1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Newsroom - 08/26/12 - The Greater Fool

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by robojerk, Aug 27, 2012.

  1. Sep 3, 2012 #101 of 116
    Jesda

    Jesda CAPTAIN AWESOME

    12,582
    0
    Feb 12, 2005
    DETROIT!
    It affects the integrity of elections, and in close elections with razor thin margins legitimacy matters most because of the large effect an election can have on public policy.

    So yes, depending on who you ask in which election, society can definitely be "hurt" by election fraud, or fraud of any kind.

    When Kennedy beat Nixon there were widespread reports of precincts reporting over 100% turnout. That election determined the opening of China to US trade, the end of Vietnam, and the formation of the EPA.

    And it's true, not all election fraud is caused by illegitimate voters. Some of it is due to ballot stuffing, invalid registrations, and electronic manipulation.


    I also disagree with any kind of centralized federal ID. I prefer to keep it at the state/local level.


    Indeed. It depends on how retailers react to losses from fraud.
     
  2. Sep 3, 2012 #102 of 116
    smak

    smak TV MA SLV

    20,136
    191
    Feb 11, 2000
    NoHo, CA USA
    Then why do you think that the states who have implemented these laws (governed by you know which party), don't do the free and easy to acquire thing FIRST?

    Makes you wonder, right?

    Well, no, because we know why these voter ID laws are being signed into law, in 2012.

    -smak-

    ps. The Kennedy-Nixon election outcome had nothing to do with voter fraud, even if every deceased person in the state of IL voted twice for Kennedy. I know this because of math.
     
  3. Sep 3, 2012 #103 of 116
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey

    40,093
    46
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    Huh? During Kennedy's term, there was no indication by either party that there was any desire to open trade with China (this was a VERY anti-Communist time). Viet Nam was barely a blip on the radar at that point in time, let alone ENDING a war that had not even really begun yet in earnest, and the EPA was formed by Nixon during his Presidency, but I imagine, that this would have happened anyway, based on the paths the parties took, but certainly wouldn't have happened in the early 60s. And perhaps if Nixon got elected instead of Kennedy, Vietnam never happens, or, we nuke them......China becomes more isolated, and business is less controlled and there IS no EPA. So that's a big leap you took.

    As for voter fraud, there's probably questions of that in EVERY close election. And very little has to do with actual voting done by people who aren't supposed to vote. In 2000, you had confusing ballots in FL where masses of legitimate votes were thrown out. In Ohio in 2004, you had all kinds of shenanigans in poor neighborhoods which had NOTHING to do with any of this which might have caused a lot of people who could legitimately vote not to be allowed to, which could have lead to Ohio going to Bush. And there's all kinds of questions around electronic voting machines and their accuracy. I think this voter ID is just the reintroduction of the Poll tax and other forms of keeping those without means from voting.

    And wouldn't you think, if someone wanted to commit voter fraud bad enough, they'd find a way to get an illegal id? (sounds a lot like the gun argument that if someone wanted to commit a gun crime, they'd find a way to get a gun, doesn't it?)
     
  4. Sep 3, 2012 #104 of 116
    busyba

    busyba The Funcooker

    34,759
    298
    Feb 5, 2003
    NYC
    This year, most of it will be from legislated suppression.
     
  5. Sep 3, 2012 #105 of 116
    madscientist

    madscientist Deregistered Snoozer

    3,921
    8
    Nov 12, 2003
    Lexington, MA
    The problem is that, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, if the ID is free and easy to acquire then it largely defeats its entire purpose. To put the best possible face on it, "easy to acquire" generally means "easy prey for fraud". If you really think there's lots of fraud (which I don't) then instituting a system which is easy to fool won't satisfy you. It will need to be complex in order to ensure its reliability. To put a more cynical (but realistic) face on it, "easy to acquire" means "it doesn't keep out the people we don't want to vote".

    The problem with this is it's trivially simply to disenfranchise people, as we're seeing this year. There needs to be nation-wide standards and requirements, at least.
     
  6. Sep 3, 2012 #106 of 116
    zalusky

    zalusky Active Member TCF Club

    5,045
    10
    Apr 5, 2002
    Cupertino, CA
    If you look at the fact that all the places the voter id has been implemented is in close but republican leaning areas, its obvious what the agenda is!
     
  7. Sep 3, 2012 #107 of 116
    Jesda

    Jesda CAPTAIN AWESOME

    12,582
    0
    Feb 12, 2005
    DETROIT!
    While I won't disagree that some in politics aim to suppress voter participation, that doesn't trump the need for base-level security. Here in St Louis County, I am required to show my ID to vote. The address on my ID has to match the address on the records kept by the county. I have to sign my name next to my printed name and address in the county log book.

    Voter turnout is on par with the rest of the country. Contrary to concerns, no disenfranchisement en masse has occurred, and St Louis leans Democratic.


    And yes, this is a state where acquiring a government-issued photo ID is cheap and easy to do with wait times typically less than 15 minutes. Many of our DMV offices also happen to be efficiently run by private contractors.



    Those who believe voter identification would serve their political agendas are set for disappointment. The vast majority of legitimate voters already have identification, whether its a passport, green card, or driver's license.


    Aaron Sorkin is making a mountain out of a molehill. But hey, he's an entertainer after all.
     
  8. Sep 4, 2012 #108 of 116
    zalusky

    zalusky Active Member TCF Club

    5,045
    10
    Apr 5, 2002
    Cupertino, CA
    Well then explain all the other little tricks republicans have trying to do like closing early polls the 3 days before the election when primarily black distracts evangelize the vote through the Sunday mass or closing polls at different times in Ohio IE republican districts get to stay open longer than democratic districts. Basically from what I can see they are playing numbers in the trenches game. Some of these tricks have been overturned but not all and the simple fact they even happened is an indicator of things.

    Given the 2000 election was decided by only hundreds of votes in Florida this is more than a molehill.
     
  9. Sep 4, 2012 #109 of 116
    inaka

    inaka Well-Known Member

    13,176
    44
    Nov 26, 2001
    Oakland, CA
    Let's see: Potential voter disenfranchisement in an election where swing states are the key, in a country where in 2000 the guy who won literally lost the popular vote but won based on an unprecedented Supreme Court ruling in a key swing state, with a "solution" being raised to a problem that doesn't exist, where these key swing states just happen to all be governors of the same party, and where one key member of that party is on video saying "Voter ID laws are going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. Done." ....that's a mountain out of a molehill? Wow...who cares, it's only someone else's vote, right? :rolleyes:
     
  10. Sep 4, 2012 #110 of 116
    Jesda

    Jesda CAPTAIN AWESOME

    12,582
    0
    Feb 12, 2005
    DETROIT!
    I dont like the Republicans, especially lately, and I don't care for those tactics. Likewise, far-left Democrats (Black Panthers) have been caught standing outside of polling places intimidating people as they enter polling places.

    No matter who does it, it's not right.

    I'm also aware of fraud (not necessarily ID-related) and intimidation perpetrated by people who align themselves with both parties.


    Polling places that request ID show no real or statistically significant evidence of voter disenfranchisement. I live in a region/metro area that leans Democratic. This is Clay/Carnahan/Gephardt country. Our large population of Bosnian and Mexican immigrants aren't discouraged from participating simply because they need an ID.


    You don't have to be white, male, a Protestant, or a land owner. You just need to prove that your name and address match the registration database. There's no TSA-style pat down or further snooping into your personal information. You simply have to show that you are the person you claim to be in the registration data.

    On one hand, you have some Democrats who think people will be disenfranchised en masse, and they believe that among those people are illegal immigrants without papers who would be historically inclined to vote Democratic.
    On the other hand, you have some Republicans who think voter ID will suppress a mass quantity of fraudulent illegal immigrant Democrat voters or minorities in general.


    They're both wrong.


    Few illegal immigrants are willing to risk being identified by going to the polls or interacting at all with police/government, but the possibility of fraud could and should be prevented if the solution is simple. An overwhelming majority of voters already carry a form of valid identification, so any negative consequences of ID requirements are greatly exaggerated.




    And in case anyone cares, I'm a brown immigrant, a former Democrat, and a former Republican who votes straight "Libertarian" down the ballot.


    Sorkin is a liberal Democrat playing to his side, and that's well within his right. He's not a journalist, he's a writer and producer of fictional programs. This is why "balance" is necessary in newsmedia, because what some claim to be "the truth" is still filtered through limited perceptions.

    Additionally, most political issues aren't about the presence or absence of facts. Even when you have all of the raw pieces of information, what you choose to do with it has to do with the principles, belief systems, and assumptions about the deeper aspects of human nature that comprise feuding ideologies.
     
  11. Sep 4, 2012 #111 of 116
    Ereth

    Ereth Well-Known Member

    42,503
    221
    Jun 16, 2000
    Jacksonville...
    Voter turnout in America tends to be low. I googled those counties you mention, but couldn't find them. I found a Robin Carnahan predicting 25% voter turnout in Missouri, though. Think about that. 25% of registered voters will actually vote.

    How many do you have to discourage to affect that election? 1%?
     
  12. Sep 4, 2012 #112 of 116
    kaszeta

    kaszeta Fjohürs Lykkewe TCF Club

    24,047
    67
    Jun 11, 2004
    Grantham, NH
    This. Pretty much the only place that I ever get asked is the airport (TSA, and sometimes baggage claim, since one of my travel cases looks like, but is not, a pistol case)

    Bank? Nope, unless for some reason I'm getting a huge amount of cash (although I mostly use ATMs and online banking)

    Checks? Extremely rare. Not sure it's ever happened here.

    Voting? Nope (although the voting clerks here know most of the town by sight)

    Only non-airport time I could think of in recent history was purchasing cold medicine.
     
  13. Sep 4, 2012 #113 of 116
    kaszeta

    kaszeta Fjohürs Lykkewe TCF Club

    24,047
    67
    Jun 11, 2004
    Grantham, NH
    Getting back to the show... I'm not sure about the whole Don/Maggie thing anyways. He's a senior producer, and ~10 years older than her. I thought that whole thing was a bit contrived.
     
  14. Sep 4, 2012 #114 of 116
    dtle

    dtle Active Member

    1,690
    13
    Dec 12, 2001
    Philly, PA
    They were dating before the show started, when Maggie was just a secretary, not yet promoted to assistant producer. So other than the age thing, I don't see it a problem, because she wasn't really under his management.
     
  15. Sep 4, 2012 #115 of 116
    Jesda

    Jesda CAPTAIN AWESOME

    12,582
    0
    Feb 12, 2005
    DETROIT!
    The age doesn't throw me off. Don is a popular figure who routinely dates younger women.

    What makes the relationship implausible are their completely incompatible personalities with zero romantic chemistry.
     
  16. Sep 4, 2012 #116 of 116
    robojerk

    robojerk Active Member

    2,325
    7
    Jun 13, 2006
    Laguna Hills CA
    Like I said, I'm kind of shocked so many people don't have ID out there.
    As for the elderly being disenfranchised, about 10 years ago my doctor's office started asking for ID because of health insurance fraud (people claiming to be someone else who had insurance when seeing a doctor, mostly done by illegal immigrants from Mexico, South America, and Asia). I've switched providers and the new one does the same thing.

    I do agree that if they insist these laws be passed, that first and foremost getting an ID be affordable and efficient. If someone like the lady in the episode has issues claiming she is who she says she is that if she get 3 people with proper ID to write affidavits (if caught lying they go to prison for fraud and conspiracy) claiming they know for a fact that this person is who they say they are, be enough for the State to accept. As for convenience or location, allow the USPS, AAA, or court houses to accept said info to request an ID and take photo if needed. The USPS already does passports in some location so you wouldn't even need to buy a camera for them as they have the equipment needed already.

    However what this guy is saying is despicable.
     

Share This Page