US News & Politics

[megacycle]

I'm stating my opinion... I need an ID (Proof of age/Identification) to do a lot of other things in this world and almost all of them only effect me, and I said it would be an unpopular opinion.

[Via]

I'm stating my opinion... I need an ID (Proof of age/Identification) to do a lot of other things in this world and almost all of them only effect me, and I said it would be an unpopular opinion.

Interesting, since all of the examples you mentioned (drinking, driving a car, owning a gun) all have the potential to massively effect others (drunk driving/fighting, car accidents, shootings).  To be clear, I am fully in favor of requiring ID for all of those things, because it supports a minimum standard of accountability. Voting is supposed to be entirely anonymous, and what accountability is required for a fair election on the voting level is already handled by the voter registration and tallying system—additional hoops are unnecessary at best, disenfranchising at worst.

[Silverwing]

I think we need voter ID as well.  We need ID for many other things, and voting should be one of them.

[megacycle]

I need an ID to buy, rent, and drive a car, I need an ID to open a bank account, I need an ID to get a job, I need an ID to adopt a pet, I need an ID to buy tobacco products, I need an ID to go to a club, I need an ID to go to the casino, and the list goes on and on. I feel like asking a person to present some form of ID as proof of residence isn't asking a lot. It doesn't make voting less anonymous. It's just another level of security, catching voter fraud before it actually happens. Being proactive instead of reactive.

My company does an anonymous survey every year, and trust me it's not anonymous. I have to log in using my username and password at work. The first set of questions on the survey are the following; department I work in, my age group, my gender, my ethnicity, basically things that would allow the people reading the survey know what I look like, roughly. Why are questions like that on an anonymous survey. The only thing that makes the survey "anonymous" is the third party company reading all of the answers and compiling all the common complaints and highlights.

[Via]

even if you look at it from a cost-benefit angle Voter ID is genuinely not worth the expense considering how vanishingly rare genuine voter impersonation (the only type of fraud that a photo ID requirement law helps prevent) actually is. again, 31 cases in 17 years, and virtually all of those weren't even genuine malicious attempts, they were honest mistakes by voting parties that were corrected in court.

States incur sizeable costs when implementing voter ID laws, including the cost of educating the public, training poll workers, and providing IDs to voters  Texas spent nearly $2 million on voter education and outreach efforts following passage of its Voter ID law. Indiana spent over $10 million to produce free ID cards between 2007 and 2010.

Literal millions of dollars being spent to legislate, pass, train, and enforce laws to solve a problem that has, in seventeen years, affected a whopping 0.000000031% of all votes cast. That is eight zeroes after the decimal point, literally less than a thousandth of 1 percent. don't you think states have better, more worthwhile things spend those millions on? things that genuinely help their constituents, that improve their quality of life?

[megacycle]

Sure... I'm just stating my opinion, what do I really know? I'm just stating an opinion based on my personal experience, my state already has a voter ID law, well they did. I think it's in the process of being removed. I'd rather keep it in place, personally.

I'm sorry I upset you, it's just my opinion. I upset people a lot with my opinions. I don't intend to cause chaos, I'm just stating what is on my mind, common sense statements. At least to me they are common sense statements.

Right now everybody is celebrating, things can get back to normal the orange man is gone... Like the orange man actually did anything to effect them personally, besides say something dumb on twitter. In my mind, things are not normal until I can go outside without a mask. I'm tired of hearing the doctor argument. Seriously.

edit: I'm also looking at it from the angle of, after hearing it for so long after the 2016 election, collusion with Russia. Making it sound like voter manipulation was a real problem... fast forward to the here and now. Pushing for mail in ballots that can be tampered with between the drop off location and the delivery location and the removal of voter ID laws that are already in place in some states. Sorry I didn't google the actual numbers... I fell for the mainstream media trap. lol.

[Via]

you are more than welcome to state your opinion, just as i am more than happy to respectfully provide a rebuttal! c: that's the beauty of instant networked communication, we can go back and forth like this for eternity if we're so inclined

I, personally, am not celebrating things going back to "normal"—not if "normal" means continued systemic oppression of multiple minority groups, trillions of dollars funneled into protecting capitalist interests overseas, and a society where 40% of the population (that is, bolded for emphasis, over one hundred million people) cannot afford an unexpected expense of $400 or more.

Now keep in mind, that figure is not "hasn't saved enough to afford" or "has wasted too much money to afford"—the operative word here is cannot. Cannot afford, because wages for the working class—the average Joe! The salt of the earth! The backbone of America!—have stagnated so hideously over the course of the past few decades that many millions of people are now in a situation where working full-time is not enough to support themselves, let alone feel secure, healthy, or stable enough raise a family. This isn't a partisan issue—wage stagnation has happened under Democrats and Republicans both, they both hold the blame—it's a capitalist one.

so no, I'm not especially chuffed about Biden being in the white house. he wasn't my first, second, third, fourth, or tenth choice for president-elect, but I'm hoping that some good does come from his election.

like maybe the first steps towards electoral reform, stopping the rampant gerrymandering and real, actual, non-conspiracy theory voter suppression that's been ongoing for decades now, across both sides of the aisle.

or maybe something approaching a climate bill, something that at least attempts to address our incredibly irresponsible treatment of the planet, and the devastating effects it is already causing— not WILL cause, IS causing.

or maybe a real, coherent plan to deal with the deadly pandemic still currently ravaging the country—a pandemic that went almost entirely ignored by the previous administration except when it could be leveraged for personal enrichment, claiming over 230,000 American lives in the process—a pandemic that has affected me, and seen several people I know personally hospitalized or killed.

maybe! I am certainly holding onto some shred of hope, at least. Because that's the essence of harm reduction, isn't it? For now, for me, the mantra isn't "the future will be better"—it's "the future will be less bad, in a lot of small, but tangible ways".

not much to go on, maybe, but lucky for me, i've always been an optimist.

[megacycle]

None of these politicians have a real plan to deal with this pandemic. Shutting down the country will cause an economic collapse. All those small business will be gone, the only thing left standing will be the large corporations.

Yes, sure we can be greener to save the planet but that's not stopping China and other countries from killing it. Because that's where all of our goods are being made. Computers, laptops, cell phones, iphones, etc. Because that's where all of our manufacturing jobs have gone, now they just pump out more pollution in our place. Everything I pick up inside of most stores, will have that beautiful made in china stamp on the back.

[Via]

economic collapse? You mean damage to the stock market that I'm fairly certain neither of us have investments in, the same stock market that received literal trillions of dollars in bailout money while the rest of us got $1200? Or do you mean damage to the massive corporations that have enjoyed tax breaks, 'too big to fail' bailouts, and millions upon millions of dollars in stimulus intended for family-owned small businesses?

or, do you mean a lack of liquidity from the average consumer, thus leading to decreased cash flow into the economy—you know, something that the Democratic party has attempted to address with a second stimulus package repeatedly, only to be obstructed by the current Senate majority, for no other reason than because it's from the "bad guys"? The government has the means and ability to ensure that the 'normal people' in this crisis are secure, stable, and cared for during a second panedmic lockdown—the only thing that's missing is the will. Save me the theatrics about running up the national deficit, also—it's already increased over 36% (that's 8 trillion dollars) since Trump took office, and what have we heard from those notoriously debt-hawk Republicans on his cabinet, like Lindsey Graham and co? not a peep.

obviously, the ideal situation is that the first lockdown was actually respected and followed nationwide, that there wasn't a barrage of misinformation, mishandling, and mistrust surrounding the public health aspect of this crisis, but that ship has well and truly sailed (thanks, Trump admin!). at the end of the day, though? lives—real human lives—are my priority. not the stock market. not land. not property.

I have lived through one recession and would happily live through another, if it meant my friend's father had been able to get life-saving surgery he was denied because of complications from COVID-19. I would happily live through another if it meant my roommate hadn't contracted it, been forced to work while sick because they had literally no other means of support and needed to eat and pay rent, inadvertently infecting not just me, but who knows how many others at their retail job. I would happily live through another if it meant I didn't have to deal with the dread of having had it, of having potential permanent lung, vascular, or neural damage because the great grinding machine of THE ECONOMY cannot be stopped.

but i can't change any of those things, so all i can hope for is a more reasoned, well-intentioned plan this time, one that goes beyond 'ignore the science, don't listen to the doctors, don't look as I sell mask stockpiles to third party shell companies to enrich my cabinet members'—a plan that might cost a lot of money, but hopefully won't cost another 200 thousand American lives.

Yes, sure we can be greener to save the planet but that's not stopping China and other countries from killing it.

Funny you mention China specifically, since they currently lead the world in investment in renewable energy, and have concrete, aggressive, and actionable carbon-neutrality targets to be met by 2060. they have the benefit of rapid, planned industrialization and have taken notes from other post-industrial economies to make the transition substantially more smoothly than the US. I know China is our former president's favorite punching bag, but considering how anemic our plans for renewables and carbon neutrality are in comparison, I think we could stand to learn some things from them!

[Silverwing]

Ha... China's lead in investment in renewable energy means diddly squat because they aren't seeing pollution numbers decrease and they continue to pollute at a level no one else does.  As does India and many other developing nations.  China dumps more yearly into our oceans than anyone with have many laxed laws, or people simply don't follow them.  China emits more pollution than the US and all the EU combined.

Here is an interesting article on China's air pollution to feed some minds.

But I don't want to argue with people.  I come here to see news, not debate.  This is the "news" topic after all.

[Via]

Ha... China's lead in investment in renewable energy means diddly squat because they aren't seeing pollution numbers decrease and they continue to pollute at a level no one else does.  As does India and many other developing nations.  China dumps more yearly into our oceans than anyone with have many laxed laws, or people simply don't follow them.  China emits more pollution than the US and all the EU combined.

Here is an interesting article on China's air pollution to feed some minds.

But I don't want to argue with people.  I come here to see news, not debate.  This is the "news" topic after all.

China's peak emissions target is 2030—emissions are still expected to increase until then. This is consistent with peak emissions targets for many other industrialized nations. China is currently expected to achieve both its 2020 and 2030 emissions goals. the US cannot say the same. to be clear, i think ocean dumping, rapid industrialization, and the huge reliance on carbon-based fuel in general are all huge problems for china, and certainly not ones i will excuse them for. but to make it sound like they have zero concern for the climate and the planet is disingenuous and outright wrong.

[megacycle]

Right... I'm done here, clearly I'm just an idiot with an opinion and it's probably not going to change anytime soon. You have your opinion, I have my opinion, no point in debating because we've already made up our minds. I look forward to the next news update.

[Via]

Right... I'm done here, clearly I'm just an idiot with an opinion and it's probably not going to change anytime soon. You have your opinion, I have my opinion, no point in debating because we've already made up our minds. I look forward to the next news update.

see you!

a final note: i certainly wouldn't call all of the concrete, empirically-verifiable studies, statistics, and other data i've been providing 'opinions'—all of them appear to fit the definition of objective facts. in fact, i would argue that an inability to differentiate between objective truths and subjective opinions is a large part of why our country is currently mired in the mess it is.

this is not intended as an attack on you or anyone else, just some food for thought—you are, after all, fully entitled to your opinion, and everyone (you included!) is additionally entitled to knowledge of facts that may objectively contradict that opinion. how one changes (or refuses to change) their opinion after being presented with factual evidence to the contrary is, of course, entirely up to them—it is human nature to be very averse to having our beliefs challenged, which makes it all the more impressive when someone is willing to consider the possibility that their sacrosanct 'opinions' might be wrong.

that being said, i have neither the means nor the will to force anyone to accept or consider anything. the best i can do is engage in good-faith questioning and hope, and that is what i have done and will continue to do.

anyway, all the best, enjoy the news cycle

[Rainberry]

I look forward to the next news update.

I'm pretty sick of people always debating in here.  Never used to be an issue.  For some reason people feel they have to present something as if they are correct all the time, when they aren't. Many people can be correct, just as many can be incorrect.  Lots of gray.  I had to step away from this thread as well because of people constantly feeling they have to rebuttal.

certainly not ones i will excuse them for.

It's nice when you hold them to a higher standard.  They certainly will listen.

[Via]

It's nice when you hold them to a higher standard.  They certainly will listen.

i can only hope they do! probably not to me personally, sure, but more likely to increased pressure on the global stage for every nation to share accountability for humanity's net contribution to the climate crisis.