Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Kim Iversen" channel.

That's a joke. Some states do not accept veteran ID's even ! - there are acceptable forms of all IDs that affluent people tend to have. like passports, or driving licence that has not expired. Elderly people with money get the help needed to get that renewed - even if they do not drive anymore. So the affluent elderly still can vote. Students from wealthy households often have a passport even if they do not have a driving licence. They travel with their parents.
1
For student ID's red states invented requirments that NO college meets. That was carefully crafted, it is a feature not a bug. If they categorically exclude all student ID's that might be challenged in court. They just happen to demand a form of ID that does not exist in the real world. If nothing else is "wrong" or missing they can make unrealistic demands on expiry date. The colleges do check the identity of the students but they do not issue them with a very long validity. So even if colleges react and put everthing on the card the law requires (full name, address, SS number, photo, space for signature) - Republicans can just demand absurdly long expiry dates (way beyond election date) - and if the ID does not have that (duh !) this ID cannot be used for voting. if people work their way through college they are smart to make do w/o car, and college towns and cities mightbe better regarding public transportation, or they live on campus. So the demographic of not rich College students has an obstacle in voting and easy and spontanuous access to voting. If they sit on the fence they cannot decide that they will vote this time after all. And it helps to close the polling stations at college campus, that also is an obstacle for easy votes. Again folks with car and a gun licence, driver's licence (of this state) or passport are good, for them it is easy. The Republicans do not mind of that subset of young people vote - they get more votes from them. It is known that time and effort to get ID or to get at the polling station suppresses turnout. That is a good thing in the eyes of Republicans - they cannot win if turnout is high. Corporate Dems have the same situation in primaries this is when they would rather not have the poor, disabled, eldery and young folks vote. I kinda get that the student ID would be required to be valid at the point when it is shown, at least that is not an absurd requirement (although that the person may have dropped out of college last year or a few months ago does not change who they are - in many European countries IF an ID is even required they can use a driver's licence that was issued DECADES ago, or a passport that has expired years ago. As long as the photo resembles the person somewhat .... ;) No one really objects to photos from 50 years ago. I mean, HOW would the person get their hands on that ID, and what are the odds that someone with criminal energy would use that for casting ONE more vote ??? The rare cases are mostly Trump supporters, they are gullible enough to believe the fairy tales how easy it is to cheat - and they are not used to thinking things through.
1
4:00 "You shouldn't be an R or D but evaluate every election." - I would argue that having only ! 2 parties makes that impossible, there is not enough nuance possible if it is either black or white. And of course 2 parties are VERY easily captured by special interests. Spoilers and the lesser evil are not a thing in other countries. Or scolding blaming voters and outsider candidates for daring to use the most important rights in a democracy. Active and passive voting rights. To vote whom you like the best and to RUN for office no matter how likely it is that you will win (this time). To round if off nicely. Incensed Hillary Clinton might have remained the wife of the govenor of AK, had it not been for independent candidate Ross Pereot who got almost 19 % of the popular vote. Not measly 1 % like Jill Stein or 3 % like Garry Johnson (If we accept the logic that Stein may have cost HRC some votes - Johnston cost Trump MORE). In the U.S. the voters for small parties are scolded and blamed. Not the very numberous non-voters and also not the people that vote for the other party. THEY do not threaten the status quo and the grip of the 2 parties. Especially the Dems declare how the voters OWE them the vote, they literally villify voters for voting for a perfectly reasanble mild mannered, rational candidate (like Jill Stein), early on some even calcualted with the votes that they the Garry Johnson voters deprived them off (Dude was a former Republican I do not know where they even saw the affinity. O.K. they thought the more reasonable Republicans would not go with Trump and also "owed" HRC their vote. They could as well have blamed all Trump voters for not voting for her. Democracy could be so nice without the pesky voters .... Such entitlement is UNTHINKABLE in other democracies. Whatever the losers think after the lost election, they will never, ever blame the voters for not supporting them. Usually it is a version of: Our bad, we did good in the past, but were not good enough to communicate our good work. Or there were outside influences (state or federal politics, if there are scandals it can do harm at races on other levels. Federal politics harming the race in a state / province. A local scandal influencing federal election results. The rich landowners, the 1 % of the colonies that had a quarrel with the 1 % of the British empire set up the new Republic after the model of the British parliament. They had a parliament - but NOT a democracy. The parliament represented the interests of the aristocrast, the crown and of course the rich merchants, financiers, industral leaders, coal barons. The parliament was the opposition of rich commoners to the aristorcracy. And for that 2 parties were good enough. The founders made sure to have a system that can be easily controlled by the rich and the status quo forces. In any other democracy * there would have emerged at least 2 other parties and they would chase the establishment. It shows in the policies. * The UK also has the First past the post system and it is also not possible for a party outside the 2 mainstream parties to win elections BUT even they have managed to have a few other parties, and 2 - 3 might play a role (after the snap election may only had the majority because of an obscure rightwing Irish party). In all other countries they have popular vote and even smaller parties can quickly become relevant (they need around 5 % to get funding and seats in parliament). Even a tiny party can become important as coalition partner, becoming the little hinge that swings big doors. So there is a tiny bit incentive even in the UK to throw a few bones to the voters. And in all other democracies they have to appease the voters more (not the other way round) because the voters do have alternatives. The alternatives can manifest quickly if the voters are really pissed.
1
It is not only the money but the insanely complex rules how to get a driver's licence. Let's say you have - for some reason that is not your fault - a driver's licence and there is atiny difference to the name as per a more current ID. And then you move to a red state. heaven help you. You might need a lawyer, 3 visits, the old school reports, vaccination card. I mean - what are the chances that a professional comes with a driver's licence from another state and they do not find that acceptable for small deviations. The voters have no influence how births were registered back in the day. In writing or digital. Even only the middle name in long form or abbreviated will get you into MAJOR trouble. Same for women that are divorced and have to change name. To make things worse the byzantine setup translates to long lines in underfunded offices. It is not I'll drive over, take the kids with me, we are done after 20 minutes. And if a person does not have a vehicle it gets difficult. The ID has to be applied for in person, no ? How do you get there if you do not have a car, so they do not have MOBILITY and no valid driver's licence Low income Disabled Old - safer not to drive anymore are able to cope with daily life but are not exactely in a good shape to travel for hours by bus and to wait for 30 - 60 minutes at the DMV office. If they thin out the offices in the areas where they do not want people to vote anyway, they can very effectively suppress the vote. These are persons that can master their daily life without an ID that the state finds acceptable (they might have one). And if you are old you likely can buy beer w/o having to show an ID. If they cannot shop anymore - someone can bring them groceries. or someone takes them when they drive to a shop. No waiting time and no undue demand on the time of others.
1
Germany has a FUNCTIONING central register of residency. No one has to register to vote, that happens automatically. It is not like every of the 16 states does their own thing, they are not consistent with the birth certificates and decades later they trip up citizens on those inconsistencies. I very much doubt that the residents of a lttle village in Bavaria show an ID when they vote. These are the areas where people traditonally made do w/o ID.
1
Does the driver's licence automatically expire in Germany after a few years ? Do people need a new one if they move to another state - not for the car but a new driver's licence ? If they show the ID before casting the vote - that might be the one driver's licence they got 5 decades before. Or the passport that expired 5 years ago. - At least it works like that in Austria.
1
It may cost (the mandatory ID is a Nazi relic, one reason the Brits refused to get it) - but the civil services in Germany are set up in a way that a person can replace documents with not too much hassle. It may be annoying and cost money, but it is a clear and plannable and understandable ! process. In the U.S. they try to top Kafka sometimes. In Germany there are no citizens that never got a birth certificate, but there a lot of elderly black folks in the south, that are in that situation. In Germany there are not as many homeless Germans, when a person loses everthing they often also lose their paperwork. When the birth certificate slightly deviates from the Social Secutiy data the are in trouble. that can be a middle name that is abbreviated in the driver's licence or the SS data set - but it is in full in the birth certificate. Major problems if such a person moves to another Republican state. They may have voted in the past - but not anymore. Even wrose if they lose documentation and have to start the process from scratch. there are NGO's where lawyers and volunteers try to get people their birth certificate (corks popping fireworks) and then they can register to vote.
1
@magicblanket In my experience "normal" people do not hold a generation long grudge against a regime that dispossessed their parents or triggered them to flee. Like Kims family. - Also see Europe after WW2, Germans had to flee and lost everything. Hungarians and Czechosolovacs fled their countries in the 1950s and 1970s (Soviets crushed reform attempts). These people built a new life mainly in Germany and Austria, they could - the economy was doing well - and if they made it into the (lower) middle class they were content. after the Soviet Union dissolved, and the Warsaw Pact states opened, there was a discussion if the German minorities (or their descendents) that were dispossessed back in the day, would / could ask for their property back (civilians were driven out at the end of WW2). The groups that represent them and preserve the culture also advised not to ask for restitution. People live now in these homes, they had been maintained, rebuilt, etc. It would have been a mess, not to mention the strife with the new nations that fromed (Czechia and Slovakia separated). It may not have been polictically feasible, but the people did not even ask for it, they were able to let go of that.
1
@magicblanket Only rich people that lost considerable wealth are super pissed that the peasants were able to take their property away. And that does not wear off over the decades. Even if they had capital in the U.S. and were able to rebuild their lives - and are at least affluent. They are pissed anyway. I am convinced many of the rich Cubans that fled in the EARLY stage had their nest egg in the U.S. - the mob ran the place before the Revolution and one mobster lost almost everything he had in wealth, for them Cuba was a safe haven for ill gotten gains and it was very close to America, and quite luxurious for those with money, so they had the best of both worlds. Until it wasn't a haven for the rich anymore.
1
@magicblanket The rich folks fled in the early stage, and I very much doubt THEY fled on rafts, more like on yachts ! or proper boats, they intended to lobby the U.S. government to fix that on their behalf and they intended to sit in out in the security of Miami. Those that came later (on rafts and what not) were likely middle class, professionals or regular (poor) peasants. That is not the group that holds a 60 year old grudge, they just rebuilt their life. In order to justify the imperial agenda they were accepted as immigrants (same now for Venezuelans) so if they had some bite they could work their way up. have hopefully done well for themselves AND give it a rest. - Sanders was villified by the media regarding Cuba and remarks on Fidel Castro (to harm him in Florida), but he acutally did very well among Cubans under age 40. And the affluent Cubans vote Republican anyway. I just read that 1 million people has immigrated from Cuba to the U.S. (of course some have died in the meantime) and the children will be less ideological about it.
1
@robdez5628 It would be be logical that many American Cubans want the sanctions lifted, they care about their kinfolk, that stayed behind and want them to do well. Only the rich that are super pissed that they lost a lot or all, can't give it a rest. - I read just a PBS article, it seems some - many - rich or well off Cubans (the first wave) were surprised and did not have time to transfer any assets to the U.S. They were at least accepted as refugees (no doubt many of them now rail against immigration and are ardent Trump supporters. And Trump sucked up to them in order to win Florida. Obama had lifted some sanctions and Trump reinstated them). I seesm some of the wealthy and well educated had to take jobs as maids, gas station managers and what not. Quite a fall if your are used to having a splendid house, servants and can exploit bitterly poor people. They are still pissed ;) I guess it gets a little better when the old guard dies off, the young only know life in America, their frustration and hatred is not as deep seated, even if they might be fairly to the right. More like usual Republicans.
1
Good PBS article about the differnet waves. And how they differed (former wealth), education level, color. https://www.pbs (dot) org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/castro-cuban-exiles-america/ Replace (dot) with . - I am not sure if Kim allows links in her commet section.
1
@yurigansmith The Europeans should have known that the Bush admin already prepared a war against Afghanistan in SUMMER 2001, the 9/11 attack were a pretext. - Merkel - later when she was in charge (so not in 2001 or 2003) declared tjat Germany now has to be defended at the Hindukush. It was never defined as "war" it was always a "conflict" - German foundational law !! Germany is not allowed to engage in ANY wars unless it is to defend Germany and I think it would suspend all elections until the war is over. So that little NATO adventure would have needed much more explaining.The Germans would not have accepted it. They were in Afghanistan not even 1 month after the attacks - ignoring the Taliban offer to extradite bin Laden IF the U.S. would provdide evidence. ObL was Saudi and allowed to stay in Pakistan and also Afghanistan - but he was not worth the trouble of attracting the U.S. war machine. I think they would have made a deal provided that they could save face. ObL jeopardizing Afghanistan with war would have allowed them to extradite him w/o attracting to much fury from fellow Islamists. (I am not convinced ObL was instrumental in the planning of the attacks). When Merke was still opposition leader she travelled to D.C. to slobber over the the Cheney / Bush admin. She assured them that she would also support their war against Iraq. France and Germany (then under Chancellor Schroeder) refused 2 years later to go along with that insanity. The Bush admin was pissed. Fox News went to work to villify France. They left Germany alone - they are allowed to be skittish about war, although the ideological support would have been appreciated (and some cost sharing). But France had gotten help in the past for colonial adventures and now they balked .... No doubt the networks had gotten their marching orders how t comment on the refusal of close allies to support the new war. Which took away from the legitimacy. One reason the U.S. likes to have these countries on their side. For the unified war propagand. If layal allies balk, maybe the war is not a good idea ?? but the media covered for the war lusting admin and the voters are sheeple. Some "patriots" were inspired to rename french fries into "freedom fries" and a few wine and delicatessen shops with French food were vandalized. The offer of the Taliban to extradite Osama bin Laden (former US asset) if they would give them proof he was involved in planning the attacks. They wanted war and tehy needed a good distraction from the fact that they had been asleep at the wheel. Allegedly !! the hijackers had done that with box cutter. Allegedly they did not have any firearms they could smuggle onto board. A few men with knives can be disamred. And the admin kept getting warnings during summer - also from Russia and Israel. Ramping p security at the airports and the damn FBI and CIA doing their job would have sufficed (FBI got a hint of a man with Middle Eastern background that was not interested in learning how to land, just how to fly. They did not follow up, that could have unravelled the operation. That is the usual clusterfuck between two unaccountable agencies (espcially the CIA) that have rivalries going on. But a simple order for the airports to screen more, could have avoided the attacks. ObL was a "freedom fighter" from Saudia Arabia to bring the caliphate to Soviet occupied Afghanistan, he was in the group that the Reagan admin received in DC and in the Oval office.
1
@bobb1138 This has nothing AT ALL to do with free speech. She is elected and can fulfill her role (Kim got that wrong she cannot "at least" vote and speak on the floor these are main features of her job, a lot of Congress people do NOT have any committee positions. She is not entitled to a committee position (or two). The constitution does not protect her right to have one. She is free to run her mouth in the awarded time on the floor on twitter and social media (if they will have her) and on her onw website and in interviews. Plus of cours on OAN, Fox and Newsmax. She is desperate to be in the limelight so she will continue to drag down the party and drive away the Corporate Donors. Will suppress R votes and will activate the D votes. Mitch the Obstructionist is no dummy, he detests her. He has just gotten rid of Trump and here is the next major problem ? The vote was more to force the Republicans to take a stand ;) They have pandered to the lowest instincts, made political hay of riling up people (The Dems at least go after a foreign nation and not citizens of their own country) - and now a part of them are out of control and they fear them. They are damned if they keep Moronic Marjorie and play nice with Trump and they are damned if they dont't. They have two voting blocks, need both to win and will offend either one of them. She is a certified moron and if the Republican grifters (the GA party knew, some of them were worried, but they were a little worried that Biden could do well, and even more worried about the 2 senate seats of Georgia. And in general to align her fans that are typically hardcore Trump supporters. Allegedly her followers mobbed her opponent so he dropped out of the race and left the district. They did not have the good sense to kick her out from the primary race (she could have run as Independent, good luck with that) and now do not dare to kick her out from Congress (which they could do with 2 thirds or 70 % of the vote) - then they should at least not reward her with appointments to committees. Education to add insult to injury. And here we thought Betsy DeVos was a joke in her position. With good reason an elected representative should be hard to be removed from office - but it should be possible (scandals, ethically challenged, to enable prosecution, deranged behavior, mental illness that makes them unfit and they have no insight). Most nations have provisions to strip someone of immunity from prosecution and / or to force them to step down if they do not have the decency (for instance when a scandal breaks).
1
@bossdog1480 There are no or hardly any "conservatives" in the Republican party. Greene isn't one.
1