No, I specifically and quite clearly meant "the Republican party and not simply the Republican presidential candidate." Please look over what I wrote again, with a bit more reading comprehension this time, as I was clearly referring to all the elections rather than simply the one that you're focusing on.
Better question to be asking: why do these MILLIONS of people not have valid ID? (Or, to put it another way, if 90-99% of Americans can do it, what's stopping these guys?)
It's not difficult to get a state ID or driver's license. (If anything, it's *far too easy* to get a driver's license, as it theoretically requires demonstrating you're capable of driving, but I think everyone here would agree that experience shows we hand those out *far* too easily. But that's a debate for a different time.) It's not some arduous task that a reasonable person would conclude acts as a credible barrier to enfranchisement.
If you do not comply with basic, simple prerequisites, you're unable to perform actions that depend on those prerequisites. Why should voting be a special case? If it's really that important--and I agree that it is--isn't it really that important to put into place simple, common-sense measures that any legitimate citizen who cares enough can easily comply with, in order to ensure its integrity?
Generally, the fewer people that vote the more favorable it is to Republican candidates.
This would seem to not hold up against the facts: the 2016 election had the highest voter turnout in recent memory, and across the board--not just in the Presidential vote--the Republican party won in a landslide.
As I've said before on here, it was pretty much inevitable, as it's the Republicans' turn to screw things up now. It's a clear pattern that's been going on for decades in American politics: we didn't like Bush Sr. raising taxes after saying "read my lips, no new taxes," so we threw him and his party out and elected Clinton, who was even worse. We got sick of his endless scandals, so we threw him and his party out and elected W, who was even worse. We got sick of his moronic antics and endless wars, so we threw him and his party out and elected Obama, who was even worse. (Are you seeing a pattern yet?) Then we got sick of him and his party causing trouble for us with health care, race relations, civil rights, and oh-by-the-way not doing anything to put an end to the endless wars he campaigned on opposing, so we threw him and his party out and elected Trump, who is almost guaranteed to be even worse.
Anyone who was surprised by Trump's victory is simply not paying attention.
Making it easier for people to vote is a good thing. You disagree?
I disagree. Unless you were to replace the word "people" with "legitimate citizens," in which case I agree wholeheartedly.
Voter fraud is inconsequential
This is an example of what they call "lying with statistics." The camp pushing that narrative loves to point out how few people get prosecuted for voter fraud each election. And they're right; it is a really small number of people. However, in doing so they conveniently ignore all the reports of cases like the districts with more votes cast than registered voters that make it clear that there is massive fraud going on.
Put in that context, the statistics about such a tiny number of people being prosecuted take on a horrifying new implication: there is massive fraud going on and in the vast majority of cases, we have no clue at all who it is!
But the "documents" to prove eligibility of voters is ... designed to stop certain groups from voting.
Yes, exactly. No one disputes this. The question is, who is it designed to stop from voting? The people actually trying to put these laws in place say it's to stop people who don't have the right to vote from voting, whereas critics like to push the racism-ist narrative that it's to stop underprivileged minorities who do have a legitimate right to vote from voting.
I'm more inclined to side with the first group, for three reasons. First, as noted above, there is widespread fraud going on and we have no idea who's doing it. Why not take simple, common-sense measures to weed some of it out?
Second, because the racism-ists have cried wolf so many times, and done so much harm to ordinary, decent people in the ensuing witch-hunts, that it's worth taking anything they say anymore with a rather sizeable grain of salt.
Third, because one thing that's a legitimate voter ID everywhere is a driver's license/state ID card, and I've actually gone through the process of one, many times and in many places due to moving around for different jobs, and the process in no way fits the racism-ists' narrative of some massive, arduous ordeal that acts as a barrier to enfranchisement.
Think back to the last time you did it. You go to the DMV, which is a few miles away from your house. Close enough that you could probably walk if you didn't have a car, or (depending on where you live) take the bus. Then you sit around for a long time waiting (and waiting and waiting...) for them to get around to you, and you pay the fee (about $20,) fill out the paperwork, and they send you your new ID card/driver's license in a few days. It's good for quite a while--how long depends on where you live, but generally between 3 and 10 years.
The racism-ists' entire narrative falls apart when you think about it critically instead of simply accepting their wild accusations at face value. Stop to consider, for a moment, just how arduous it really is to, in the worst-case scenario, have to visit the DMV for a few hours and pay $20 once every 3 years. It's difficult to conceive of any scenario in which that presents an actual barrier to any legitimate American citizen, no matter how disadvantaged.
So can we please drop the "voter suppression" conspiracy nonsense already? It doesn't even pass the laugh test.
DailyKos is a liberal site that doesn't promote hatred of people.
If you think this, then you are not paying attention. They blatantly promote hatred of all things conservative, often in so many words. There's been more than one article on there that literally used the word "hate" in the context of how any right-minded reader should feel about the subject of the current excoriation. Some of them were written by Markos, the guy who runs the site.
The only difference between them and Breitbart is who they're inciting hatred against. Both are ugly, festering menaces that are destroying our culture, rotting it away from the inside.
It looks like you're trying to make some good, legitimate points, but be careful who you cite. Unfortunately, your credibility goes right out the window when you link to a site like the Daily Kos, an extremist site dedicated to raving irrational hatred of all things even the slightest bit conservative. They're basically the Left's answer to Breitbart.
> But, that doesn't seem to be the reason why Trump is against these deals. Rather, almost all of his commentary on these agreements is about how other countries are "winning" and the US is "losing" from these trade deals
And he's right about that much, at least
> and how he's ready and willing to jack up tariffs and basically set off trade wars with some of our largest trading partners. That's bad, and will likely cause a lot more harm than good.
Personally, I've always been a fan of Tom Clancy's suggestion that our fundamental trade policy should essentially be "our markets are as open to your country's trade as your country's markets are to our trade." If you want a level playing field, you could do a lot worse than to make the other guy play by his own rules and see yow much he likes it.
I'm all for essentially blanket immunity under Section 230 for community content, but AirBNB is something else entirely. It's not just some forum where people can post rental listings, which is what Section 230 was written for because it's the sort of thing that was around when the CDA was written.
AirBNB is a booking agency. Every rental that takes place, takes place through AirBNB's infrastructure, with AirBNB taking a cut of the deal. To say Section 230 applies here is to create all sorts of perverse incentives, because if you can create a site to help people sell illegal things, get a cut of each sale, and then claim immunity and operate with impunity once people start using it for much more serious crime, what's to stop someone from doing exactly that?
Sorry, but the only ruling that makes any sense is that AirBNB stops being a simple "content platform" when it becomes a business partner. And I don't see that as "chipping away at Section 230 protections" in the slightest, because it doesn't do anything at all to harm the sites that Section 230 was intended to protect. All it does is properly clarify the boundaries of Section 230 WRT a category of sites that weren't a thing back when the CDA was passed.