>> ^bobknight33:

Why shouldn't you provide ID when you vote?
Who dose not have an ID today?


Did you not watch the video? These laws aren't saying "you need some ID", they're explicitly excluding types of ID that Democratic voting blocs are likely to have, while allowing ID types Republican voting blocs are likely to have.

Basically the idea here is to pretend to be cracking down on a problem...that doesn't actually exist, and "accidentally" have the new restrictions result in preventing lots of people (hopefully Democrats!) from voting.

It's voter suppression.

A simple rule: If it's a spending bill or amendment to a spending bill, and it includes spending for your state but not for at least 10 other states, you can't vote on it.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Problem is, how do the senate itself determine if something is or isn't something you get to vote on? Seems crappy and arbitrary in cases like the fence and immigration, as the fence could and can be considered spending for immigration related issues, which are a federal context. Imagine a bunch of kids in a playground saying who gets to vote and who doesn't in any given situation, chaos! Like I said, I smell what your stepping in, I like it. But I think it would break more things than it would fix. The fix is to stop people voting for crap that enriches only their state, the hidden costs are not getting to vote on things at all when you should be able to...to much of a risk imo. Perhaps it could work, though, I just think there are better ways than voter suppression for pork.

>> ^jwray:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
What about regional issues? Would Texas, and other boarder states be unable to vote on legislation about immigration, and thusly be left to non-involved parties to decide its fate? I totally agree with the mindset of pork barrel being bad. I just think attacking the problem with denying representation is the wrong course. They had something like this back in Greece. When deciding issues of war, people who lived near the walls would not get a vote. The reasoning is they had a vested interest in not going to war, but who doesn't have a vested interest in any piece of legislation?
I have had this same thought experiment, though, from a different context. I definitely see value is the idea that voting isn't a natural right, and thusly, can be subverted in certain situations. But, to subvert it because it is an issue that directly effects you goes against the idea of having a government that is a representation of your ideals, seemingly.
>> ^jwray:
Federal funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is not pork barrel for a particular locale, so they would be free to vote on that. ACOE is responsible for building levies. Also, they should get it done at the state or local level.

Immigration law isn't pork barrel spending. A giant 500 billion dollar wall on the Mexican border built by companies who made campaign contributions to the senators from Texas definitely would be pork barrel spending.
The federal government exists to serve the interests of the whole nation, not the interests of particular states. If a spending bill that's targeted in a particular location actually serves the whole national interest, then senators from other areas will vote for it. If it doesn't, then it should be a state/local government issue or a cooperative venture between the few state/local governments that have an interest in it.

Problem is, how do the senate itself determine if something is or isn't something you get to vote on? Seems crappy and arbitrary in cases like the fence and immigration, as the fence could and can be considered spending for immigration related issues, which are a federal context. Imagine a bunch of kids in a playground saying who gets to vote and who doesn't in any given situation, chaos! Like I said, I smell what your stepping in, I like it. But I think it would break more things than it would fix. The fix is to stop people voting for crap that enriches only their state, the hidden costs are not getting to vote on things at all when you should be able to...to much of a risk imo. Perhaps it could work, though, I just think there are better ways than voter suppression for pork.


>> ^jwray:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
What about regional issues? Would Texas, and other boarder states be unable to vote on legislation about immigration, and thusly be left to non-involved parties to decide its fate? I totally agree with the mindset of pork barrel being bad. I just think attacking the problem with denying representation is the wrong course. They had something like this back in Greece. When deciding issues of war, people who lived near the walls would not get a vote. The reasoning is they had a vested interest in not going to war, but who doesn't have a vested interest in any piece of legislation?
I have had this same thought experiment, though, from a different context. I definitely see value is the idea that voting isn't a natural right, and thusly, can be subverted in certain situations. But, to subvert it because it is an issue that directly effects you goes against the idea of having a government that is a representation of your ideals, seemingly.
>> ^jwray:
Federal funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is not pork barrel for a particular locale, so they would be free to vote on that. ACOE is responsible for building levies. Also, they should get it done at the state or local level.

Immigration law isn't pork barrel spending. A giant 500 billion dollar wall on the Mexican border built by companies who made campaign contributions to the senators from Texas definitely would be pork barrel spending.
The federal government exists to serve the interests of the whole nation, not the interests of particular states. If a spending bill that's targeted in a particular location actually serves the whole national interest, then senators from other areas will vote for it. If it doesn't, then it should be a state/local government issue or a cooperative venture between the few state/local governments that have an interest in it.

>> ^blankfist:
Yes, let's turn it into a game! This is fun! So much better than checkers. As long as "that one" wins, we all win, right? It doesn't matter how.


Do you not agree that there's competition involved in an election? That there's such a thing as message discipline and spin, and that they are effective tools for winning them?

More to the point, wouldn't you rather try to divert an empty-headed media away from a meaningless distraction, and back onto issues that matter, like...voter suppression?

Do you think fighting voter suppression is something that's only tied to liberal philosophy?

There is no such organization. The FBI is investigating who's behind this. Article.