Close Topic Options

Zach, your 'friend' isn't worth it if they'll unfriend you over political bullshit, and especially if they're someone who admits that they need an echo chamber in order to survive. Absolutely disgusting.

I see civil rights and climate change have been removed from the White House website. While certainly nothing new to swap site content with a new administration, it does indicate that certain things aren't exactly critical policy to the incoming staff.

Fun times. Let's start the best four years!

To be fair ~ she's probably a girl

*looks at bra collection*

… I'll shut-up now :x

As with Obama, I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt to see what he actually does. I have my share of issues with him, especially on trade but will wait and see what does.

Speaking of unfriending over politics. I got into a very brief argument with a friend of mine, who's the big feminist type, just before the election when I said I thought both candidates suck and they went on a tangent about Trump. I didn't yield in my argument and they've basically refused to speak to me since.

Waiting for Baby Huey over in North Korea to start stirring shit up.

Pretty much how I feel about it.

Tons of stuff isn't on the website because it's still being built (no clue why they didn't have it prepared by inauguration day, but whatever). You'll notice there isn't a page for his much-talked-about immigration policy either.

You know what Kyon, nobody's raised that point but yeah you're probably right.

why is trump so stuck up on the so called "massive voter fraud"? i dont like him one bit but he's got to move on and act presidential. you cant always get what you want so why does it bother him so much that he lost the popular vote? he got the job/position he wanted in the end anyway. if he can make America great again then let him prove it with his policies if not then he should just go back to being a billionaire business man.

This post has been edited by 207 on Jan 25 2017, 08:34 AM

Policies like... eliminating voter fraud? ;^)

Gonna enjoy us digging ourselves more into debt with the sudden signing of the 'wall' he wants to build.

Is it going to be like the Berlin wall or a more shitty quality? Either way i'm sure we'll see a tax hike soon.

But we can get some more info/links if anybody has them on hand.

So kinda like assault weapon bans eliminating gun crime? ;^)

You kind of have to have a problem in the first place in order to enact a solution. Unless of course you're a shitlord, in which case you either create a problem and then offer a solution to the problem you created, or you simply offer a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place but sell it so hard that people start believing the problem existed.

I'll go with the last one, since he's such a fan of alternative facts and all.

Not happy with him crippling the EPA, or going on and on about his dick crowd size.

Thought the TPP pullout was very appreciated.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The wall Mexico will effectively be paying for? I'm not sure that's gonna happen.

False equivalency.

Regardless of whether or not you believe voter fraud exists on a noticeable scale, let's just take a look at how our voter ID laws look right now. In fact, let's see what they look like in your state!

...uh oh!

How so? If you 'create strong voter ID laws to fight the rampant voter fraud committed by 3 million illegals' you kind of should be proving that there was rampant voter fraud committed by 3 million illegals first. If you don't, then it's no different from the strong 'assault weapons' laws that don't do jack shit about the vast majority of gun crime (which is committed with handguns that aren't assault weapons). You're solving a problem that does not exist.

Heh! Lucky you, I live in this state, and I've voted in this state! As such, lemme walk you through the process.

1.) The state sends a ballot to every vote-capable state resident via registered mail. If you did not register to receive a ballot, you will receive instead a notification of your polling place. If you receive neither, then you can go to your nearest polling place to register (more on that in a moment).

2.) You fill out the ballot if you received one, and either mail it back or seal it in your envelope and drop it off at any polling place. If you received instead your polling location, you visit that location, state your name, they check against their registered voter list, and if you're on it you get a ballot. If you're not, or you lost your ballot, or you didn't receive your ballot, move on to 3.

3.) If you want to register on-the-spot you can, but you'll only get a provisional ballot rather than a real one. You cast it like a normal ballot, and indeed don't have to show ID... but that's because the provisional ballots are then counted separately as they must be individually verified to be from legitimate voters.

If you want to read about how shit works in our fine state, check out the following resources:
http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/voter-registration.php
https://cavotes.org/vote/how-vote/voting-person

Hopefully that helps.

This post has been edited by Nomake Wan on Jan 25 2017, 05:14 PM

We know the specific problem of gun crime used to justify "assault weapons" bans is a problem that doesn't exist. We don't know the true nature and extent of voter fraud conclusively. Another thing that separates the two is the fact that applying strict voter ID laws can have no negative consequence whatsoever - you're either a citizen with the right to vote or you are not. Doesn't really get much simpler.

Thanks for the clarification about provisional ballots, but for instance, who do you think runs the polling stations in sanctuary cities? AFAIK it's 100% super illegal to ask for ID for anything government-related in CA, and since the DMV will pretty much give you an ID (as they can't ask if you're a citizen) you could probably pull it off even in non-sanctuary cities.

In other news, Trump froze Obama's last-minute hushed gift of $221m to Palestine.

It depends on how you want to define 'conclusively'. It's kind of like how Jill Stein justifies her batshit crazy conspiracy theory dog-whistling with "We're just asking questions." No, you're dog-whistling and giving legitimacy to bullshit. Prove it's a problem first, because so far all of the evidence we have says that it's not. If you can provide evidence that it is, then I'll change my stance. Then again, we're living in the era of alternative facts, so...

As for 'no negative consequence whatsoever', the problem is that it depends on how the law is actually written. There were certain states that were located in the southern half of the country and were ostensibly right-leaning that enacted voter ID laws which were then struck down as being unconstitutional due to putting undue burden on the individual to prove that they were a citizen. It failed constitutional muster. It's easy enough to suggest a voter ID law, but it's not so easy to actually write one.

You're quite welcome. However, I will not let you get away with what you did right after that first comma--begging the question. You're trying to assert that fraud exists where it has not been shown to exist. You're suggesting, without evidence, that California just ignores its own laws in order to allow people to illegally vote. Unless you have some evidence to back up that statement, then your baseless comment runs afoul of the actual evidence I just presented from the CA government itself.

To receive a state ID from the DMV, you require your social security number, corroborating ID (previous CA ID, out-of-state ID, passport, birth certificate), and two documents to prove residency (utility bill, title to property, pay stub). You can find this information on the CA DMV's website HERE.

It is not "100% super illegal" to ask ID for anything government-related in CA and I literally have no idea where the hell you got that from. I've lived here since 2007 and yes, I get asked for ID for government-related stuff. How do you think I got my firearms licenses? How do you think I got my CA ID after moving from NY? How do you think I registered to vote in the first place?

Hopefully this helps clear things up.

Again, we shouldn't have to prove the current existence of voter fraud to want to ensure it never happens in the future, as long as doing that doesn't end up infringing on peoples' rights.

>muh alternative facts
kek, you keep parroting this all over the place. It's literally a phrase Conway made up on the spot in the middle of an interview which - if taken in the context of said interview - makes sense. People taking this shit so seriously just end up looking like they have to latch onto any little thing to validate their narrative. Don't be that guy.

Obviously. This applies to every law and has no bearing on whether the idea of the law itself is justified or not.

Actually, it kinda is. Ready?

All persons voting in any U.S. general election are required to present a valid form of identification verifying their citizenship status (driver's license/ID, passport, military ID, etc.). If they cannot do so, they cannot vote.

Woah.

Therein lies the problem, because if illegals are getting driver's licenses (more on this in the next paragraph) and committing voter fraud "legally", there is no evidence left behind to examine.

We're mixing up IDs with driver's licenses, my bad. There's a big difference here, as you do not even need to present an SSN in order to get one, and as icing on the cake you can automatically be registered to vote through the application. Here's the form.

And by the way, that bit in the voter registration field about filling out a form doesn't even apply, thanks to this handy piece of legislation.

Anecdotal evidence from another CA friend whose father is a government worker.

Therein lies the issue. If it's 'so easy', clearly the states trying to enact one shouldn't have had a problem of running afoul of constitutional law, but they did. You have to be very careful about how you phrase the law, and have to do so in the context of existing law, and defend it against the law of the land--the constitution. When I say write, I mean actually write, as in what you have to do in order to pass a law and have it function properly. Woah.

Sorry, I'm gonna be that guy. Sean Spicer, Press Secretary of the White House, defended 'alternative facts' thusly: "The press was trying to make it seem like we were ignoring the facts. The facts are, sometimes when you look at a situation, in the same way that you can look at a weather report. One weather report comes out and says it's going to be cloudy, and another says it's going to be light rain. No one lied to you. It just means you interpreted the data in a way that you felt got you to a conclusion."

No, Sean Spicer, alternative facts are like getting yesterday's weather report wrong.

Still off. If you're talking about driver's licenses specifically, then the law you're trying to quote is Assembly Bill 60 from 2015. Here is what's required for an illegal to acquire an AB60 ID. And here is the breakdown of how an AB60 ID works. Hope this helps.

I just read through the actual bill. Scroll down to Chapter 4.5, which is the actual law. You will find the following text:

So, by the actual text of the law itself, this is merely a means to also submit voting registration records that coincide with applying for an ID or Driver's License to the State the exact same way you would register to vote. Don't take my word for it--read the bill yourself.

Your friend is feeding you incorrect information, or more likely, is feeding you misconstrued information. There may be some situations where you don't need to flash an ID, but I have run into several government-related situations where I needed to provide ID, so the crux of his statement is inherently false.

i dont mind if he strengthens voter fraud measures but he really does fixate on such ridiculous claims/arguments. didnt they go over this massive voter fraud thing in the last month or 2 of the election campaign and prove his claims were widely overstated? he has a flair for the dramatic and overstating things. heck, they even fixated on the crowd turn out. go ahead strengthen measures to cut down on voter fraud but dont huuugely overstate the numbers to justify your moves.

did this become a big pissing contest to see whose numbers were greater? he's made some huge economic choices and still a good amount of things which id call childish issues. he has had a few too may screws loose in his head for many years and im just seeing then more as he indulges in his fantasies. he likes to see big numbers roll his way and raises a huge fuss when they dont point to him. get on with it and focus on the real numbers ie jobs, wages?, economy, social plans?, new heath care plan etc etc

This post has been edited by 207 on Jan 25 2017, 09:46 PM

The one tax payers will be paying for is going to happen.

So what, you think they did that by accident?

This looks mad easy to forge yourself into, especially in sanctuary cities.

Not exactly. See:

Image size reduced, original size: 1748 x 616. Click here to view the image in its original dimension.

There is no solid citizenship verification listed as needed here. In fact, as described by the law...

...all you have to do is lie.

Again, it's hard to prove anything conclusively about voter fraud.

The left fixated on the crowd turnout, not the Trump administration. People, on a very large scale, purported falsehoods about the crowd size. The administration corrected this information and then the MSM pounced on it and inflamed the situation even more.

For the record:

Image size reduced, original size: 976 x 1200. Click here to view the image in its original dimension.

As Spicer said in, I think it was the first or second official press briefing, people are tired of hearing what Trump can't do. The narrative has constantly been negative, so the response has always been to fight back, ergo he boasts a lot. He probably does that a lot anyway, who cares?

Whether it's proactive or retroactive, they will be paying for it (for better or worse).

Those the protestors in the back? This is America, we don't speak the ching ching chong talk. False media at it's finest.


So, where's the proof? So far the only proof he has said as of today is that American's will pay for the taxes upfront, then maybe mexico will pay for it. Which another President, well and a former President of Mexico stated "lol no."

Whether Mexico will pay for it within his presidency or even our lifetime; remember to look at the bright-side. ☆

I for one need a job & since I'm at border ~ hell a construction gig might not be such a bad-idea if they don't do a background check.

You need a jorb too & you're approx 2-hours away from San Diego ... so get crackalakin' like your little sis xiao! $$ cha-ching!

No, I don't. It doesn't change the fact that things are not nearly as simple as you seem to think they are. By all means, though, pursue a career in constitutional law. I'm sure it would be enlightening.

Do you have any evidence for your seemingly baseless claim? If you have no evidence of it occurring, then I will point out your lack of evidence. If you do have evidence, provide it. "It looks that way" is insufficient, as I'm sure there are lots of things that 'seem' that way but aren't. For instance, firearms purchase agreements include the question, "Are you a felon?" You would think you could just answer 'no' there, but that doesn't mean they don't then find out whether you actually are or not. Evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence!

That doesn't cover what the Secretary of State has to do in order to verify eligibility, it's only what is submitted during voter registration--which is the same whether or not it's the DMV doing it. Now, if you have a problem with how voter registration in general works that's another thing entirely, but it's also a different part of California law not covered by this bill, and is completely independent of this bill. You are shaking AB1461 like it's some bogeyman without understanding what it does in its own text, because apparently you're more willing to believe some far-right website's interpretation than the law itself.

Again, if you don't believe me, you can go ahead and look at the actual California code referenced in order to see how voter registration in general works and how the Secretary of State verifies eligibility for each citizen. Don't take my word for it, and don't take some bullshit website's word for it either. Do your own legwork.

This post has been edited by Nomake Wan on Jan 26 2017, 02:59 PM

Your geography of where you think I live is appalling lol.

I'm no where near two hours away from San Diego. That's about the time I can reach Bakersfield on the 5. (Nomake knows this, well depending on where he's at when he travels down here) or maybe another hour if there's traffic going through the grapevine. Lol.


Also funny to have trump say he'll have a 20% tax increase on goods from Mexico coming in.
Meaning well be paying more for products, which is basically what the post above was about, ultimately well be dropping money to something that does not work, period.

How has the fence been doing? Not well if we're talking about a wall now that will crumble or be destroyed in certain areas on a daily basis, furthering the dumping of "our" money into it.

Pointless but it made a point for brainwashed people who think it's going to do something.

My sense of direction is like Ryoga from Ranma 1/2 ... and I have u'r address!! XD

We have a little loop on I-10 here our city calls "the psghetti bowl" ~ I can only imagine what the grapevine is with the stories I've heard of LA traffic bruv ~ @__@ omg

That 20% tax thing I fear might spark a trade war.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]