I’m not going down this road with you. Either get to your point or drop it, because I don’t find the back-and-forth to be the least bit interesting.
Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic
And now comes the Congressional Black Caucus, calling for a Faith Leaders Summit on voter rights, cheekily titled Get Souls to the Polls. Got a good beat, easy to dance to…
As reported by my good friends at Daily Kos…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...on?detail=hide
(Yep, lefty as all get out, if they’re lying, prove it and good for you!)
There’s a lot on their agenda, but one point is of particular interest. Note the following subheading: They oppose efforts to “Reduce or eliminate early voting periods (including the Sunday before elections, which counted for 32 percent of the African-American voter turnout in Florida in 2008)”
Can anyone who favors this stuff explain to me exactly how this advances the cause of voter integrity, and the all important confidence of the electorate? Seems to me this actually decreases the confidence of one portion the electorate, in that it seeks to drastically reduce their access to voting.
It would be fair to say, I think, that this insult to their citizenship might well impact their confidence in voter integrity, being as it is a naked attempt to limit the number of colored voters. How is the all important confidence of the electorate enhanced by such an effort?
A ray of sunshine intrudes into the fever swamp. If this effort bears fruit, and massive numbers of colored voters register to vote, and then vote, it may have a powerful impact. True, the Democrats may lose the crucial illegal alien and felon demographic, but it may be more than made up for with increased voter turnout amongst other groups who tend to favor Democrats.
Dare we hope it proves to be enough to flush out the scoundrels who started this crap festival? We dare to hope, sometimes, it is all we have. And sometimes, if the Goddess shall cease to avert Her eyes, it works.
(Duplicate post in the Pit, where you can say…stuff.)
No shit? Gee, thanks for the AfterSchool Special!
Bricker,
I’ve seen you qualify your proposal as being for a “strong” ID. Would it be infallible? Seems unlikely, given that people can already come up with fakes for any current ID.
So, what would the pecentage of fraudulent votes be under your proposed system? What is the current percentage of fraudulent votes? What would be the difference, and why would it be worthwhile? What would be the acceptable cost/benefit ratio of fraudulent vote to disenfranchisement?
If you cannot say what the difference in rates of fraudulent votes would be, how can your proposal increase the confidence of the electorate?
Can you tell me, on the average, what is the profit margin for the health insurance industry?
My point right now is: do you agree that the Tennessee poll is legitimate?
I have no problem with early voting periods. In fact, given the issues that arise sometimes with people in line when polls close on Election Day, and frantic calls to judges to get orders to keep the polls open as a result, I think early voting is just dandy.
I don’t agree that reasonable voter ID requirements constitute disenfranchisement.
Of course, no system would be utterly infalliable. But since the former system had no method of ensuring that voters are who they say they are, and the current system does, it’s clear to me that there is an improvement.
It’s not, in other words, a matter of saying we can now be sure we’ve eliminated X fraudulent votes. Rather, we can say we’ve now got a system in which almost any fraudulent votes can be detected and the casters caught.
You’re welcome.
But you just said that the system is not infallible. So which is it? Can you ensure that they are who they say they are or can you not?
UnitedHealth Group’s profits in 2011 represented a 5.0% return on revenue, and 18.2% return on equity. If you’d like to know more about this industry, there are plenty of fine websites you can reference.
Legitimate? Well, I don’t believe it set out to deceive. It was perhaps limited in the usefulness of the information it generated, but that’s a general problem with polls, because who the hell wants to spend their free time responding to a detailed poll?
That may be the case in your saucepan, but not in mine. I never suggested that people are stupid. People are busy living their lives, dealing with all their personal accomplishments and tragedies, and most have limited time or energy to expend on deep analysis of the plethora of issues the 24 hour news cycle drags in front of their eyes. The fact that they are being manipulated by a carefully orchestrated and implemented campaign of misinformation and exaggerated crisis proves the power of propaganda, not the stupidity of those taken in by it.
And to your cynical and partisan self this is reasonable, because “the truth” of both positions is equivalent, eh? So much for your admission that these laws confer a partisan advantage.
I’m not inveighing against the tactics, although I am indeed calling them out for what they are. I am inveighing against the effort to chisel a partisan advantage into the concrete of law, and against those like you who support party at the expense of country by defending those efforts. The fact that you and your cohorts have been successful deeply saddens me. Although I’m sure your final sentence lacks sincerity, I’ll be happy to receive luck from everywhere.
Those fine web sites tell me the average profit margin for health insurance industry is 4.54%. If you think this is “incredibly profitable”, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
4.54% of $300 billion in revenue…chump change!
4.54% is a small profit margin. Much less than other industries. Calling it “incredibly profitable” is disingenuous.
Drop in the bucket! Walking around money!
Is it your contention that larger companies should make less % profit than smaller companies? That a $300B company with 4.5% is “incredibly profitable” but a $10M company with 30% profits is not?
I guess we should just cut to the chance and ask you to define “incredibly profitable”.
On second thought, don’t bother. I can’t believe that in a thread about voter ID laws, we’re left debating how much profit Health Insurance companies should make…
You started it. My point was merely that some polls regarding healthcare reform are better than others.
Just for the record, I did not. Not the discussion about profits or the discussion about H/C in general.
I can agree to that!
No, you tried to dismiss my example of the complex reality of Americans’ feelings about healthcare reform by making some argument about how they’re being unrealistic and just want stuff for free. It’s all right here. Now you’re trying to walk off scot-free from the partisan caricature you drew. But it has to be paid for. No free lunch!