So now that we've got that out of the way; why the double standard on mandatory ID's.
So now that we've got that out of the way; why the double standard on mandatory ID's.
Congratulations America
A birth certificate doesn't ID a person in the legal sense. No picture, or other identifiers like height or signature. The SSN is for tax purposes only but I agree with fuzzy that it could become more, and the birth certificate for work is likely for legal ass covering, IE not hiring minors.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Birth certificate for work here is for proof of right to work in the UK (ie to prove you're not an illegal immigrant).
I know its not a photo ID, never said it was, but it is a form of identification the government has for you.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
If you put 100 people in a room with 100 birth certificates what do you think the chances are that you could id any of them individually?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I couldn't. I never said photo ID.
If it doesn't identify a person, then it is not an ID. That's what an ID does, what it is. And I'm not aware of anyone who requires a birth certificate for employment. See, here employers require something that actually IS an id, if they're going to require such verification at all.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
There's been so much fucked up news out of North Carolina that it's hard to keep but I thought this might be a good way to summarize the state of this aspiring garbage fire:
Twitter Link
(Thread)
No matter how close the US gets to becoming a banana republic, NC remains committed to always being at least one step ahead.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Eh? If the Democrat was going to get most of the vote it wouldn't be an issue. This is not that different of a scenario if Bush won the Republican Primary and Trump didn't concede. On the general election he wouldn't be listed as an R.
I don't know about your state, but he would in my state. He wouldn't have a subscript saying he was the Republican Party Nominee but he would have that he was (R).
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Seems like a reasonable change to be honest. A registered Democrat changed his registration to Republican and filed as a Republican in order to siphon away Republican votes. This would prevent him from running as a Republican on the basis that he was a registered Democrat within 90 days of filing, not for any other reason.
It doesn't make "one of two R's run as unaffiliated", it makes the Democrat who's ran as an R appear as unaffiliated.
I'm sure if a GOP spoiler had entered the ballot as a (D) then that would be viewed as inappropriate here.
Notoriously antidemocratic and racist polticians attempt to change the rules in the middle of a campaign for partisan purposes and this strikes you as "reasonable". I mean, I'm not surprised, given what we know from other discussions about your respect for rules, laws and norms, but still.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Being antidemocratic and racist is not reasonable whether they change the rules or keep the rules. Do you think that if they don't make this change then these antidemocratic racists will somehow be better? Or will they still be antidemocratic racists?
Early in the campaign before the ballots are printed they're trying to fix a loophole that's being blatantly exploited to try and suppress voters. They're not trying to suppress voters for once, they're trying to stop voter suppression. You just don't like that its an attempt to suppress the racists votes that is being stopped but that doesn't make voter suppression right. Don't fall down into the hole of backing voter suppression just to try and beat the greater evil, that makes you about as bad as them.
If the shoe was on the other foot and a GOP spoiler was running as a Democrat in order to siphon off Democrat votes then you'd be outraged at such blatant abuse. Or would you honestly be like "well that's the rules and the campaigns begun already" despite knowing it was an abuse of process?
The issue is in that left live by the saying "There are no bad tactics, just bad targets."
I'm sorry but in light of the GOP's conduct over the past few years, and esp in light of the NC GOP's antics, that comment is so fucking stupid that you're going to have to go stand in the corner and keep wearing the dunce-hat.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
But where do you stand? In favour of voter suppression or against it?
Forget who is doing the suppression, do you back it or not?
Saying I oppose all suppression except when my opponents votes get suppressed is not principled.
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how this would be considered voter suppression.
This is nearly as stupid as saying that Sanders should've been prevented from running as a Democrat. What, are we to believe that a person switching party affiliation a week before an election is substantially less sincere than one who makes the switch 3 months before an election? The decision should be left to the candidates. It's up to the parties to give or withhold their endorsement. It's up to the voters to decide who they believe is the best candidate.
I don't regard this as voter suppression so much as a tactical play by one candidate to oust an unpopular incumbent. If it were suppression, it'd certainly pale in comparison to the NCGOP's vote-suppressing and otherwise antidemocratic antics over the years (that have been stepped up this past year). What they're trying to do is retain judicial control in order to ensure that their other antidemocratic efforts aren't overturned. Legislators corrupting and exploiting the system they themselves are in control of is far worse in my view than individuals exercising their rights.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Something is either right or wrong.
"Is increasing the size of the Supreme Court to get decisions you want because the previous president got picks in you didn't like right or wrong?"
Oh look we had a thread where the liberals here thought if Donald Trump did it, it was bad but if whoever the next Democrat POTUS did, it was good.
"Is discrimination based on race right or wrong?"
Oh look we have the Democratic Party who still supports race based discrimination (affirmative action).
The double standard by the left is always there. Whats good for women isn't good for men. What's good for one group of people isn't good for another. This happens time and time again. While not every leftist is like this, the general leftist movement has always ignored the idea that both sides should be held to the same standard.
No, that is so stupid that even you don't believe it. I will not entertain such asinine bad-faith arguments from someone who believes killing is wrong when black people kill cops but right when cops kill black people, and neutral when white people pretend to kill black people in self defense while standing their ground, or that torture is wrong when Middle Eastern terrorists torture white Americans but right when white Americans torture Middle Eastern terrorists, or that kidnapping is bad when a private citizen kidnaps and locks up a white American but okay when the govt. kidnaps and locks up some Middle Eastern dude, or that govt surveillance of civilians is okay when it's directed against some angry Muslim dude but beyond the pale when it's directed against a white American asset of Russian intelligence.
If you're too dumb to know what you yourself believe, then I strongly urge you to think things through first.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Votes cast for a party aren't going to count.
If that was because the party concerned had screwed up then that would be incompetence. It's not though, its due to the actions of an opponent seeking to get votes not to count.
I guess I can't claim to know what North Carolina's ballots look like, but at least in the state I live in this isn't an issue. If you vote down the party line it will fill in the candidate for the party where available, and if there are multiple candidates in the same party running for the seat then you choose from them.
Not to be outdone by NC, local officials in Georgia strike a blow against PC concepts like democracy:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b1febb04fc?d7m
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
NC hits back with a devastating kick right in the norms:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/po...216886935.html
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
A dazzling display of principled conservatism:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/u...tt-walker.html
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Early on I had a lot of time and respect for Scott Walker, but this is despicable, inexcusable and should be unconstitutional. Changing the rules after the final whistle is ridiculous and this isn't the 18th century. I'm glad that the outgoing UK Parliament is dissolved completely before the election and not months after it.
Anyone who tries to make an argument for this out of principle is a no good hypocrite.
Thats your average US conservative. When their position fails they don't change their platform, they change democracy.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
In fairness, it's not just them but their efforts do seem rather more egregious. Probably partly a matter of their having more states under their control where they can implement such measures.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I was wondering when WI or MI would be mentioned....it's a disturbing pattern and abuse of power from Republicans. Talk about hypocrisy.
As for candidates changing party affiliation close to elections (in an under-handed way to change votes): the same has been said about voters who change their party affiliation just to vote in closed primaries (in an under-handed way to elect a weak candidate from the opposing party). It's just more evidence that our election processes are broken -- because they're dominated by just two very powerful political parties -- and reform is desperately needed.
Rand, I tried to explain the US birth certificate quandary in another thread. You should also know that not all employment requires proof of identity (or a gov't issued ID). It depends on the state, their laws, and the job category. Temporary and/or seasonal workers are often exempted with loopholes that are easy to exploit. And having a SSN isn't mandatory, either.
In MI there were two very popular ballot measures that would have passed - increased minimum wage and mandatory paid sick leave - had we been allowed to vote on them. The legislature passed them as-is before the election, in order to keep them off the ballot. Then in the last month they passed revisions to the bills, nerfing the minimum wage hike so that it phases into effect out to 2030, in line with the expected inflation rate, so that there is never an actual wage increase. They reduced the hours accrued/ hours worked for paid sick time to something stupidly small too, though I don't know the rate off the top of my head. Yay democracy!
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Well, this is a little off-brand innit
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/u...ter-fraud.html
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote