The 2016 United States Presidential Election

I accept that such was the intent. Unfortunately what I read in the article did not inspire understanding. I did feel some pity.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yeah, but I already knew that. I wonder who the article is actually trying to convince.

I don't think anybody disagrees on the message of the article. I agree with Percy on the importance of understanding why folks picked Trump as their candidate and I think it is important to appreciate the long term consequences of that reality.Much has been written on the subject. I don't apologize for finding this particular attempt ham-fisted and silly.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

My comments about what has been written were not limited to what has been posted in this thread. Or even on this board. You seem to want to fight where there is nothing to fight about. I did not claim that the subject was boring. I criticized the depiction of each sides concerns as described in the article.The article was not all that great or insightful in expressing each sides concerns. If anything the article described Trump supporters in ways I find completely unsympathetic and attributed beliefs to those folks that were crude and stereotypical depictions of urban folk.Edited by NoNukes, : Remove some barbs.

I consider the polarization in politics to be a very important matter to the point where the entertainment value of articles is of little to no importance. Here are some articles exploring the differences between folks:A majority of Donald Trump supporters think everything has been terrible since the 1950s | Salon.com

quote:

---

According to a survey published by the Public Religion Research Institute, 72 percent of likely voters supporting Donald Trump say America has changed for the worst since the 1950s. By contrast, 70 percent of likely voters supporting Hillary Clinton say that America has changed for the better since that decade.

---

Clinton, Trump backers differ on views of climate change, scientists | Pew Research Center

quote:

---

Clinton, Trump supporters worlds apart on views of climate change and its scientists

---

Even If He Loses, Donald Trump's Supporters Aren't Going Away - The Atlantic

quote:

---

If the Republican nominee loses, the millions of Americans supporting him will feel more isolated and disillusioned than ever before.

​

....

​

The same cannot be said for the millions of Americans who have looked to Trump to save them. These folks, at least the ones frequently reported onthe angry, white, blue-collar workers who are outraged or terrified that America has become some topsy-turvy multi-cultural nightmare where a hard-working man cannot make a decent living anymorewill emerge from this circus worse off than before.

​

They will likely be angrierand more certainthat they are being dismissed, if not outright screwed, by a self-serving establishment. Some will be all the more convinced that their economic woes can be blamed on cheap immigrant labor and reassured about their general feelings of insecurity about Muslims.

---

Taking Trump voters’ concerns seriously means listening to what they’re actually saying - Vox

quote:

---

Taking Trump voters’ concerns seriously means listening to what they’re actually saying:

​

...

​

Their problems should still be addressed, Michael Brendan Dougherty writes at the Week, not because the elite views them as virtuous and thus deserving of the help of the state and its political class, but by virtue of our common citizenship.

​

I agree with a lot of this. The government should help people who are materially struggling. Globalization definitely left some segments of the population struggling, and they deserve help. White people, while still economically dominant over black and Latino Americans in basically every way possible, can suffer from poverty too.

---

The topic is not boring. Lot's of people are discussing this stuff. I don't believe the particular article you and RAZD recommend is all that insightful. But that does not mean that I find the topic boring.By the way, is anyone other than myself responsible for pushing the concern beyond what was in the article?

More irregular stuff in Nevada:Two native American tribes sued Nevada earlier this month because its members had to travel one hundred miles from the reservation in order to get to an early voting location. After the state declined to help them, a court ordered that the tribe members be accommodated by setting up a satellite voting station.After the decision, tribes who were required to travel in excess of two hundred miles requested the same accommodation but were turned down by the state who claimed that it was now too late to accommodate them.https://thinkprogress.org/...-denial-7e0315de3810#.pqf3kcco4

quote:

---

On Wednesday, Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske said no.
Given that your letter reached the Office of the Secretary of State less than 24 hours prior to the scheduled two week period for early voting, we regret that we are unable to accommodate your request, she wrote in an October 26 letter to Vinton Hawley, the chairman of the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada.

---

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.

I am going to disagree in part with this summary. It is true of course that Democratic politicians are no more or less evil than their Republican counter parts. However the tactics employed by the two sides over the last 40-50 years, a time which includes both parties having their times at the top, suggests that one party can legitimately claim to have most of the high road. Over that time, the Republican party has consistently been the party of white folks only, and the Democratic party, has for the most part, not played the game of trying to prevent white folks from voting. Yes Democrats have gerrymanded when they have control of state legislatures, but they have not actively attempted to prevent folks from voting using anything like the tactics that Republicans currently use. Instead they have generally relied on things like voter registration drives that result in more folks voting rather than fewer. They have attempted to put in place early voting, and easy registration. If I recall correctly, the Texas Republican Party platform expresses opposition to 'motor voter' registration in which folks get registered at the same time that they get their driver's licenses or carry out other state business.Not denying the history jar cites, but it simply is not correct that during current times, each of the parties in power repress voting with equal alacrity. Republicans are fairly tarred with that brush. Only one group of folks refuses to restore voting rights to former felons because they are afraid of who they will vote for. Only one group of folks refuses to allow representation of folks in DC because they are largely democratic voters. I understand that the reasons for that difference are not altruistic, but the battle of tactics of impeding voting versus the tactic of trying to include more folks presents one side, and one side only, in a poor light.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Were not all of those incidents you cited things that occurred on the order of 40 years ago? I might yield to you ten years of the difference, but certainly not 30.

During the campaign it has taken a few days for new controversy to get reflected into the results. But given that huge numbers of folks have already voted, issues will have less effect.Besides that, what we currently have isn't really all that much. I think if something is to be made from them, it will take some active pumping by the media or Trump.

I'm not going to dispute that this is possible and even easy. My question is about your statement about who "usually" commits this kind of fraud. What evidence is there regarding a pattern of abuse that we can label "usually"?

Open question. Is the issuance of voter ID something Congress can do? I am pretty sure that the Congress as currently constituted would not be inclined to do issue a national card, and there is also the question of possible abuse of any universal ID card system.But I agree with the sentiment that voter ID is just fine if the government is willing to go to some effort to make sure everyone has the id. Perhaps if progressives were to expend their energy in that direction, the steam could be taken out of efforts to restrict voting on the state level.

So you believe that the Federal Government can require states to accept a Social Security card as voter ID? Even for local elections? I don't believe the feds can do that.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Presidential decree? My question was about whether Congress had the authority, to establish a national ID card that the states were bound to respect at election time. It is unclear that they have the power to do such a thing. But it is certainly clear that the president does not have such power. Except for the huge number of folks who don't. There is also some deliberate deck stacking. In North Carolina, gun permits count as voter IDs, but student IDs even from the state universities do not. Pretty clear example of targeting some folks for voting right extinction. Very seldom are the ID laws just about ID. In North Carolina the changes involved curtailing early voting, eliminating registration of high school students at their schools, cancelling voter locations on college campuses, etc. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm not concerned. I am more concerned that Trump might pull off a win than I am about his whining if he loses. Almost certainly any "dragging out" will be ineffective and short lived.

I doubt that either Trump or Hillary will suffer this fool more than a couple of days after their inaugurations.