, it’s $2.75 return for me to take the 503 bus, and I don’t even need to worry about parking at the other end

What you haven't dealt with is the angle of suppression when other forms of IDs that are tougher to get than the easiest level are not accepted but carry permits are.

What is harder to get than a State ID, which should count but does not? The requirements are normally pretty basic. I’ve already linked to Texas, but I’m happy to look at the state of your choosing. I would be even more intrigued by an ID more difficult to get than a carry permit which is not accepted.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

The above is incorrect. I am unaware of any State which requires a driver’s license to vote and does not accept a State ID.

Data from 2015, but presumably not much changed since. 7 States charge more than $25 for a State ID. California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Florida.

10 States charge less than $10. Tennessee, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, North Dakota, South Carolina, Arkansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kansas.

All other States charge between $10-25, the median being $16 (which, as it happens, is Where Texas is)

Of the 50, for those who cannot afford the price of the ID card, which isn’t exactly exorbitant, 33 do hardship waivers. One does not need to learn to drive a car to vote.

This doesn't refute the charge that student ID is not accepted.

South Carolackey,

SC Driver's License
Includes standard license and REAL ID
SC Department of Motor Vehicles ID Card
Includes standard ID card and REAL ID
Includes SC Concealed Weapons Permit
SC Voter Registration Card with Photo
Federal Military ID
Includes all Department of Defense Photo IDs and Veterans Affairs Benefits Card
US Passport
Includes US Passport ID Card

Doesn't include Student IDs, even from land grant institutions.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

This doesn't refute the charge that student ID is not accepted.

South Carolackey,

SC Driver's License
Includes standard license and REAL ID
SC Department of Motor Vehicles ID Card
Includes standard ID card and REAL ID
Includes SC Concealed Weapons Permit
SC Voter Registration Card with Photo
Federal Military ID
Includes all Department of Defense Photo IDs and Veterans Affairs Benefits Card
US Passport
Includes US Passport ID Card

Doesn't include Student IDs, even from land grant institutions.

I'm not sure SC proves a case. If you look at how you get a student ID from USC, for example, you are required to have a substantiating ID which if you bring to the polling station is good enough anyway (State ID, passport, military ID). https://sc.edu/about/offices_and_divisions/carolinacard/. The further question is the matter of oversight. There is government oversight of how the federal military issues IDs, or how states issue IDs. What is the government oversight on USC ID cards? Let alone private institutions. What are the forgery protections on a USC ID card? Every form of ID on that list above is issued by a government.

That's assuming you didn't throw away your voter registration card which you got when you registered, which itself is a precondition to voting. The photo version is free, you just need to show up at a DMV to have the photo taken, but even if you don't have the photo version, you can still vote by signing an affadavit.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of course not. Personally, it’s $2.75 return for me to take the 503 bus, and I don’t even need to worry about parking at the other end

Again, comparing your access to public transport in a middle/upper class areas to your local DMV, which apparently doesnt even have lines, to the experience of poor minority communities is useless.

What is harder to get than a State ID, which should count but does not? The requirements are normally pretty basic. I’ve already linked to Texas, but I’m happy to look at the state of your choosing. I would be even more intrigued by an ID more difficult to get than a carry permit which is not accepted.

Student IDs, especially college IDs, require as much information to be provided if not more than the 'easiest' ID required in Texas but they aren't accepted. Many states, including red states do accept them. It isn't surprising to think why the GOP in Texas wouldn't want to make it easier for young people to vote.

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

I never understood why people complain about that. I didn't have to go through a background check for my driver's license, I did for my carry permit. Both are issued by Texas Dept of Public Safety, they look similar, they even are linked in the database (to the point that they use the same photograph). If one is going to accept a state ID card or driver's license, a state carry permit certainly should be accepted (and, indeed, here in TX, they are).

Compare https://woocommerce-262453-958953.cloudwaysapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/License-to-Carry-Texas.jpg vs https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2019/06/Drivers-license.jpg?w=1920&h=1080&crop=1

Better than an Irish firearm licence, a bit of laminated paper with no photo. This despite you having to hand one in with the application. Strict firearms laws but a disaster of a licensing system because it brings in more money. /rant

Manic Moran

Again, comparing your access to public transport in a middle/upper class areas to your local DMV, which apparently doesnt even have lines, to the experience of poor minority communities is useless.

Oh, I certainly agree that there can be great variation. And I'm not saying that such things aren't used as a tool for voter suppression. But the point is that the costs need not be particularly high as a concept. The rule is basically not that there may not be no costs involved, but there may not be unreasonable cost (Financial or time). Remember, this is discussion '1' of the two items I mentioned. The 'standard of ID' requirement is Item 2.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Student IDs, especially college IDs, require as much information to be provided if not more than the 'easiest' ID required in Texas but they aren't accepted. Many states, including red states do accept them. It isn't surprising to think why the GOP in Texas wouldn't want to make it easier for young people to vote.

Even the red states which permit student ID often have restrictions. Georgia and Indiana, for example, accept only State institutions. I'm not sure how they are governed or their oversight levels. North Carolina's have to be accredited by the State. Wisconsin has a slew of requirements for the cards, as does Kentucky, and so on, but I accept that a few are without such restrictions like Arizona. I personally think it's not unreasonable to mandate that a voting ID be provided by a government, as long as that ID is easy to get.

But let's go back to the initial point which started this all out. The State carry permit requires certain substantiating documentation, like a State ID card. Let's assume that a good Student permit requires similar substantiating documentation, like a State ID card (eg USC's Carolinacard). In both cases, that substantiating document is valid for voting. If the bottom line is "can I vote?" both a student ID holder and a carry permit holder can leave their student and carry permits at home and vote with whatever ID they used to get the student or carry IDs in the first place. If Texas were to turn around tomorrow and say "Carry permits are no longer permitted", I doubt many people would suddenly feel disenfranchised. However, the reality is that carry IDs are both more stringent in requirement than a student ID (unless student IDs require fingerprinting and background checks, which I doubt), and are issued by the government which runs the elections. Therfore there is absolutely no argument at all to deny a carry permit to count as ID for voting, when there is at least -some- legitimate argument against a student ID.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sure SC proves a case. If you look at how you get a student ID from USC, for example, you are required to have a substantiating ID which if you bring to the polling station is good enough anyway (State ID, passport, military ID). https://sc.edu/about/offices_and_divisions/carolinacard/. The further question is the matter of oversight. There is government oversight of how the federal military issues IDs, or how states issue IDs. What is the government oversight on USC ID cards? Let alone private institutions. What are the forgery protections on a USC ID card? Every form of ID on that list above is issued by a government.

That's assuming you didn't throw away your voter registration card which you got when you registered, which itself is a precondition to voting. The photo version is free, you just need to show up at a DMV to have the photo taken, but even if you don't have the photo version, you can still vote by signing an affadavit.

Well here's the wrinkle: do you not need the same when applying for a concealed carry permit?

The logic, and the problem here, is that students are among the people who many not carry a drivers license on them regularly. Whereas a CWP is something you have to have on you as a gun-toting conservative.

What are the forgery protections on a CWP?

It would be a flick of the pen for the state to require state colleges to upgrade protections on student IDs and include them in any voter initiative.

Itssoeasy

To get away the ID debate donald trump hasn't completed his yearly physical six months on and the White House isn't saying why that is.

Also, trump is saying that places of worship are "essential" and is ordering them to open and claims he can overrule governors to get them open. It's funny how his stance on the powers he has in relations to states changes depending on the issue. Also, isn't god at least in the Christian sense meant to be omnipresent and so is everywhere so why would you need to open a place of worship when he's everywhere ? Again I may be inserting logic where it's not needed.

Overheal

Itssoeasy wrote: »

To get away the ID debate donald trump hasn't completed his yearly physical six months on and the White House isn't saying why that is.

Also, trump is saying that places of worship are "essential" and is ordering them to open and claims he can overrule governors to get them open. It's funny how his stance on the powers he has in relations to states changes depending on the issue. Also, isn't god at least in the Christian sense meant to be omnipresent and so is everywhere so why would you need to open a place of worship when he's everywhere ? Again I may be inserting logic where it's not needed.

The problem there is 2 sides of the political issue are both Correct about differing items. Eg. 1st Amendment rights, and Americans dropping dead.