# The Newsroom - 08/26/12 - The Greater Fool



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

As a techie, the "internet troll' story seems weak to me. Hacker groups are a lot more resourceful than this show lets on. They would have sniffed out the Indian guy as a reporter. I guess it works for TV.
Oh my god, why must this show focus so much on the relationships? It just saps the life of all the other plots. Sex & the City tours? Sloan is into Don, why make it more complicated? Mac is damned annoying. It's all crap. I'm glad this season is over, makes it easy to delete the SP and not wait and see if this crap gets better. These people act like little annoying high school kids.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

I liked it


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm with Robo. I stuck it out, but SP is deleted and I won't be back next season. I know Sorkin is a liberal, but if they're trying to do a show about a news program taking politicians to task, at least make an effort to hit both parties. This week's "stories" seemed more like propaganda talking points issued by the DNC than it did about serious journalists covering stories. On the West Wing, a more one-sided bias was fine since it was about an administration which you would assume is a bit lopsided in it's political views. On a show about a newroom doing "real news", it feels like MSNBC.

Personally, I strongly favor voter ID laws. If the 92 year old lady from Tennessee could make it to the polls to vote, she could make it to whatever agency in TN issues state IDs.

The Tea Party stuff seemed like it was written by a rabid blogger from HuffPo.

Anyhow, I'm done with this show. If I want any more left wing propaganda, I can turn on MSNBC or CNN. When I want the right wing side, I'll turn on Fox. If this show had at least made an attempt to appear neutral and slam both parties for their hi-jinx, then I'd probably stick around, but the personal/relationship stuff isn't engaging and the "news" stuff is lacking and one-sided.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

Flop said:


> This week's "stories" seemed more like propaganda talking points issued by the DNC than it did about serious journalists covering stories.


I was waiting for the "Paid for by Obama for President" tag at the end of the episode. It was really hard to see past the politics in this episode.


----------



## kcarl75 (Oct 23, 2002)

I really liked this episode. And this is now one of my favorite shows. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised at this point on the political leanings of the characters or the love triangles. It's been well established what this show is going to be about. 

I like it for what it is, and think Sorkin's writing is some of the best on tv.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Flop said:


> Personally, I strongly favor voter ID laws. If the 92 year old lady from Tennessee could make it to the polls to vote, she could make it to whatever agency in TN issues state IDs.


Maybe we need to use a third-world mechanism... a finger dip in a permanent dye to indicate you voted. The added advantage is the conversation surrounding having voted that would ensue when people saw your dyed finger.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Flop said:


> Personally, I strongly favor voter ID laws. If the 92 year old lady from Tennessee could make it to the polls to vote, she could make it to whatever agency in TN issues state IDs.


I'm curious what your thoughts are on whether it's a problem that needs a solution. Do you believe the claim of only 86 cases related to voter fraud is incorrect, or do you think 86 cases is worth making thousands of people obtain an ID they otherwise wouldn't need?

Again, just curious.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Flop said:


> Personally, I strongly favor voter ID laws. If the 92 year old lady from Tennessee could make it to the polls to vote, she could make it to whatever agency in TN issues state IDs.


Polls are frequently in the neighborhood where you live. Just a few miles away. For me to get to the DMV I'd have to travel at least 15 miles. If I lived rural, I can't image in how far. And what if they charged for the state issued ID? You think that's fair too?


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

scooterboy said:


> I'm curious what your thoughts are on whether it's a problem that needs a solution. Do you believe the claim of only 86 cases related to voter fraud is incorrect, or do you think 86 cases is worth making thousands of people obtain an ID they otherwise wouldn't need?
> 
> Again, just curious.


I believe voter fraud is greater than the 86 cases, but I have nothing other than anecdotal evidence to support this. I'm curious on your thoughts about requiring an ID. Do you think a few minutes spent to get an ID is too much to ask of someone who wishes to vote?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I liked the show for the politics and news stories, hated it for the relationship nonsense.


scooterboy said:


> I'm curious what your thoughts are on whether it's a problem that needs a solution. Do you believe the claim of only 86 cases related to voter fraud is incorrect, or do you think 86 cases is worth making thousands of people obtain an ID they otherwise wouldn't need?
> 
> Again, just curious.


I never understood why these people don't have ID? Where I live, unless you're paying cash you can't buy anything without an ID. I can't even buy popcorn in a movie theater with my credit card without showing ID. Can't even write a check to a retail store without ID. It might just be the culture here in southern California but I just find it weird that they don't have ID. However I do watch The Daily Show and seen clips with republicans saying passing these laws will help vote out Obama and I completely disagree with that, and honestly think they're being evil thinking like that.. But how hard is it to just get an ID?


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Polls are frequently in the neighborhood where you live. Just a few miles away. For me to get to the DMV I'd have to travel at least 15 miles. If I lived rural, I can't image in how far. And what if they charged for the state issued ID? You think that's fair too?


I know at least one of the states will issue them by mail. The states I have lived in issue IDs for free or will waive charges on a need basis. I do not think people should have to pay for an ID. I do think it's fair to ask people to make a modicum of effort to obtain one if they wish to vote.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Flop said:


> I believe voter fraud is greater than the 86 cases, but I have nothing other than anecdotal evidence to support this. I'm curious on your thoughts about requiring an ID. Do you think a few minutes spent to get an ID is too much to ask of someone who wishes to vote?


I do, even if the actual number of fraud cases is higher. I also think in many many cases it would take more time and effort than "a few minutes".

What is my fraud case threshold to start calling it a real problem? I confess I don't have a number in mind, but would be magnitudes higher than 86.

I also don't have any problem at all believing that the real motive behind these bills is not voter fraud.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

The issue with Mrs Cooper is that she didn't have her marriage certificate to show that her married name was now Cooper (the name on her birth certificate was different) and they wouldn't accept all the documentation that she did have. It wasn't that she wasn't putting forth and effort to get an ID, it was all the government red tape she needed to go through.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

robojerk said:


> These people act like little annoying high school kids.


That's my main complaint. His writing has them acting like a 17 yr old in puppy love. Isn't there a point where people have meaningful relationships, with people they care about, and not someone they _accidentally _hooked up with? And shouldn't these characters be mature enough to be at that point?

I like the show though. The politics doesn't bother me, that's Sorkin. As long as it's entertaining, I can handle it. It would be nice to see him pick on the far left's foibles too. Ya' know, fair & balanced.

I can see how this show would piss off enough viewers that it may have ratings issues. Even for HBO.

But the guy can write some snappy dialog!:up:


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Flop said:


> I know at least one of the states will issue them by mail. The states I have lived in issue IDs for free or will waive charges on a need basis. I do not think people should have to pay for an ID. I do think it's fair to ask people to make a modicum of effort to obtain one if they wish to vote.


Your position is philisophical, not pragmatic.

Also, it lacks a grounding in reality as the effort is typically far from being a mere modicum.

Furthermore, it completely ignores the fact that the imposition that you believe is fair, serves to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist.

And while _your_ intentions may be well-meant (even if, again, purely philosophical), it is plainly obvious that the intent of the crafters of these laws is far more malevolent.

Instead of focusing on the abstract concept, look at the results: on the one hand, zero meaningful reduction in instances of actual voter fraud*[*]*, and on the other hand, tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of eligible voters being denied their right to vote (the significant majority of which are conveniently in a demographic that tends to vote for one party far more often than the other).

That's an acceptable trade-off to you?

*[*]*and btw, even amongst the 86 or whatever instances, they were typically of a type that wouldn't even have been prevented by the laws being created. Stuff like fraudulent use of absentee ballots.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

When Will asked who the girl was sitting in the background all day, I started thinking that she was the death-threat person and Will was going to get shot on live TV or something. The rest of the episode had a lot of tension in it for me.

I watched way too much _24_.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Flop said:


> I believe voter fraud is greater than the 86 cases, but I have nothing other than anecdotal evidence to support this. I'm curious on your thoughts about requiring an ID. Do you think a few minutes spent to get an ID is too much to ask of someone who wishes to vote?


Where does it say in the constitution that I have to have an ID to vote?


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Flop,

Also consider this. Disregard that Voting is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Imagine that you are dirt poor. Like at federal poverty level. You have a family of four that you provide for using 2 minimum wage jobs. You routinely work 50+ hours a week. You get no vacation time.

Now say that going to the DMV (which is only open till 5pm in most states) without having to take unpaid time off, losing your job because you aren't working your set hours, or even assume that you do get the time off somehow. You don't own a car because you're too poor. How do you get there? bus service? No buses in rural areas.

SC tried to pull that and then said that a DMV employee would run a van to go get people. Then that got cancelled because the DMV didn't want to accept liability for disabled people.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

busyba said:


> When Will asked who the girl was sitting in the background all day, I started thinking that she was the death-threat person and Will was going to get shot on live TV or something. The rest of the episode had a lot of tension in it for me.
> 
> I watched way too much _24_.


I guess I do also 
- that final sequence with Will going to and driving in the car...? 
- I swear I thought it was going to end with him being shot.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Cainebj said:


> - I swear I thought it was going to end with him being shot.


:up:

I'm fine with the politics discussion as long as we're not attacking each other.

Like I said, in my area you have to have an ID for practically everything and I find it weird that in other parts of the nation people go for decades without any identification. I wouldn't mind being asked for ID when voting, at the moment I go to the polls I only need to say my name and address, but I could easily say my neighbors name and get 2 (or more) votes easily, especially if I knew that they didn't vote. It's wrong however so I don't do it. My wife's grandfather keeps an ID on him at all times (probably of the collected mindset of the area) and he hasn't driven a car in years. You need it to buy anything except when using cash or debit.

As for the evidence of politicians using the law to change the outcome of legitimate vote, that's despicable. Here's a Daily Show episode with republican governors admitting that this law would change the voting landscape to allow the defeat of Obama.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-august-8-2012-chris-rock
They've admitted what the real reason is, voter fraud is just a smoke screen.


----------



## Bars & Tone (Aug 28, 2004)

astrohip said:


> ...It would be nice to see him pick on the far left's foibles too. Ya' know, fair & balanced.  ...


Exactly!
He can't even throw us a bone with an "Ainsley Hayes" sort of a character?
Can't we have just one character who can say, "Yeah, that's true, but what about...?"


----------



## hbtaylor (Dec 20, 2001)

Cainebj said:


> I guess I do also
> - that final sequence with Will going to and driving in the car...?
> - I swear I thought it was going to end with him being shot.


I was very tense during that sequence. I kept thinking, "remember what happened to Mark Harmon on The West Wing".


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Literacy tests... poll taxes... Voter ID.

They change the name, but the game's the same.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

I loved all 10 hours. But I'm their demo, and Aaron sometimes seems like he's eavesdropping on the conversations I have with my friends.

I can't wait for season two.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

robojerk said:


> You need it to buy anything except when using cash or debit.


I can't remember the last time I was asked for ID to use a credit card.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

zordude said:


> I can't remember the last time I was asked for ID to use a credit card.


It's a 50/50 scenario here. The movie theaters are like Nazi's asking for my papers. Restaurants never ask when paying. Retail shops are a mixed bag. I had a gas station card me once buying a damn red bull (~$1.50).


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

robojerk said:


> It's a 50/50 scenario here. The movie theaters are like Nazi's asking for my papers. Restaurants never ask when paying. Retail shops are a mixed bag. I had a gas station card me once buying a damn red bull (~$1.50).


Requiring an ID is a violation of Visa's merchant agreement. They can ask, but if you don't have one, or decline to present one, they can't refuse the sale unless the card is unsigned.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

In PA, in order to get a state-issued ID card, you must go to the Driver's Licensing Center (20 miles from my parents' house). You must pay $13.50. You must present one of these: Birth Certificate with raised seal (U.S. issued by an authorized government agency,including U.S. territories or Puerto Rico. Non-U.S. Birth Certificates will not be accepted.) OR Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (INS Form N-560)OR Certificate of Naturalization (INS Form N-550 or N-570) OR Valid U.S. Passport
AND Two each of these: W-2 Form, Current Weapons Permit, Current Utility Bills(water, gas, electric, cable, etc.), Tax Records, Lease Agreements, Mortgage Documents

You must also present your Social Security Card, in addition to the documents specified above.

What if you are in your 90s, and you have no income, so you pay no tax, and you have no utility bills, and you live with your kids and have no bills in your name and you don't have a weapons permit?

PAs answer to that is to have the person that you live with come to the DMV and vouch for you. So now your kid, or whomever, has to take off work and go with you (which, honestly, they probably did anyway since there's ZERO public transport in my home county). 

This is just a boondoggle.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

robojerk said:


> I liked the show for the politics and news stories, hated it for the relationship nonsense.I never understood why these people don't have ID? Where I live, unless you're paying cash you can't buy anything without an ID. I can't even buy popcorn in a movie theater with my credit card without showing ID. Can't even write a check to a retail store without ID. It might just be the culture here in southern California but I just find it weird that they don't have ID. However I do watch The Daily Show and seen clips with republicans saying passing these laws will help vote out Obama and I completely disagree with that, and honestly think they're being evil thinking like that.. But how hard is it to just get an ID?


I rarely am asked for my ID to use my credit card. Almost never. When it does happen it's such a surprise that I remember it. Happened once this year so far.

But the people they are trying to disenfranchise aren't you. They aren't worried about people with credit cards. They are trying to eliminate poor people, who mostly deal in cash, and take public transportation.

I have a good friend who has been a comic book artist for over 2 decades. He has to take a bus to go to the bank. It's a several hour effort, just to go get money so he can buy groceries. He doesn't drive. He works from home. Why does he need a drivers license?

I, myself, just got my notification of my drivers license renewal (my birthday is in September) and the new regulations say I can't renew. I have to go down and prove I'm an American. I need my Birth Certificate. I haven't had access to my birth certificate for decades. The US Navy lost it in 1981. I gave them the original, they couldn't find it to give it back. (BTW, I CAN put my hands on my DD-214, but that's not acceptable to the State of Florida). I have had to order a new copy of my birth certificate from Texas, which cost me about $25, and will take 4-6 business weeks. It's entirely possible it won't come in before my Drivers License expires and then I won't have valid ID. I need to take about six forms with me to renew my license this year. It's a real pain in the butt. I can see why people don't do it if they don't have to.

To you and me, $25 really isn't a big deal. It's an annoyance. But there's a lot of people for whom $25 is a deal breaker.

Flop strongly supports Voter ID laws. He believes fraud is rampant even though by his own admission he has no data whatsoever upon which to base that. That's because poor Flop has been lied to for so long that he doesn't know it's a lie.

Voter ID is only intended to counter "in person voter fraud" for the obvious reason that it's only used when people go to vote. In the last decade, of all the alleged fraud, they only found 10 cases of in-person voter fraud. That's it. 10 votes in 10 years.

How much money should we spend to prevent that? Isn't this the party of fiscal responsibility? 32 Republican states have spent taxpayer money to enact a bill that will cost money to solve this non-problem.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

I agree that if there really were only 86 cases of voter fraud then then someone's not looking close enough. Additional restrictions that get in the way of voters are not the answer. A lost vote is no different than a fraudulent one, so trading a supposed lack of illegitimate votes as the expense of legitimate ones is not a solution.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

And then there's this:



> The Pennsylvania law has drawn considerable attention, particularly after Republican Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania's House majority leader, said in a video that has since gone viral that the state's new law "is going to allow Governor (Mitt) Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania -- done."


Um...come again?


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Ereth said:


> Flop strongly supports Voter ID laws. He believes fraud is rampant even though by his own admission he has no data whatsoever upon which to base that. That's because poor Flop has been lied to for so long that he doesn't know it's a lie.


I'll tell you why I support voter ID. I grew up in southern California. Many of the kids in my high school were children of illegal immigrants. In history/social studies/US government classes when the topic of elections/voting was raised they would talk about their parents voting and say how easy it was. As I wrote previously, my data is only anecdotal, but I know there are more than 10 cases of in-person voter fraud in 10 years. What the actual number is, I have no idea.

Maybe you don't believe fraud is prevalent enough to worry about it, and I will grant you that in national elections it probably doesn't affect outcomes. In local elections it may have a larger impact. Voter ID isn't perfect, and will not stop all fraud. It will stop some. I sympathize with people who would have a hard time obtaining ID and every effort should be made to accommodate them. It is their right to vote, and I wouldn't ever want to deny that right, but to imply that I support voter ID because I'm so stupid I believe whatever the RNC is spewing is a petty personal attack.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

By its nature, fraud is inherently hidden, which means "reported cases" suggest that there's a whole lot more that have gone unnoticed.

If every act of fraud could be recorded, it wouldn't really be fraud, would it?


Come on people, statistics.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Where does it say in the constitution that I have to have an ID to vote?


Where does it say I have to obtain a permit to carry a firearm?

Because apparently I do, or in some states I can't carry one at all.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Jesda said:


> Where does it say I have to obtain a permit to carry a firearm?
> 
> Because apparently I do, or in some states I can't carry one at all.


Quit moving goalposts


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Flop said:


> I'll tell you why I support voter ID. I grew up in southern California. Many of the kids in my high school were children of illegal immigrants. In history/social studies/US government classes when the topic of elections/voting was raised they would talk about their parents voting and say how easy it was. As I wrote previously, my data is only anecdotal, but I know there are more than 10 cases of in-person voter fraud in 10 years. What the actual number is, I have no idea.


Actually you don't know that. You don't know that any of those kids were telling the truth and you don't know that a single one of their parents ever committed in person voter fraud. They may well have been using absentee ballots, which Voter ID will not affect in the least and which is FAR easier to do.

And let me add: high school and college students have been getting fake IDs so they can drink for several generations. Do you honestly think that someone intent on committing significant voter fraud isn't at least as smart as kids going to Spring Break? Do you honestly believe that someone who is trying to affect our elections in a significant way is going to be deterred by requiring a photo ID? No. The only people who will be deterred are honest people, in exactly the same way that DRM only affects honest customers and not those who wanted to pirate in the first place. It's a waste of time and money.



> Maybe you don't believe fraud is prevalent enough to worry about it, and I will grant you that in national elections it probably doesn't affect outcomes. In local elections it may have a larger impact. Voter ID isn't perfect, and will not stop all fraud. It will stop some.


It won't stop any significant fraud. Even the state of Illinois, when asked in Court, admitted that their Voter ID law would not have prevented any of the fraud attempts of which they were aware.



> I sympathize with people who would have a hard time obtaining ID and every effort should be made to accommodate them. It is their right to vote, and I wouldn't ever want to deny that right, but to imply that I support voter ID because I'm so stupid I believe whatever the RNC is spewing is a petty personal attack.


I'm not putting forth the idea that you are stupid. I'm putting forth the idea that "The BIG LIE" works. This is hardly a new idea. If you make a little lie, people might notice. But say something totally outrageous and you are more likely to be believed. Say it often enough and that likelihood goes up. Say it often enough over a long enough time period and you can convince a large majority that it's true.

Look how many people still believe that Obama wasn't born in the US, in spite of all the evidence put forth? The Big Lie has ensnared them.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

busyba said:


> Literacy tests... poll taxes... Voter ID.
> 
> They change the name, but the game's the same.


So this. The experts of voter suppression (Dixiecrats) are in the Tea/Republican Party. Gotta know your history.



Lori said:


> What if you are in your 90s, and you have no income, so you pay no tax, and you have no utility bills, and you live with your kids and have no bills in your name and you don't have a weapons permit?
> 
> PAs answer to that is to have the person that you live with come to the DMV and vouch for you. So now your kid, or whomever, has to take off work and go with you (which, honestly, they probably did anyway since there's ZERO public transport in my home county).
> 
> This is just a boondoggle.


Exactly. I had to explain this to my cleaning lady last week who considered herself "poor". She caught on quickly when I told her that "poor" people don't have cars, drivers licenses, smartphones, etc. Poor people don't have the $25-35 to buy a photo ID. $25-35 would be for food.

I also reminded her about people like @Lori mentioned. My mother still has her drivers license but will likely not renew it since she doesn't drive anymore. She'll have to PROVE that she is eligible to continue to vote after voting for over 50 years. She was not able to vote so in her early adult years in the South because of voter suppression. Now at almost 90 years old, she is faced with the same crap and she is a Republican!

It is just wrong and history will not look favorably on this.

The show was good to bring this out. I just can't stand all of the personal stories in the show. It is so high school.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Lori said:


> And then there's this:
> 
> Um...come again?


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

kcarl75 said:


> I really liked this episode. And this is now one of my favorite shows. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised at this point on the political leanings of the characters or the love triangles. It's been well established what this show is going to be about.
> 
> I like it for what it is, and think Sorkin's writing is some of the best on tv.





Lori said:


> I loved all 10 hours. But I'm their demo, and Aaron sometimes seems like he's eavesdropping on the conversations I have with my friends.
> 
> I can't wait for season two.


I'm with you guys. My wife and I love everything about this show.


----------



## rondotcom (Feb 13, 2005)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Polls are frequently in the neighborhood where you live. Just a few miles away. For me to get to the DMV I'd have to travel at least 15 miles. If I lived rural, I can't image in how far. And what if they charged for the state issued ID? You think that's fair too?


And the OP has apparently not dealt with people in housing projects much. No way to agency issuing ID's,only way to polls is GOtV volunteer drivers.


----------



## Queue (Apr 7, 2009)

Flop said:


> I'm with Robo. I stuck it out, but SP is deleted and I won't be back next season. I know Sorkin is a liberal, but if they're trying to do a show about a news program taking politicians to task, at least make an effort to hit both parties. This week's "stories" seemed more like propaganda talking points issued by the DNC than it did about serious journalists covering stories. On the West Wing, a more one-sided bias was fine since it was about an administration which you would assume is a bit lopsided in it's political views. On a show about a newroom doing "real news", it feels like MSNBC.
> 
> Personally, I strongly favor voter ID laws. If the 92 year old lady from Tennessee could make it to the polls to vote, she could make it to whatever agency in TN issues state IDs.
> 
> ...


The Dorothy Cooper case is actually real. I remember reading it a while back. The issue is that the building that had her birth records in it burned down before they were transferred to digital copy. This might have happened years and years ago. So she can't get an ID because no birth record of her exists.

Edit to add: I was a little off. Here's an article explaining what happened http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-15/...photo-id-laws-voting-rights-act?_s=PM:OPINION


> In 2011, Republicans in Tennessee passed a law requiring all voters to show current, government-issued photo identification before voting in person. Mrs. Cooper has a Social Security card and a photo ID issued by the Chattanooga Police Department for seniors in her housing complex.
> 
> When she went to the Tennessee Driver Service Center to obtain a new photo ID before the next election, she came prepared. She had her rent receipt, a copy of her lease, voter registration card and birth certificate.
> 
> But under the new Republican law, this still wasn't good enough. Tennessee refused to issue Mrs. Cooper a photo ID because the last name on her birth certificate is different from her married name, the name she uses now. But she has no marriage certificate, so she cannot clear up the discrepancy to Tennessee's satisfaction. And so she cannot enter a voting booth and have her vote counted.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Polls are frequently in the neighborhood where you live. Just a few miles away. For me to get to the DMV I'd have to travel at least 15 miles. If I lived rural, I can't image in how far. And what if they charged for the state issued ID? You think that's fair too?


They do charge. In IL it's $20.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

robojerk said:


> Like I said, in my area you have to have an ID for practically everything and I find it weird that in other parts of the nation people go for decades without any identification.





Ereth said:


> But the people they are trying to disenfranchise aren't you. They aren't worried about people with credit cards. They are trying to eliminate poor people, who mostly deal in cash, and take public transportation.


This, exactly. I spent some years like this when I was young. I'm not sure that people who aren't familiar with it really understand. Things like "spend a few minutes", "it's only $25", etc. are easy to say, but that's just not reality for many people. And as others have mentioned, it's often NOT just that easy: these laws are _not_ designed to make it easy for people to get ID: if they were that would defeat the purpose (both real and stated).

For the show, even though I consider myself a moderate progressive and I did agree with a lot of the shots taken at the far Right in this episode so in that sense I can't complain, I _do_ wish we could get some clear-eyed look at the far Left. On the other hand the far Left is not getting anyone elected to Congress so they can be more safely classified as out of the mainstream. Also the party out of power is usually more activist than the part in power. Still there must be something they could put up there.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Quit moving goalposts


The absence of a constitutionally-explicit restriction does not mean restrictions cannot exist or be introduced later on.

Rights are unlimited in spirit, regulated in reality.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

netringer said:


> They do charge. In IL it's $20.


Personally, I think a government-issued piece of ID should be free.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Jesda said:


> Personally, I think a government-issued piece of ID should be free.


Yes!


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

and easy to get.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

In fact, you should be able to get one at the post office.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

markz said:


> I'm with you guys. My wife and I love everything about this show.


I love the show but the women characters bother me. Sorkin needs a female co-author to write stronger women.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

DavidTigerFan said:


> In fact, you should be able to get one at the post office.


I'd also go grocery store.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And time it to take effect after an election, not right before one.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

I'm against the photo ID requirement, at least in the way that it's being proposed. I already HAVE a voter ID -- my voter registration card. If I can produce that, I shouldn't have to produce anything else, IMO. But having said that, if you want to institute a photo requirement, then just put a photo on the voter registration cards, fergodsakes. And have a photo booth set up at the polling place where the card/photo can be updated/renewed every 4 years (or every 8, or whatever). Simple.

Of course "simple" is exactly what they don't want.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

What happens you have vote by mail? Do we mail in the ID as well?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

zalusky said:


> What happens you have vote by mail? Do we mail in the ID as well?


No. Voter ID is only for "in person voter fraud", the least likely type of fraud to occur. Absentee and mail-in votes, which are far easier to commit fraud with, are unaffected by this effort.

Which should be sufficient evidence that curbing voter fraud is not the real goal.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Back to the show...

I am not sure why they threw the curveball of Sloan and Don. I really thought Sloan was going to fall for the Neal. 

I hated the Jim/Maggie thing. I guess I never understood why two people who really like each other should try to be together no matter what. Even if that means messing up friendships.


----------



## gamndbndr (Jul 3, 2007)

Flop said:


> I believe voter fraud is greater than the 86 cases, but I have nothing other than anecdotal evidence to support this. I'm curious on your thoughts about requiring an ID. Do you think a few minutes spent to get an ID is too much to ask of someone who wishes to vote?


Living in Turtletown, in East Polk County TN I can tell you it is a chore to get a picture ID here. The county does not have an office on this side of the national park, and our closest office that can do it is in Cleveland which takes at least 30 minutes one way through a narrow river valley. No public transport either.

To get a picture ID would take at least a half-day just to affirm your right to vote.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

robojerk said:


> Oh my god, why must this show focus so much on the relationships? It just saps the life of all the other plots. Sex & the City tours? Sloan is into Don, why make it more complicated? Mac is damned annoying. It's all crap. I'm glad this season is over, makes it easy to delete the SP and not wait and see if this crap gets better. These people act like little annoying high school kids.


I agree 10000000%!!!

I like the rest of the show and I'm OK with the politics especially knowing its Sorkin but his treatment of relationships is high school at best. I know they would not eliminate the relationship aspects but if they minimized them the show would be much better!!

Gerry


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Gerryex said:


> I agree 10000000%!!!
> 
> I like the rest of the show and I'm OK with the politics especially knowing its Sorkin but his treatment of relationships is high school at best. I know they would not eliminate the relationship aspects but if they minimized them the show would be much better!!
> 
> Gerry


The relationships are what make these people real for me, what makes me care at all about what happens to them.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Lori said:


> The relationships are what make these people real for me, what makes me care at all about what happens to them.


It's the way these people bring up their relationships constantly during meetings with the rest of the staff and what not, I see it as childish behavior. Like Maggie screaming at the Sex and the City tour bus, really?. If they toned it down, it removed the childish behavior it would work. Like I and others have said, it feels like I'm watching middle or young high school children drag out their emotions.
Mac and Will's relationship feels real, however Mac throwing her tantrums all the damn time is what I find annoying. She's supposed to be the producer and boss of this news room, but because of her tantrums I don't see her as an authority figure at all.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

robojerk said:


> My wife's grandfather keeps an ID on him at all times (probably of the collected mindset of the area) and he hasn't driven a car in years. You need it to buy anything except when using cash or debit.


See, _that_ seems weird to me. I need my ID so rarely that when I fly I have to dig through my wallet to find it because it tends to migrate toward the middle of the card pile from lack of use.

I renewed my license last month and, except to show the new style to some friends, the new one's never had to come out of the wallet. If I ever paid by check I might have to show ID, but not for credit card (or cash).

Actually, aside from at the DMV for renewal, I'm failing to remember the last time I had to show my license. (I know I had to use my passport in early June, but the driver's license...)


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

robojerk said:


> It's the way these people bring up their relationships constantly during meetings with the rest of the staff and what not, I see it as childish behavior. Like Maggie screaming at the Sex and the City tour bus, really?. If they toned it down, it removed the childish behavior it would work. Like I and others have said, it feels like I'm watching middle or young high school children drag out their emotions.
> Mac and Will's relationship feels real, however Mac throwing her tantrums all the damn time is what I find annoying. She's supposed to be the producer and boss of this news room, but because of her tantrums I don't see her as an authority figure at all.


Unfortunately I know people like that. This industry like doctors probably has a lot of relationship turnover do to their jobs taking top priority all the time.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

We were just in Vegas last month and without fail, they asked for ID EVERY TIME we used a credit card from the time we landed at the airport till we took off from the airport to leave.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

I rarely need ID either...the other day, I bought a ton of liquor and I'm now so old that they just asked me for my date of birth rather than asking for me ID.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Lori said:


> I rarely need ID either...the other day, I bought a ton of liquor and I'm now so old that they just asked me for my date of birth rather than asking for me ID.


Did you tell the truth?


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

robojerk said:


> It's the way these people bring up their relationships constantly during meetings with the rest of the staff and what not, I see it as childish behavior. Like Maggie screaming at the Sex and the City tour bus, really?. If they toned it down, it removed the childish behavior it would work. Like I and others have said, it feels like I'm watching middle or young high school children drag out their emotions.
> Mac and Will's relationship feels real, however Mac throwing her tantrums all the damn time is what I find annoying. She's supposed to be the producer and boss of this news room, but because of her tantrums I don't see her as an authority figure at all.


But screaming at something like a tour bus is perfectly reasonable when you're that upset. I yelled at someone in a McDonald's parking lot the other day in a similar manner. Not productive, but it made me feel better.

I agree that talking about relationships during meetings is out of bounds, but I don't notice that as much.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I think we'll have to agree at least when it concerns how the show handles the relationships, I am definitely not their target demographic. I did enjoy the politics though.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

john4200 said:


> Did you tell the truth?


I did.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

*I want to see the Beef Stew recipe!*


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

netringer said:


> *I want to see the Beef Stew recipe!*


Wasn't is something involving Honey, Brown Sugar and cooking for 5 hours?

phox


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

btw... a line that came up a couple of times in Will's broadcast, "people who claim to love America even though they clearly can't stand Americans" (or something like that) is a total recycle job from _The American President_.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

astrohip said:


> It would be nice to see him pick on the far left's foibles too. Ya' know, fair & balanced.





Bars & Tone said:


> Exactly!
> He can't even throw us a bone with an "Ainsley Hayes" sort of a character?
> Can't we have just one character who can say, "Yeah, that's true, but what about...?"


You're kind of missing the point of the show and the mentality of News Night with Will McAvoy.

As they said earlier in the season (and I'm paraphrasing): Balance, just for balance's sake is pointless.


----------



## Bars & Tone (Aug 28, 2004)

inaka said:


> ...As they said earlier in the season (and I'm paraphrasing): Balance, just for balance's sake is pointless.


So then this is Mr. Sorkin's glib and sophomoric way of trying to explain why he has no intention of showing us any of what might be wrong with the other party?
Make no mistake, I'm not expecting anything remotely approaching a balance. I'd just like to see something, _anything_ in that other pan of the scale.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

If we consider Will to be a middle of the road compromising republican something from say the 80s. He is probably pretty upset to see the strong right shift of his republican party. I personally think it has shifted farther to the right than the democratic party.

Now granted you might say Obamacare is massive socialized medicine (except that it was originally proposed by Republicans), however that is not part of the story yet perhaps next year when the supreme court works its way into the conversation.

If you look at all the major political news events during the time period mentioned they are primarily republican in nature. From a democratic point of view last year what news event stands out to be talked about. In 2011 where do you see the democratic machinery basically terrorizing the system.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I don't see it as Sorkin attacking the GOP in general. He seems to be okay with the more pragmatic side of the Republican party, it's the Tea Party extremists that he has the issue with. I think he is trying to make a clear distinction there.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

zalusky said:


> Now granted you might say Obamacare is massive socialized medicine ...


Only if you truly don't understand the meaning of the word "socialism". It's a cash grab by the Insurance Industry, very much massive capitalist medicine.

If we had gotten Single Payer, you'd have an argument.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Only if you truly don't understand the meaning of the word "socialism". It's a cash grab by the Insurance Industry, very much massive capitalist medicine.
> 
> If we had gotten Single Payer, you'd have an argument.


I agree but the right will complain they are forced to pay taxes for it even though they pay taxes for lots of things like roads and airports that they don't use.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

zalusky said:


> I agree but the right will complain they are forced to pay taxes for it even though they pay taxes for lots of things like roads and airports that they don't use.


Healthcare is a resource with unlimited demand. If you grant unlimited access, you're going to encounter a big problem with procuring adequate, high-quality supply.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Bars & Tone said:


> So then this is Mr. Sorkin's glib and sophomoric way of trying to explain why he has no intention of showing us any of what might be wrong with the other party?
> Make no mistake, I'm not expecting anything remotely approaching a balance. I'd just like to see something, _anything_ in that other pan of the scale.


I agree.



zalusky said:


> From a democratic point of view last year what news event stands out to be talked about. In 2011 where do you see the democratic machinery basically terrorizing the system.


I agree.

It's usually the party that's _not_ in power that makes headlines because it's the opposing party's role to serve as a check on the party in power. As for "terrorizing the system" I don't understand what you mean, unless you consider staunch opposition to Democratic policies a form of terrorism?

I find myself quite 'party-less' as the GOP and DNC advance their destructive (but differing) agendas.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

This whole season reminds of the pilot of West Wing, when Moira Kelly drove her car up on the sidewalk to yell at somebody. I thought, if this is what the show is about, I'll pass. But, I stuck around and grew to love it. But again, caliber of talent makes a big difference. And I liked the characters.

But, the shtick they try to pull off in the ep is like something from I Love Lucy. Splashed by a passing bus. Really? Will casually rips out his IV? So believable. And the English girl is a twit.

Teenage wasteland, indeed.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Bars & Tone said:


> So then this is Mr. Sorkin's glib and sophomoric way of trying to explain why he has no intention of showing us any of what might be wrong with the other party?
> Make no mistake, I'm not expecting anything remotely approaching a balance. I'd just like to see something, _anything_ in that other pan of the scale.


Glib and sophomoric? 
You must be watching another show, or maybe this show just isn't for you.

If you don't want balance, but want a token gesture to highlight flaws of the other side, again, maybe you're missing the point of Newsnight 2.0. The falws of one side, according to the show, are so off-the-charts out there that there isn't the need for balance at all. Again, that's the show.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

inaka said:


> Glib and sophomoric?
> You must be watching another show, or maybe this show just isn't for you.
> 
> If you don't want balance, but want a token gesture to highlight flaws of the other side, again, maybe you're missing the point of Newsnight 2.0. The falws of one side, according to the show, are so off-the-charts out there that there isn't the need for balance at all. Again, that's the show.


Let's be real here. This show is Sorkin's little soapbox.

It's entertaining and idealistic enough to keep me interested despite the lack of perspective and depth. Like a plot hole in a story, I roll my eyes at the flaws and let it go, remembering that it's just the political opinions and characterizations of a few writers and producers portrayed through the fictional universe of a group of journalists -- not a real news program.

It's entertainment. It's interesting and at times quite thoughtful, but it's still entertainment. Anyone can create a fictional universe that plays into their political and ideological preconceptions. Like a loaded question, it's best not to take them too seriously.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Jesda said:


> Let's be real here. This show is Sorkin's little soapbox.
> 
> It's entertaining and idealistic enough to keep me interested despite the lack of perspective and depth. Like a plot hole in a story, I roll my eyes at the flaws and let it go, remembering that it's just the political opinions and characterizations of a few writers and producers portrayed through the fictional universe of a group of journalists -- not a real news program.
> 
> It's entertainment. It's interesting and at times quite thoughtful, but it's still entertainment. Anyone can create a fictional universe that plays into their political and ideological preconceptions. Like a loaded question, it's best not to take them too seriously.


Not sure what the issue with any sort of lack of balance is then. It's their fictional universe, keyword fictional.

If you know it's entertainment, and it's a fictional universe that plays into their political and ideological preconceptions, then why expect otherwise that there should be balance, etc. when the ideology of both the writer and the characters is so clear?

Enjoy the show and take it for what it is. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

inaka said:


> Not sure what the issue with any sort of lack of balance is then. It's their fictional universe, keyword fictional.


Because some perceive the bias as an affirmation of their version of reality while others perceive the bias to be an alternate reality. I suspect Sorkin hopes for more of the former than the latter.

Perhaps his expectation is that if he makes the show softer with relationship subplots that larger/wider audiences can relate to, he can get viewers to stick around and join his political bandwagon.

It's having the opposite effect for me. The relationship nonsense takes me out of the show while the more dramatic scenes with Waterston, Fonda, and Daniels convince me that Newsroom is worth tolerating all of the fluff and BS.

I'm about ready to start fast-forwarding though half the show.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Jesda said:


> I'm about ready to start fast-forwarding though half the show.


That's my way to do it now. Some shows are made for the DVR And streaming.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

The thing that was obvious to me in this show was that Sorkin was trying to get as much propaganda as possible since this is the last episode before the election. I will probably get a warning for writing a political post for what I just said, even though the majority of the posts in this thread are specifically debating voter ID laws. Putting all of that aside, I thought it was an OK episode.

They were all really banking that Leona and her son weren't going to open that envelope to see that was just a beef stew recipe. If someone were to black mail you like that, wouldn't you look in the envelope to see what was in there _before_ you started debating it?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

DeDondeEs said:


> The thing that was obvious to me in this show was that Sorkin was trying to get as much propaganda as possible since this is the last episode before the election. I will probably get a warning for writing a political post for what I just said, even though the majority of the posts in this thread are specifically debating voter ID laws. Putting all of that aside, I thought it was an OK episode.
> 
> They were all really banking that Leona and her son weren't going to open that envelope to see that was just a beef stew recipe. If someone were to black mail you like that, wouldn't you look in the envelope to see what was in there _before_ you started debating it?


And that is the art of the bluff! To get somebody to fold because the risk of failure is far greater. A felony in this case. Of course we have hind sight because we know whats going on in London with News of the World.

As far as politics goes it is somewhat a reflection of the news business itself. This is a cable station just like Fox News and MSNBC are cable stations and they have the freedom to have lots of political spin. Why can't this cable station say what it wants.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

zalusky said:


> And that is the art of the bluff! To get somebody to fold because the risk of failure is far greater. A felony in this case. Of course we have hind sight because we know whats going on in London with News of the World.
> 
> As far as politics goes it is somewhat a reflection of the news business itself. This is a cable station just like Fox News and MSNBC are cable stations and they have the freedom to have lots of political spin. Why can't this cable station say what it wants.


Of course they can say what they want. The argument is that they wanted to be Newsroom 2.0, reporting the news and be more like Murrow. In the end, so called Republican Will just about kills his own party. As a liberal, I loved it, but it was hardly any better than what Fox News does, and not what they supposedly set out to do. That's my only beef with the News part of the show. Watching this last episode I said to my wife, you know just about every southern, and plains state just turned off the TV.

Now, as for the relationship stuff. I felt it was weak and stupid and I agree it was as if these people were in high school. I never bought the Will / Mac relationship. I could NEVER see them together in a million years. Both pulled some petty crap to get under each other's skin. It was horrible. I HATE the Maggie love triangle with the two producers. Maggie might be the weakest character on TV, despite trying to show how strong she is. She spouts off about how she wants to be with one guy, and then when the guy she's actually with makes a gesture, she forgets all about everything she said. Terrible. I absolute HATE her character, and I liked it the first couple of episodes. And it's odd, Sloan may be one of my favorite characters on the show. I really think she's the strongest woman on the show, even though she kind of lets Will push her around some.

I'm back for season 2 though. The political stuff and the behind the scenes news stuff trumps the relationship stuff for now.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Flop said:


> I believe voter fraud is greater than the 86 cases, but I have nothing other than anecdotal evidence to support this. I'm curious on your thoughts about requiring an ID. Do you think a few minutes spent to get an ID is too much to ask of someone who wishes to vote?


A few minutes? I recently renewed my license and it took at least three hours, and my station is as easy as it could possibly be.



robojerk said:


> Where I live, unless you're paying cash you can't buy anything without an ID. I can't even buy popcorn in a movie theater with my credit card without showing ID. Can't even write a check to a retail store without ID.


The only time I ever need an ID for purchases is occasionally when traveling. Now it's only buying wine or beer at Target, since they have to scan an ID.

I literally cannot recall a time when I wrote a check to a retail store.



Marco said:


> I love the show but the women characters bother me. Sorkin needs a female co-author to write stronger women.


YES. This really grates on me.



Lori said:


> I rarely need ID either...the other day, I bought a ton of liquor and I'm now so old that they just asked me for my date of birth rather than asking for me ID.


I'm torn between being offended because it means I'm old and pleased because it's less hassle than getting out my ID. Which then makes me feel even older. My food lion receipts say "age verified visually". I suppose it's nice of them to not actually spell out "she's so damn old there was no contest."



RGM1138 said:


> Splashed by a passing bus. Really?


That was a wink to Sex and the City, it's part of the opening credits.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Robin said:


> That was a wink to Sex and the City, it's part of the opening credits.


It reminded me of the opening credits of Three's Company.


----------



## The Spud (Aug 28, 2002)

Robin said:


> That was a wink to Sex and the City, it's part of the opening credits.


Wasn't the Sex and the City theme also playing during this scene? Not that I ever watched that show, but it sounded familiar.


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

I like the relationship stories. I agree that everything is amped up about 20% over how people normally react in real life, but real life would be boring to watch. Plus, this season seemed to cover a whole year, so although we see Mackenzie having meltdowns a lot, presumably whole months roll by where she is calm.

I liked how they bookended the season with the Northwestern stuff.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

The Spud said:


> Wasn't the Sex and the City theme also playing during this scene? Not that I ever watched that show, but it sounded familiar.


Yes.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Robin said:


> A few minutes? I recently renewed my license and it took at least three hours, and my station is as easy as it could possibly be.


If your station is as easy as it could be, what took three hours? I have lived and obtained DLs in 5 states, and it was never hard or burdensome. I have never had a DMV visit take longer than 90 minutes, but that was due to a paperwork snafu on my end. It took me all of 30 minutes to get a new DL when I moved from VA to OK, and that included registering the cars as well. When I moved from CA to VA about 10 years ago, it took about 90 minutes to handle all the paperwork. The bulk of that was waiting on some faxed documents from the company that owned the lease on the vehicle I had at the time. The actual obtaining of a DL was quick and straight forward. I understand from reading the other posts in this thread that other people have a much harder time of it. Maybe the states need to look at simplifying/streamlining the process.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Sorry, "situation", not "station".

90% of the time was spent waiting, 5% driving there, 5% actually renewing it.

And this was mid-morning on a weekday.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Flop said:


> If your station is as easy as it could be, what took three hours? I have lived and obtained DLs in 5 states, and it was never hard or burdensome. I have never had a DMV visit take longer than 90 minutes, but that was due to a paperwork snafu on my end. It took me all of 30 minutes to get a new DL when I moved from VA to OK, and that included registering the cars as well. When I moved from CA to VA about 10 years ago, it took about 90 minutes to handle all the paperwork. The bulk of that was waiting on some faxed documents from the company that owned the lease on the vehicle I had at the time. The actual obtaining of a DL was quick and straight forward. I understand from reading the other posts in this thread that other people have a much harder time of it. Maybe the states need to look at simplifying/streamlining the process.


A few years ago when I moved to Texas it took me most of a day to get my license transferred to Texas. Then they didn't provide one right there, but mailed it from Austin 6 weeks later. They literally had people assigning waiting rooms to stand in line in Texas. The line was out the door at 8 am, and I managed to be seen around 4, if I recall.

When I moved back to Florida I was pleased that it only took about an hour to reverse all of that.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Robin said:


> A few minutes? I recently renewed my license and it took at least three hours, and my station is as easy as it could possibly be.
> 
> The only time I ever need an ID for purchases is occasionally when traveling. Now it's only buying wine or beer at Target, since they have to scan an ID.
> 
> I literally cannot recall a time when I wrote a check to a retail store.


Electronics retailers almost always ask for an ID to go with a non-debit credit card transaction.

Sometimes even Wal-Mart will ask to glance at your ID.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Robin said:


> Sorry, "situation", not "station".
> 
> 90% of the time was spent waiting, 5% driving there, 5% actually renewing it.
> 
> And this was mid-morning on a weekday.


I did this two weeks ago around 1 PM and it it took a little longer waiting and driving. 


Jesda said:


> Electronics retailers almost always ask for an ID to go with a non-debit credit card transaction.
> 
> Sometimes even Wal-Mart will ask to glance at your ID.


Poor people rarely shop for electronics, they don't have credit cards, but they should be able to vote.

One huge fallacy in the pro-voter ID position is comparison of voting (a right) with unnecessary commerce (alcohol, guns, etc.) You don't need an ID to purchase food with cash. Even homeless people should be able to vote.

Another is comparing it with events where having an ID could prevent a bad thing from happening. We have evidence that people buy things for evil and board aircraft for evil. We don't have evidence that supports disenfranchising population segments.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Beryl said:


> One huge fallacy in the pro-voter ID position is comparison of voting (a right) with unnecessary commerce (alcohol, guns, etc.) You don't need an ID to purchase food with cash. Even homeless people should be able to vote.
> 
> Another is comparing it with events where having an ID could prevent a bad thing from happening. We have evidence that people buy things for evil and board aircraft for evil. We don't have evidence that supports disenfranchising population segments.


If voting is important, essential, and necessary to a republic, it should also be verified, just like every other form of business we conduct with the government.

You often need an ID to purchase firearms, and that's an explicit right.

But that ID should be free and easy to acquire.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Jesda said:


> If voting is important, essential, and necessary to a republic, it should also be verified, just like every other form of business we conduct with the government.
> 
> You often need an ID to purchase firearms, and that's an explicit right.
> 
> *But that ID should be free and easy to acquire. *


I agree when this happens. It has not happened in states where the voter ID requirement has been proposed.

Firearms and voting - false equivalence because we do have evidence that society is hurt when the wrong people acquire firearms. We don't even have evidence that any voter fraud has even affected election outcomes.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Jesda said:


> Electronics retailers almost always ask for an ID to go with a non-debit credit card transaction.
> 
> Sometimes even Wal-Mart will ask to glance at your ID.


My first reaction to this is "no, they don't". I can't remember the last time I was asked for ID in this situation.

Which leads me to believe that we're seeing regional differences here.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Beryl said:


> I agree when this happens. It has not happened in states where the voter ID requirement has been proposed.
> 
> Firearms and voting - false equivalence because we do have evidence that society is hurt when the wrong people acquire firearms. We don't even have evidence that any voter fraud has even affected election outcomes.


It affects the integrity of elections, and in close elections with razor thin margins legitimacy matters most because of the large effect an election can have on public policy.

So yes, depending on who you ask in which election, society can definitely be "hurt" by election fraud, or fraud of any kind.

When Kennedy beat Nixon there were widespread reports of precincts reporting over 100% turnout. That election determined the opening of China to US trade, the end of Vietnam, and the formation of the EPA.

And it's true, not all election fraud is caused by illegitimate voters. Some of it is due to ballot stuffing, invalid registrations, and electronic manipulation.

I also disagree with any kind of centralized federal ID. I prefer to keep it at the state/local level.



scooterboy said:


> My first reaction to this is "no, they don't". I can't remember the last time I was asked for ID in this situation.
> 
> Which leads me to believe that we're seeing regional differences here.


Indeed. It depends on how retailers react to losses from fraud.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Jesda said:


> If voting is important, essential, and necessary to a republic, it should also be verified, just like every other form of business we conduct with the government.
> 
> You often need an ID to purchase firearms, and that's an explicit right.
> 
> But that ID should be free and easy to acquire.


Then why do you think that the states who have implemented these laws (governed by you know which party), don't do the free and easy to acquire thing FIRST?

Makes you wonder, right?

Well, no, because we know why these voter ID laws are being signed into law, in 2012.

-smak-

ps. The Kennedy-Nixon election outcome had nothing to do with voter fraud, even if every deceased person in the state of IL voted twice for Kennedy. I know this because of math.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Jesda said:


> When Kennedy beat Nixon there were widespread reports of precincts reporting over 100% turnout. That election determined the opening of China to US trade, the end of Vietnam, and the formation of the EPA.


Huh? During Kennedy's term, there was no indication by either party that there was any desire to open trade with China (this was a VERY anti-Communist time). Viet Nam was barely a blip on the radar at that point in time, let alone ENDING a war that had not even really begun yet in earnest, and the EPA was formed by Nixon during his Presidency, but I imagine, that this would have happened anyway, based on the paths the parties took, but certainly wouldn't have happened in the early 60s. And perhaps if Nixon got elected instead of Kennedy, Vietnam never happens, or, we nuke them......China becomes more isolated, and business is less controlled and there IS no EPA. So that's a big leap you took.

As for voter fraud, there's probably questions of that in EVERY close election. And very little has to do with actual voting done by people who aren't supposed to vote. In 2000, you had confusing ballots in FL where masses of legitimate votes were thrown out. In Ohio in 2004, you had all kinds of shenanigans in poor neighborhoods which had NOTHING to do with any of this which might have caused a lot of people who could legitimately vote not to be allowed to, which could have lead to Ohio going to Bush. And there's all kinds of questions around electronic voting machines and their accuracy. I think this voter ID is just the reintroduction of the Poll tax and other forms of keeping those without means from voting.

And wouldn't you think, if someone wanted to commit voter fraud bad enough, they'd find a way to get an illegal id? (sounds a lot like the gun argument that if someone wanted to commit a gun crime, they'd find a way to get a gun, doesn't it?)


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Jesda said:


> And it's true, not all election fraud is caused by illegitimate voters. Some of it is due to ballot stuffing, invalid registrations, and electronic manipulation.


This year, most of it will be from legislated suppression.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Jesda said:


> But that ID should be free and easy to acquire.


The problem is that, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, if the ID is free and easy to acquire then it largely defeats its entire purpose. To put the best possible face on it, "easy to acquire" generally means "easy prey for fraud". If you really think there's lots of fraud (which I don't) then instituting a system which is easy to fool won't satisfy you. It will need to be complex in order to ensure its reliability. To put a more cynical (but realistic) face on it, "easy to acquire" means "it doesn't keep out the people we don't want to vote".



Jesda said:


> I also disagree with any kind of centralized federal ID. I prefer to keep it at the state/local level.


The problem with this is it's trivially simply to disenfranchise people, as we're seeing this year. There needs to be nation-wide standards and requirements, at least.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

If you look at the fact that all the places the voter id has been implemented is in close but republican leaning areas, its obvious what the agenda is!


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

busyba said:


> This year, most of it will be from legislated suppression.





madscientist said:


> The problem with this is it's trivially simply to disenfranchise people, as we're seeing this year. There needs to be nation-wide standards and requirements, at least.


While I won't disagree that some in politics aim to suppress voter participation, that doesn't trump the need for base-level security. Here in St Louis County, I am required to show my ID to vote. The address on my ID has to match the address on the records kept by the county. I have to sign my name next to my printed name and address in the county log book.

Voter turnout is on par with the rest of the country. Contrary to concerns, no disenfranchisement en masse has occurred, and St Louis leans Democratic.

And yes, this is a state where acquiring a government-issued photo ID is cheap and easy to do with wait times typically less than 15 minutes. Many of our DMV offices also happen to be efficiently run by private contractors.

Those who believe voter identification would serve their political agendas are set for disappointment. The *vast* majority of legitimate voters already have identification, whether its a passport, green card, or driver's license.

Aaron Sorkin is making a mountain out of a molehill. But hey, he's an entertainer after all.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Jesda said:


> While I won't disagree that some in politics aim to suppress voter participation, that doesn't trump the need for base-level security. Here in St Louis County, I am required to show my ID to vote. The address on my ID has to match the address on the records kept by the county. I have to sign my name next to my printed name and address in the county log book.
> 
> Voter turnout is on par with the rest of the country. Contrary to concerns, no disenfranchisement en masse has occurred, and St Louis leans Democratic.
> 
> ...


Well then explain all the other little tricks republicans have trying to do like closing early polls the 3 days before the election when primarily black distracts evangelize the vote through the Sunday mass or closing polls at different times in Ohio IE republican districts get to stay open longer than democratic districts. Basically from what I can see they are playing numbers in the trenches game. Some of these tricks have been overturned but not all and the simple fact they even happened is an indicator of things.

Given the 2000 election was decided by only hundreds of votes in Florida this is more than a molehill.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Jesda said:


> Aaron Sorkin is making a mountain out of a molehill. But hey, he's an entertainer after all.


Let's see: Potential voter disenfranchisement in an election where swing states are the key, in a country where in 2000 the guy who won literally lost the popular vote but won based on an unprecedented Supreme Court ruling in a key swing state, with a "solution" being raised to a problem that doesn't exist, where these key swing states just happen to all be governors of the same party, and where one key member of that party is on video saying "Voter ID laws are going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. Done." ....that's a mountain out of a molehill? Wow...who cares, it's only someone else's vote, right?


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

zalusky said:


> Well then explain all the other little tricks republicans have trying to do like closing early polls the 3 days before the election when primarily black distracts evangelize the vote through the Sunday mass or closing polls at different times


I dont like the Republicans, especially lately, and I don't care for those tactics. Likewise, far-left Democrats (Black Panthers) have been caught standing outside of polling places intimidating people as they enter polling places.

No matter who does it, it's *not right*.

I'm also aware of fraud (not necessarily ID-related) and intimidation perpetrated by people who align themselves with both parties.



inaka said:


> Let's see: Potential voter disenfranchisement in an election where swing states are the key, in a country where in 2000 the guy who won literally lost the popular vote but won based on an unprecedented Supreme Court ruling in a key swing state, with a "solution" being raised to a problem that doesn't exist


Polling places that request ID show _*no real or statistically significant*_ evidence of voter disenfranchisement. I live in a region/metro area that leans Democratic. This is Clay/Carnahan/Gephardt country. Our large population of Bosnian and Mexican immigrants aren't discouraged from participating simply because they need an ID.

You don't have to be white, male, a Protestant, or a land owner. You just need to prove that your name and address match the registration database. There's no TSA-style pat down or further snooping into your personal information. You simply have to show that you are the person you claim to be in the registration data.

On one hand, you have some Democrats who think people will be disenfranchised en masse, and they believe that among those people are illegal immigrants without papers who would be historically inclined to vote Democratic.
On the other hand, you have some Republicans who think voter ID will suppress a mass quantity of fraudulent illegal immigrant Democrat voters or minorities in general.

*They're both wrong.*

Few illegal immigrants are willing to risk being identified by going to the polls or interacting at all with police/government, but the possibility of fraud could and should be prevented if the solution is simple. An overwhelming majority of voters already carry a form of valid identification, so any negative consequences of ID requirements are greatly exaggerated.

And in case anyone cares, I'm a brown immigrant, a former Democrat, and a former Republican who votes straight "Libertarian" down the ballot.

Sorkin is a liberal Democrat playing to his side, and that's well within his right. He's not a journalist, he's a writer and producer of fictional programs. This is why "balance" is necessary in newsmedia, because what some claim to be "the truth" is still filtered through limited perceptions.

Additionally, most political issues aren't about the presence or absence of facts. Even when you have all of the raw pieces of information, what you choose to do with it has to do with the principles, belief systems, and assumptions about the deeper aspects of human nature that comprise feuding ideologies.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Voter turnout in America tends to be low. I googled those counties you mention, but couldn't find them. I found a Robin Carnahan predicting 25% voter turnout in Missouri, though. Think about that. 25% of registered voters will actually vote.

How many do you have to discourage to affect that election? 1%?


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Jonathan_S said:


> See, _that_ seems weird to me. I need my ID so rarely that when I fly I have to dig through my wallet to find it because it tends to migrate toward the middle of the card pile from lack of use.


This. Pretty much the only place that I ever get asked is the airport (TSA, and sometimes baggage claim, since one of my travel cases looks like, but is not, a pistol case)

Bank? Nope, unless for some reason I'm getting a huge amount of cash (although I mostly use ATMs and online banking)

Checks? Extremely rare. Not sure it's ever happened here.

Voting? Nope (although the voting clerks here know most of the town by sight)

Only non-airport time I could think of in recent history was purchasing cold medicine.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Getting back to the show... I'm not sure about the whole Don/Maggie thing anyways. He's a senior producer, and ~10 years older than her. I thought that whole thing was a bit contrived.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

kaszeta said:


> Getting back to the show... I'm not sure about the whole Don/Maggie thing anyways. He's a senior producer, and ~10 years older than her. I thought that whole thing was a bit contrived.


They were dating before the show started, when Maggie was just a secretary, not yet promoted to assistant producer. So other than the age thing, I don't see it a problem, because she wasn't really under his management.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

kaszeta said:


> Getting back to the show... I'm not sure about the whole Don/Maggie thing anyways. He's a senior producer, and ~10 years older than her. I thought that whole thing was a bit contrived.


The age doesn't throw me off. Don is a popular figure who routinely dates younger women.

What makes the relationship implausible are their completely incompatible personalities with zero romantic chemistry.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Like I said, I'm kind of shocked so many people don't have ID out there.
As for the elderly being disenfranchised, about 10 years ago my doctor's office started asking for ID because of health insurance fraud (people claiming to be someone else who had insurance when seeing a doctor, mostly done by illegal immigrants from Mexico, South America, and Asia). I've switched providers and the new one does the same thing.

I do agree that if they insist these laws be passed, that first and foremost getting an ID be affordable and efficient. If someone like the lady in the episode has issues claiming she is who she says she is that if she get 3 people with proper ID to write affidavits (if caught lying they go to prison for fraud and conspiracy) claiming they know for a fact that this person is who they say they are, be enough for the State to accept. As for convenience or location, allow the USPS, AAA, or court houses to accept said info to request an ID and take photo if needed. The USPS already does passports in some location so you wouldn't even need to buy a camera for them as they have the equipment needed already.

However what this guy is saying is despicable.


----------

