Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on March 30, 2016, 08:55:54 AM
-
.
-
No ID to vote....that's the single biggest WTF issue of the election season.
-
I like it.
-
I assume by non-citizens he is referring to illegal immigrants
where do those who "refuse or are unable to prove they are citizens" legally get free insurance ?
Since Ben used the word "insurance" I assume he's referring to actual insurance and not emergency medical treatment
-
I assume by non-citizens he is referring to illegal immigrants
where do those who "refuse or are unable to prove they are citizens" legally get free insurance ?
Since Ben used the word "insurance" I assume he's referring to actual insurance and not emergency medical treatment
that would be in the land of fruits and nuts....cali
-
-
Never seen such a bunch of ass backwards people of that on the left. It's one of the worlds anomalies...lol.
-
that would be in the land of fruits and nuts....cali
can you be more specific
what is this insurance program ?
-
No ID to vote....that's the single biggest WTF issue of the election season.
That's a big WTF, but there are other issues with our election process that are just as big.
-
That's a big WTF, but there are other issues with our election process that are just as big.
a recent study of voter impersonation fraud found 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast.
the US has a long history people in power (read non-poor whites) doing everything they can to prevent undesirables (read poor and non-whites) from voting. The current round of Voter ID laws is just a continuation of that.
-
a recent study of voter impersonation fraud found 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast.
Please link to said study; I'm interested in reading it. That said, it could be zero cases of voter impersonation fraud for all I care. The ability to cast a vote without first proving your identity is an issue. Is it the biggest issue? No - there are others that are bigger - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't address this issue if we can.
the US has a long history people in power (read non-poor whites) doing everything they can to prevent undesirables (read poor and non-whites) from voting. The current round of Voter ID laws is just a continuation of that.
Sure, there were such cases in the past, but let's not lose our head here and pretend that a law requiring voters identify themselves is akin to rekindling the Jim Crow laws of a bygone era.
Let's look at this like reasonable people. The question is how do voter ID laws prevent anyone from voting? The only "problems" I see are:
- That some states may refuse to issue identity cards to those who don't have a permanent address and although that should be fixed (because identity and place of residence are orthogonal) it's not really even an issue because the U.S. Government will gladly issue you a valid ID without an address: it's called a passport.
- 2. That some people genuinely can't afford the $15 it costs to get an ID ($85 for a passport). Most states have exemptions, allowing indigent people to get a free ID if they will simply state that they wish to use it for purposes of voting, that won't fly if you are trying to get a passport.
Both of these issues can be solved - possibly trivially - and I doubt that either of those significantly disenfranchise voters today.
-
a recent study of voter impersonation fraud found 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast.
the US has a long history people in power (read non-poor whites) doing everything they can to prevent undesirables (read poor and non-whites) from voting. The current round of Voter ID laws is just a continuation of that.
Don't forget those same politicians illegally vote for others in crongress when they aren't there.
-
a recent study of voter impersonation fraud found 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast.
the US has a long history people in power (read non-poor whites) doing everything they can to prevent undesirables (read poor and non-whites) from voting. The current round of Voter ID laws is just a continuation of that.
You know what they say about lies and statistics.
There is the study you referenced: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/
Then there is one with a much less rosier picture: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/10/27/voter-fraud-study-n1909814
Both articles are from 2014.
-
Yeah, real funny when my tax lady asks me for proof of insurance. ::)
-
Never seen such a bunch of ass backwards people of that on the left. It's one of the worlds anomalies...lol.
what does this say about the competence of the people on the RIGHT?
The left is stupid, clueless, worthless, lazy... but they keep winning presidential elections and it'll be either dem trump, or dem hilary, in 2016.
If the left is that stupid... and they keep defeating the repubs... well, there's Stupid, there's dems, there's 50 feet of crap, and then there's the republican party.
-
what does this say about the competence of the people on the RIGHT?
The left is stupid, clueless, worthless, lazy... but they keep winning presidential elections and it'll be either dem trump, or dem hilary, in 2016.
If the left is that stupid... and they keep defeating the repubs... well, there's Stupid, there's dems, there's 50 feet of crap, and then there's the republican party.
What does winning an election have anything to do with on the job competence? We've gone over this a million times and with a million liberal policies that have have failed. What does that say about YOUR party?
So who are you supporting? Killary or Whack job Sanders?
-
What does winning an election have anything to do with on the job competence? We've gone over this a million times and with a million liberal policies that have have failed. What does that say about YOUR party?
So who are you supporting? Killary or Whack job Sanders?
Part of the job of president is winning the job (and preventing the other team from getting the white house)
Top salesmen make sales. Top athletes make baskets and score goals. Top politicians win elections.
You're continually confused - you seem to think obama's goals for office are anywhere near similar to yours. His goals are in line with his dem/liberal base... amnesty, obamacare, etc... and he's achieved many of these goals.
He's won elections and he's achieved most of his party's goals... so by HIS measure, and by the MAJORITY of voters (52.9%), he is competent.
Just tell us why you and 48% of Americans in a party who cannot win the White House are "competent" and Obama is not? You have a minority viewpoint (conservative in a majority liberal nation) and your party cannot win presidential elections, and your current frontrunner is a demoRat named Trump. Competence?
-
what does this say about the competence of the people on the RIGHT?
The left is stupid, clueless, worthless, lazy... but they keep winning presidential elections and it'll be either dem trump, or dem hilary, in 2016.
If the left is that stupid... and they keep defeating the repubs... well, there's Stupid, there's dems, there's 50 feet of crap, and then there's the republican party.
It's easier to win elections when you are promising to give a bunch of free shit to people.
The left also has a stranglehold on the education system, the press, and Hollywood so their message and ideology gets beaten into people's heads from the time they are 3 years old.
-
Sure, there were such cases in the past, but let's not lose our head here and pretend that a law requiring voters identify themselves is akin to rekindling the Jim Crow laws of a bygone era.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/election-dirty-tricks
If every eligible voter in the US voted, a member of the Republican party (in its current form) would never hold higher office ever again.
-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/election-dirty-tricks
If every eligible voter in the US voted, a member of the Republican party (in its current form) would never hold higher office ever again.
If you liked pussy instead of dick you wouldn't be gay. What's your point?
-
You know what they say about lies and statistics.
There is the study you referenced: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/
Then there is one with a much less rosier picture: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/10/27/voter-fraud-study-n1909814
Both articles are from 2014.
and flaws about methodology and conclusions came out almost immediately and acknowledged by the study's authors
The Study's Authors Outlined The Limitations Of Their Findings. In a October 24 blog in The Washington Post, Jessie Richman and David Earnest, two authors of the study, admitted that their "extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty." The authors noted that the non-citizen sample they examined was "modest" and relied on self-reporting, which can create errors, and attempts to verify the accuracy of the self-reporting was imperfect and supplemented by estimates. [The Washington Post, 10/27/14]
Other Academics And Commentators Questioned Study's Assumptions And Sample Size. Tesler also wrote that "a number of academics and commentators have already expressed skepticism about the paper's assumptions and conclusions" which seem to be "tenuous at best":
A number of academics and commentators have already expressed skepticism about the paper's assumptions and conclusions, though. In a series of tweets, New York Times columnist Nate Cohn focused his criticism on Richman et al's use of Cooperative Congressional Election Study data to make inferences about the non-citizen voting population. That critique has some merit, too. The 2008 and 2010 CCES surveyed large opt-in Internet samples constructed by the polling firm YouGov to be nationally representative of the adult citizen population. Consequently, the assumption that non-citizens, who volunteered to take online surveys administered in English about American politics, would somehow be representative of the entire non-citizen population seems tenuous at best. [The Washington Post, Monkey Cage blog, 10/27/14]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/10/28/what-other-academics-think-of-the-questionable/201347
-
There have been many studies over the recent years showing that voter fraud (i.e. non-citizens voting) is nonsense and the voter ID laws were designed and implemented solely to suppress legitimate and legal voters from casting ballots.
You can refer to the dissenting opinion of Richard Posner in 2014 (appointed by Saint Reagan):
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-14/voter-id-math-finally-adds-up-for-judge-posner
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/gop_voter_id_law_gets_crushed_why_judge_richard_posners_ruling_is_so_amazing/
-
Still waiting for someone to provide some specific details on this free health insurance program for illegal aliens
-
Part of the job of president is winning the job (and preventing the other team from getting the white house)
No, thats not his job. His job doesn't start until AFTER he's elected. It really isn't that difficult to figure out.
Top salesmen make sales. Top athletes make baskets and score goals. Top politicians win elections.
A sales pitch and winning an election falls into the same catagory
You're continually confused - you seem to think obama's goals for office are anywhere near similar to yours. His goals are in line with his dem/liberal base... amnesty, obamacare, etc... and he's achieved many of these goals.
Not confused what so every. His goals are not what the American people wanted and most were overwhelmingly not popular. They are what HE wanted. Not what the people wanted. See sales pitch and then used car salesman
He's won elections and he's achieved most of his party's goals... so by HIS measure, and by the MAJORITY of voters (52.9%), he is competent.
Just tell us why you and 48% of Americans in a party who cannot win the White House are "competent" and Obama is not? You have a minority viewpoint (conservative in a majority liberal nation) and your party cannot win presidential elections, and your current frontrunner is a demoRat named Trump. Competence?
There you go again aligning me with Trump. I want Trump to won about as much as you want Cruz. As far as Obama being competent, yes, he knows exactly what he's doing and he's destroying this country very competently. You must come from the TA school of politics
-
Still waiting for someone to provide some specific details on this free health insurance program for illegal aliens
Bump
-
You have the hard lefties pulling articles from "Salon" "Motherjones" and the worst one of "Media Matters". Brainwashed in school and kept right on with it.
-
You have the hard lefties pulling articles from "Salon" "Motherjones" and the worst one of "Media Matters". Brainwashed in school and kept right on with it.
feel free to refute anything posted or you can just post a link to the free health insurance program that's only available to illegal aliens
-
No, thats not his job. His job doesn't start until AFTER he's elected. It really isn't that difficult to figure out.
The job of a politician isn't to get elected, huh? LOL!
Sorry, but a big % of a politician's job is running for office, raising money to get elected, and selling this image to the voters so that he/she can win the job.
IMO, the fact you really believe part of any politician's job isn't to get elected and re-elected says a lot about your understanding of politics. Everything these folks do is to get elected and stay in power. The things they do "while in office" are far less important to them.
If the GOP believes what you believe - well, it explains why they've managed two shoestring wins in the last six POTUS elections ;)
-
feel free to refute anything posted or you can just post a link to the free health insurance program that's only available to illegal aliens
http://www.wsj.com/articles/illegal-immigrants-get-public-health-care-despite-federal-policy-1458850082
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-senate-approves-health-coverage-for-some-immigrants-here-illegally-20150602-story.html
There are a lot more but since you have more time than I do research it yourself.
-
The left also has a stranglehold on the education system, the press, and Hollywood so their message and ideology gets beaten into people's heads from the time they are 3 years old.
If the left control these things, it's because they're smarter than the right.
Repubs have the $ to start their own private schools, TV news stations, and make their own movies... to teach america conservative values. They have chosen not to do it.
OR the reason these things are liberal (which they are) is that 50.1% of the nation is liberal, and liberals have decision making power.
Look at presidential elections of the past 6 cycles... 4 dem blowouts, and 2 repub squeaker wins by 1 sued state. This nation IS liberal when everyone shows up to vote. It is what it is.
-
If the left control these things, it's because they're smarter than the right.
Repubs have the $ to start their own private schools, TV news stations, and make their own movies... to teach america conservative values. They have chosen not to do it.
OR the reason these things are liberal (which they are) is that 50.1% of the nation is liberal, and liberals have decision making power.
Look at presidential elections of the past 6 cycles... 4 dem blowouts, and 2 repub squeaker wins by 1 sued state. This nation IS liberal when everyone shows up to vote. It is what it is.
I disagree with almost all of this. It's too complex to explain why right now. I'll attempt when I have time.
Also, there are more elections than Presidential elections.
-
In this age of executive orders, I'm not al that sure the senate and house wield power to stop any president anymore. Obama had zero cooperation for 6 years, he still gave us a lot of liberal laws.
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/illegal-immigrants-get-public-health-care-despite-federal-policy-1458850082
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-senate-approves-health-coverage-for-some-immigrants-here-illegally-20150602-story.html
There are a lot more but since you have more time than I do research it yourself.
Bump
-
Bump
cant read the stuff past the pay wall, but the Ben Stein quote said getting free health insurance, while the WSJ article says getting health care. People who show up at the emergency room have always gotten health care, whether they have insurance or not, whether they have a valid visa or not. This is a very inefficient and expensive way to deliver health care. ACA has helped greatly in getting people to not use ERs as primary care providers. But yes the law was written to exclude undocumented immigrants.
the LA Times article talks about a proposed bill to allow undocumented immigrants to buy into ACA. You can debate whether this is a good thing or not. Has this bill been signed by Jerry Brown? If not, then we've still seen nothing supporting Ben Stein's claim that undocumented immigrants are getting free health insurance.
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/illegal-immigrants-get-public-health-care-despite-federal-policy-1458850082
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-senate-approves-health-coverage-for-some-immigrants-here-illegally-20150602-story.html
There are a lot more but since you have more time than I do research it yourself.
your first link is just headline and I can't read the entire article since I don't have a membership to WSJ online. I assume you've read the entire article and not just the headline so please fill in the details for us.
The 2nd link is about SB 4 in CA which allows ~ 170k children of immigrants to have access to some basic healthcare but it's not something created for illegal immigrants (and it doesn't appear to be completely free in all cases). The only requirement is income and NOT immigration status. In other words it's available to children of low income citizens as well so not at all what Stein was alluding to in that quote (assuming that quote is even real) which says that access is due to inability to prove legal status. He makes no mention of income requirement or the fact that this program is also (and originally) available to poor citizens and their children. So this can't be what Stein was referring to.
It appears the original version of the bill was going to allow a limited number of illegal immigrant to PURCHASE insurance on the CA exchanges (since Obama care restricts this) but that was taken out and the bill that was signed only offers access to Medi-Cal to children below the age of 18, again available for all and based solely on income level of the parent and not immigration status.
The arguments for including these children are both financial and humanitarian. First the financial argument is that it costs the state more for these kids to show up in an emergency room than to give them access to some basic healthcare/preventative medicine
The humanitarian argument is that the children are not responsible for the "sins" of the parent and as a humane (and you might even argue Christian) society we provide some level of care for the poor (on in this case children of the poor) Of course there is a pro-life aspect to it as well as an aspect of helping the poor.
I don't subscribe to a religion that suggests I should help the poor and of course I'm all for abortion so I'm fine if these kids die from lack of access to healthcare. I just consider it to be a very late term abortion I assume you're all for this type of abortion as well
It's hard for me to argue against the financial aspect though. I'd always rather pay less than more. I assume even you agree with that
-
BTW - when you google the text of that quote the only thing that pops up is a portion of it and, when asked, Ben Stein said it was not something he either said or wrote.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/benstein.asp
-
Coach, can you find something concrete?
So far, both of what you posted don't look like much
and it looks like the original quote is bogus
-
Never seen such a bunch of ass backwards people of that on the left. It's one of the worlds anomalies...lol.
Problem with all your pronouncements is that you are such a poor example of any alternative. Kinda undercuts any point you make.
/and ben stein is a heinous person
-
Coach, can you find something concrete?
LOL... Joe couldn't find something concrete if he were at the base of the Hoover Dam looking up.
-
I like it.
Isn't it an imaginary quote?
-
Never seen such a bunch of ass backwards people of that on the left. It's one of the worlds anomalies...lol.
Do you consider people to be ass-backwards because they disagree with completely faked, completely made-up quotes?