Feds Charge Hispanic Immigrant with Illegally Voting in Several Florida Elections, Lying on Immigration Forms

[KCfromNC]

I have no problem with that arrangement.

In fact, there are plenty of people who do have an ID (but no car, or a car that doesn't work) that would probably appreciate the ride.

Sure, but with this compromise they would only need the ride, since meeting in the middle would mean getting rid of any sort of ID requirements

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sure, but with this compromise they would only need the ride, since meeting in the middle would mean getting rid of any sort of ID requirements

So maybe I misread what your idea of compromise is/was...

I was suggesting still requiring ID, but removing many of the other things people see as hurdles to voting. (by offering that ID for free, and implementing more robust ride sharing and transportation options)

 

[Whyayeman]

So maybe I misread what your idea of compromise is/was...

I was suggesting still requiring ID, but removing many of the other things people see as hurdles to voting. (by offering that ID for free, and implementing more robust ride sharing and transportation options)

I have said that the idea of ID for citizens met with resistance in the UK and the reason - the justified fear that it was a step towards a police state. Why would American citizens feel any different? I am pretty sure there are many Americans who would be against the idea. No political party would touch it for fear of the groundswell of hostility it would stir up.

It is a non-starter in America.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I have said that the idea of ID for citizens met with resistance in the UK and the reason - the justified fear that it was a step towards a police state. Why would American citizens feel any different? I am pretty sure there are many Americans who would be against the idea. No political party would touch it for fear of the groundswell of hostility it would stir up.

It is a non-starter in America.

I tend to not gauge "what would or wouldn't work in the US" based on what has or hasn't worked in the UK or other places.

While we have a lot of similarities, we have a lot of differences.

For instance, on the gun issue, you have over half the population here that wouldn't dream of giving up their right to have a firearm for self-defense out of fear of a step towards a police state, yet, the folks in the UK did it with little to no resistance comparatively speaking.

As I noted, while that may have been the sentiment in the UK concerning this specific issue, countries like Canada, France, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, etc... have all implemented voter ID laws and it's seen as a common sense provision and baseline verification for the voting process.

Why should we in the US assume that we're culturally closer to the UK than we our to our neighbors to the North?

 

[Whyayeman]

Why should we in the US assume that we're culturally closer to the UK than we our to our neighbors to the North?

Because on this issue you are?

Do you seriously think state (or federal) ID is a practical solution in America?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Because on this issue you are?

Do you seriously think state (or federal) ID is a practical solution in America?

Based on the polling data, we're not that close to the UK on the topic of voter ID.

81% of Americans support voter id
(including 91% of republicans, 62% of Democrats, 64% of independents & in terms of racial attitudes towards it 67% of Hispanics and 60% of African Americans -- and that's with mainstream media outlets labelling voter ID as "racist" every time they talk about it)

When you unpack that, it actually means it's one of the things that Americans agree on most.

You'd be hard pressed to find that level consensus on any other hot-button issue in our country.

Is there any other major, "heavily talked about issue" where you'd be able to get 91% of republicans and 62% of democrats to be in agreement on something?

 

[Whyayeman]

Based on the polling data, we're not that close to the UK on the topic of voter ID.

81% of Americans support voter id
(including 91% of republicans, 62% of Democrats, 64% of independents & in terms of racial attitudes towards it 67% of Hispanics and 60% of African Americans -- and that's with mainstream media outlets labelling voter ID as "racist" every time they talk about it)

When you unpack that, it actually means it's one of the things that Americans agree on most.

You'd be hard pressed to find that level consensus on any other hot-button issue in our country.

Is there any other major, "heavily talked about issue" where you'd be able to get 91% of republicans and 62% of democrats to be in agreement on something?

Voter ID is not the same thing as having a state or federally issued ID card. People in favour of voter ID are agreeing that voters should show some proof of identity such as a driving licence or some other. You have suggested that some government agency issue an ID card.

I do not think that would go down well in America.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Voter ID is not the same thing as having a state or federally issued ID card. People in favour of voter ID are agreeing that voters should show some proof of identity such as a driving licence or some other. You have suggested that some government agency issue an ID card.

I do not think that would go down well in America.

Maybe there's a disconnect here...

I'm not suggesting that everyone "has to get a government issued ID"

I'm suggesting that it be a requirement for voting, and if someone wants one, the government should make that available free of charge.

If someone has no interest in driving, voting, buying alcohol, opening a checking account, getting a job etc... and they don't want an ID card, they don't have to get one if they don't want to. But like with many things, certain rights and privileges require certain responsibilities and are subject to certain limitations.

 

[KCfromNC]

So maybe I misread what your idea of compromise is/was...

I was suggesting still requiring ID, but removing many of the other things people see as hurdles to voting. (by offering that ID for free, and implementing more robust ride sharing and transportation options)

My compromise was rejecting all this voter ID stuff, since there's no need for it, but accepting your proposals to make election day a federal holiday and adding options to transport people to and from the polls, since that would actually help.

You know, compromising and accepting half of the ideas. Meeting in the middle, as it were.

 

[Whyayeman]

Maybe there's a disconnect here...

I'm not suggesting that everyone "has to get a government issued ID"

I'm suggesting that it be a requirement for voting, and if someone wants one, the government should make that available free of charge.

If someone has no interest in driving, voting, buying alcohol, opening a checking account, getting a job etc... and they don't want an ID card, they don't have to get one if they don't want to. But like with many things, certain rights and privileges require certain responsibilities and are subject to certain limitations.

I understand. It sounds reasonable, too. A free voluntary ID card was exactly what was offered in the UK years ago. The idea failed because there was a great deal of fear that it could easily lead to a police state. It was seen by many as a first step, the thin edge of the wedge.

I am suggesting that the very same objections would be made in the USA.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My compromise was rejecting all this voter ID stuff, since there's no need for it, but accepting your proposals to make election day a federal holiday and adding options to transport people to and from the polls, since that would actually help.

You know, compromising and accepting half of the ideas. Meeting in the middle, as it were.

Your idea seems like it's less of a "meeting in the middle" and more of a "giving democrats everything they want while giving republicans nothing in return"

 

[KCfromNC]

Your idea seems like it's less of a "meeting in the middle" and more of a "giving democrats everything they want while giving republicans nothing in return"

You proposed 4 things, I agreed to 2. Not sure how much more in the middle the compromise could be.

Just using this to point out flaw with your idea that there has to be a meeting in the middle on some issues. Especially in this case, where the proposals are a solution to a problem which doesn't exist made in bad faith in attempt to disenfranchise minority voters. Reference my previous "lol, no" comments for more details on why groups who propose such ideas shouldn't have an expectation of getting anything as a reward for those attempts.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Just using this to point out flaw with your idea that there has to be a meeting in the middle on some issues.

That's the kind of mentality that creates gridlock and resentment.

Without a meeting in the middle (involving both sides making some concession), the "thing" called democracy doesn't work.

The reality is (and I'll pick on the left more than the right for this one), the left forgot how to compromise (and after a decade of that, the right developed a chip on the shoulder and is now refusing to compromise on certain things)

The right spent 25 years compromising on social issues, only to still be labelled "bigots, anti-women, homophobic, etc...", they only recently started "fighting fire with fire" so to speak.

Many on the left got pretty comfortable & complacent when the spectrum/window of compromise was "I only get 75% of what I want <-> I get 100% of what I want"

As we've seen recently, when both sides enter the public debate with that mentality, it turns into a pretty nasty back & forth political tug-of-war.


The conservatives had conceded a lot of ground to progressives between 2000 and 2014 (and some of those concessions, I was happy to see because I wouldn't have wanted to see conservatives get everything they wanted on some of those issues either), but there's only so many times you can expect them to make concessions and keep watering their platform down (only to still be labelled as terrible people) before they decide to say "to heck with it, we're gonna punch back"


When you look at it objectively, the reason why we're having the conversations about the overturning of roe v wade and the topics surrounding sex & gender is because progressives overplayed their hand one too many times.

Conservatives didn't want any abortion, but were content to concede 75% of their position and settle for "safe, legal, and rare" arrangement and be content with leaving it that way. Had democrats not been pushing for a "no limits, and we want it to be taxpayer funded, and if you say otherwise, you hate women", do you think the efforts to overturn Roe would've even gotten off the ground?


One of the reasons for compromise is partial-appeasement. Too many people get too angry all at once because they feel they're not getting anything they wanted, they'll start pushing for what they really wanted (and start backing the candidates that promise to give them that). I think that explains the appeal that guys like DeSantis have with the staunch conservatives.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's the kind of mentality that creates gridlock and resentment.

It's also one which prevents terrible laws from being passed - see my examples in the middle of post 118 for a few examples.

Without a meeting in the middle (involving both sides making some concession), the "thing" called democracy doesn't work.

And uncritically meeting in the middle allows one side to propose outrageous laws and get half or more of them passed.

People falling for this is a common cognitive bias, and is a form of anchoring - e.g. Dealmaking and the Anchoring Effect in Negotiations

The right spent 25 years compromising on social issues, only to still be labelled "bigots, anti-women, homophobic, etc...", they only recently started "fighting fire with fire" so to speak.

This seems factually inaccurate. For example, the GOP started to pander to far-right religious groups more than a generation ago.

Many on the left got pretty comfortable & complacent when the spectrum/window of compromise was "I only get 75% of what I want <-> I get 100% of what I want"

Who are you quoting here? Anyone who actually exists?

When you look at it objectively, the reason why we're having the conversations about the overturning of roe v wade and the topics surrounding sex & gender is because progressives overplayed their hand one too many times.

That's certainly one opinion.
Another might be that pushing back on GOP attempts demonize various minorities to distract voters from their economic plans is just an attempt to keep the status quo rather than the regressive GOP initiatives we've seen for the last generation.

Conservatives didn't want any abortion, but were content to concede 75% of their position and settle for "safe, legal, and rare" arrangement and be content with leaving it that way.

Uh, in what reality did that happen? The GOP used some pretty underhanded tactics to politicize the court into removing established, popular
precedent on the subject. And they're saying things like same-sex marriage is next on the list, another widely popular policy with little to no calls for changes from mainstream Democrats.

Had democrats not been pushing for a "no limits, and we want it to be taxpayer funded, and if you say otherwise, you hate women", do you think the efforts to overturn Roe would've even gotten off the ground?

Again, an "objective" view that quotes people who don't seem to exist.

One of the reasons for compromise is partial-appeasement. Too many people get too angry all at once because they feel they're not getting anything they wanted

They got the presidency for 4 years and were just as angry as when they started. Perhaps Democrats aren't the issue here?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And uncritically meeting in the middle allows one side to propose outrageous laws and get half or more of them passed.

People falling for this is a common cognitive bias, and is a form of anchoring - e.g. Dealmaking and the Anchoring Effect in Negotiations

No, meeting the middle forces those outrageous laws to get weakened and/or softened in order to get passed. Politics isn't a game of "you get to pass whatever you want for this law, then our team will make the next one"

This seems factually inaccurate. For example, the GOP started to pander to far-right religious groups more than a generation ago.

They did back in the 80's, but had been moving left (socially) for about 30 years following that (on a variety of issues) up until they went with their "the gloves come off" candidate.

Who are you quoting here? Anyone who actually exists?

Anyone who was shrieking about the positions of:
"Well, okay, we'll let the abortions stay, but we don't want them tax funded, and you have to take care of it in the first 16 weeks unless there's some extraordinary circumstances"
or
"Well, okay, you can inject modern gender theory into the class, but wait until at least the 4th grade"

People who were upset about those seem like they were comfortable with the previous arrangement of republicans conceding 75% of their position before the debate even started.

Uh, in what reality did that happen? The GOP used some pretty underhanded tactics to politicize the court into removing established, popular
precedent on the subject. And they're saying things like same-sex marriage is next on the list, another widely popular policy with little to no calls for changes from mainstream Democrats.

That was the culmination of what I was talking about (where people finally start pushing for what they "actually" want instead of trying to compromise).

It's important to look at the elections leading up to that.

Republicans had been getting behind perpetually less and less extreme candidates (in presidential elections and for the senate) from 94 through 2012, only to still be called bigots and misogynists and warmongers.

Voting for Bush got people labelled as that...so they went with McCain, when that didn't help, they went with Romney (who's about as extreme as plain toast) and they still got labelled that way. (I recall the current president suggesting that a vote for Romney was 'gonna put y'all back in chains'...or something to that effect)

Again, an "objective" view that quotes people who don't seem to exist.

So you're saying that people haven't portrayed republican abortion law proposals (that basically match what they have in Europe btw -- medically necessary & rape/incest abortions allowed, elective abortions capped somewhere between 12-16 weeks) were met with accusations of being "a war on women"?

They got the presidency for 4 years and were just as angry as when they started. Perhaps Democrats aren't the issue here?

Because many on the left moved even further left during that time (and became even less willing to approach anything that resembled moderation or compromise)

Or to see it vertically to make it easier to compare...

 

[KCfromNC]

No, meeting the middle forces those outrageous laws to get weakened and/or softened in order to get passed. Politics isn't a game of "you get to pass whatever you want for this law, then our team will make the next one"

It can be a variety of things. Including "nope, the entire premise of the law is flawed".

They did back in the 80's, but had been moving left (socially) for about 30 years following that (on a variety of issues) up until they went with their "the gloves come off" candidate.

Remind us who nominated Thomas to the court again, and in which year.

Anyone who was shrieking about the positions of:
"Well, okay, we'll let the abortions stay, but we don't want them tax funded, and you have to take care of it in the first 16 weeks unless there's some extraordinary circumstances"
or
"Well, okay, you can inject modern gender theory into the class, but wait until at least the 4th grade"

Who are you quoting?

So you're saying that people haven't portrayed republican abortion law proposals (that basically match what they have in Europe btw -- medically necessary & rape/incest abortions allowed, elective abortions capped somewhere between 12-16 weeks) were met with accusations of being "a war on women"?

I guess I could follow along and make up quotes about how women who were upset by more restrictive laws should have just decided not to have sex.

Because many on the left moved even further left during that time (and became even less willing to approach anything that resembled moderation or compromise)

Where does this data show the latter?

Also, if we're to believe Pew's polling is meaningful, it seems to discount your opinion : The polarization in today’s Congress has roots that go back decades

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It can be a variety of things. Including "nope, the entire premise of the law is flawed".

Couldn't the same be said about the current student debt relief proposals?

Yet, I see some sharply worded critiques across the various media outlets lashing out at republicans for not wanting to compromise on that.

Remind us who nominated Thomas to the court again, and in which year.

George HW Bush (the president elected in the late 80's), and he did it in 91 toward the latter part of his term.

Who are you quoting?

Anyone who labelled states, who are/were implementing the same abortion laws that Scandinavia has, as a War on Women.

Or people who suggested that a rule that suggested that there's no modern gender theory allowed in K-3 should be labelled as "the don't say gay bill"

I guess I could follow along and make up quotes about how women who were upset by more restrictive laws should have just decided not to have sex.

Seems like it's bordering on a strawman. While there probably are some religious zealots would hold that radical position, that's certainly not the majority of people. As to where the labels about "war on women" or "don't say gay" were plentiful across a wide variety of mainstream outlets.

Where does this data show the latter?

Also, if we're to believe Pew's polling is meaningful, it seems to discount your opinion : The polarization in today’s Congress has roots that go back decades

It seems that the graphic you linked is looking at it within the framework of "where a politician falls on the present day Overton window" (as it's rating based on the metrics of "ideological overlap zones with opposing party members of the current legislative body"), as to where the what I linked was the attitudes of people (and where the median party member is) on issues in general, in the grand scheme of things.

Given where the discussions are at on the issues, the metric of "how many republicans are to the left of the most right-leaning democrat and vice versa" can be valuable for determining polarization levels, it's not a great indicator of how much to the left or right an entity has moved.

As a hypothetical example highlighting the inverse.
If republicans adopted the position of "We want to legalize bazookas, and now AR-15s should be legal for all people over the age of 10", that would be a huge shift right. If democrats adjusted their position to "No, no bazookas, but we're okay with AR-15s now, we just want the age to 18 or 21 like you guys used to be okay with" While the chasm between where the parties were at would be wider and the levels of ideological overlap would be lower, this would still be a scenario where both parties shifted right (just one shifted way farther than the other)




When looking at it on an issue by issue basis and seeing which directions parties have moved (by looking at the raw information, and not using comparison to where the other team is at as a basis)

Democrats have moved further left than Republicans have moved right, statistical analysis finds

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week

theweek.com

For instance, some of the elected republicans today (who the left consider to be "right-wing") would actually be a move left from where republicans used to be back in the day.

As a few points of reference. When the Bill came up for a law enshrining federal recognition of same sex marriages, 39 republicans in the house voted in favor, as did 12 republican senators.

Do you think that would've happened back in 2008?...not likely...even less likely back in the 90's.


Or to put it more succinctly, a republican saying "well, I'm okay with gay marriage, but I'm not crazy about all this new 'trans stuff', and I don't want it to be part of a school curriculum...and for abortion, I just want to go back to the Democratic position of the late 90's" may be labelled as "far right" by some modern day progressive standards, but it still marks a sharp leftward shift, overall, from where republicans were from 1980 through 2008.

 

[KCfromNC]

Couldn't the same be said about the current student debt relief proposals?

If "one" wanted to be consistent, they would have to be bashing the GOP for not "meeting in the middle" with this proposal and compromising by eliminating 1/2 of student debt.

While there probably are some religious zealots would hold that radical position, that's certainly not the majority of people.

The irony here is that I was intentionally doing exactly the same thing you were doing with your made up quotes.

As to where the labels about "war on women" or "don't say gay" were plentiful across a wide variety of mainstream outlets.

That you don't like them doesn't mean these summaries were inaccurate.

Given where the discussions are at on the issues, the metric of "how many republicans are to the left of the most right-leaning democrat and vice versa" can be valuable for determining polarization levels, it's not a great indicator of how much to the left or right an entity has
moved.

Yeah, the direction of voting records of members of the party is no way to figure out how far left or right those parties have moved.

Come on, pull the other one.

As a hypothetical example highlighting the inverse.

There's been enough imagination in the previous quotes in your posts. Let's try to stick to reality.

When looking at it on an issue by issue basis and seeing which directions parties have moved (by looking at the raw information, and not using comparison to where the other team is at as a basis)

Democrats have moved further left than Republicans have moved right, statistical analysis finds

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week

theweek.com

I appreciate how quickly these posts have moved from confidently claiming Pew is correct to trying to disparage them when they present data which disagrees with your opinions.

For instance, some of the elected republicans today (who the left consider to be "right-wing") would actually be a move left from where republicans used to be back in the day.

As a few points of reference. When the Bill came up for a law enshrining federal recognition of same sex marriages, 39 republicans in the house voted in favor, as did 12 republican senators.

Do you think that would've happened back in 2008?...not likely...even less likely back in the 90's.

How would GOP leadership's view of immigration in the 1980s hold up today?
It seems like cherry-picking to look at one individual issue (one in which the change has widespread public support) as the be all, end all.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah, the direction of voting records of members of the party is no way to figure out how far left or right those parties have moved.

Come on, pull the other one.

So pointing out that your link was looking at a different metric than the one I provided is "pulling another one"?

The direction they moved is relevant to my earlier assertion, how they compare to the furthest most members of the other party at the time is not.

You can move left, and still be further to the right of of your present day democratic counterparts than republicans were to theirs back in 1995.

Are you honestly suggesting that republicans today are more socially conservative than republicans back in 1992?

And if that were somehow true, do you think it exceeds the level that the left has move further left over the same time period?

I appreciate how quickly these posts have moved from confidently claiming Pew is correct to trying to disparage them when they present data which disagrees with your opinions.

No, I pointed out that the pew source I cited and the one you cited are comparing two different frames of reference. Apples and oranges.


Looking at how far apart Kevin McCarthy is from AOC, and comparing that to how far apart Newt Gingrich was from Joe Lieberman back in 96 isn't relevant for determining which direction the parties are moving in, it only determines the level of polarization.

How would GOP leadership's view of immigration in the 1980s hold up today?
It seems like cherry-picking to look at one individual issue (one in which the change has widespread public support) as the be all, end all.

We can find more cases of the GOP moving left (albeit slow and smaller than the amount the Democrats have moved left), than what can be found suggesting that they've "radically moved right".

I wasn't just looking at one individual issue.

The gap has widened, however they've both moved towards the trend the progressive view point. (Democrats going from 29 to 85, Republicans going from 26 to 38)

Same story with this one:

On guns, the democrats have moved more left than the Republicans have right.

And this graph summarizes is it.

Republicans have gotten "less partisan" on same sex marriage and taxes, and have only gotten negligibly more partisan on guns and immigration. (with Religion and Abortion remaining somewhat static)

As to where the Democrats have gotten more partisan across all 6 metrics.


When you made this comment:
"to look at one individual issue (one in which the change has widespread public support)"...think about what you're saying here. For any progressive causes to have "widespread public support", that's proof that republicans would've had to have moved left to make that possible, right?