|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 30 2017 23:51 LegalLord wrote:
IDs in principle aren't a problem. The courts do suggest that they almost intentionally disproportionately target black voters, which does make them highly problematic.
I heard and registered the exact opposite. And do you mean disproportionately affect or actually target blacks? If they're passing out free photo ids and just refuse to put offices in the inner cities and reasonable registration deadlines, that's absolutely wrong. But in a democracy, one of the absolutely core ways citizens participate in their government, and deceased voters that cast ballots every year is a travesty.
I absolutely want to deny the dead the right to vote, but you may claim zombie discrimination and I'll cop to that.
|
On May 30 2017 23:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 23:49 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2017 23:42 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:07 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:
So we have one party that's completely useless, with another party actively looking to fuck over minorities, in the name of "eliminating waste". They gotta cut something in an attempt to balance the budget. It alternates between being sad and funny, but more sad these days. I'm guessing one of the more "completely useless" facets of the Democratic Party is pretending the GOP is "actively looking to fuck over minorities." It's a cute propaganda line, but pretty sad and funny in its own right. When really we all know that whether African Americans have the right to vote in Alabama is a states rights issue. Sessions told me so. Then you look into the issue, and it becomes any and all ID's required to vote is racism 1-2-3. You could have free hand-couriered photo ids and it would still be discriminatory bullshit in the eyes of the left. Any voter ID law that does not meet the specific guidelines set out by the appeals court is racism. If voter identification is a concern for any state, there is an easy way to craft a law solve that issue. The recent set of laws have not met those guideline and were subsequently thrown out by the courts as voter repression. If we didn’t have to do this song and dance every four years, I would say you have a point. But every 4 years we have to go through a new round of litigation to deal with ID laws from states held by the GOP. And now the civil rights enforcement is being removed from the department of education. I bet it will be removed from HUD too. So we can go back to the classic and most powerful tool of racial discrimination, real estate. What a mighty thing to be the final say in what laws are and aren't racist haha. I think we probably batted this topic around enough in 2012/2014 when I was first surprised at what Kwark sincerely believed.
Basic critical thinking? We look at the state, its history, comments by the politicians in the state, if the black population could be a deciding factor in an election. Does the law disproportionally impact minorities negatively? It really isn’t that complex a problem. I deal with clearly up unlawful convents(restrictions on the sale of property based on race/religion) at least once a year in real estate transactions. It is pretty easy to call when an old deed has some bullshit on it that needs to be removed/negated.
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40090865
The White House communications director has resigned only three months after being hired by President Donald Trump.
Mike Dubke, an experienced Republican strategist, was hired in March to revamp the White House media strategy.
As part of the shake-up, White House press secretary Sean Spicer will reportedly hold on to his position, but there will be fewer media briefings.
The reshuffle follows reports of disarray in the White House communications team.
Mr Dubke tendered his resignation on 18 May and is leaving on good terms, according to Axios News, a politics website which first reported his exit.
|
On May 30 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 23:51 LegalLord wrote:
IDs in principle aren't a problem. The courts do suggest that they almost intentionally disproportionately target black voters, which does make them highly problematic. I heard and registered the exact opposite. And do you mean disproportionately affect or actually target blacks? If they're passing out free photo ids and just refuse to put offices in the inner cities and reasonable registration deadlines, that's absolutely wrong. But in a democracy, one of the absolutely core ways citizens participate in their government, and deceased voters that cast ballots every year is a travesty. I absolutely want to deny the dead the right to vote, but you may claim zombie discrimination and I'll cop to that.
Yeah, but once again, is that actually happening in any significant amounts? From what i remember from the last time it came up, there are basically single digits of cases of that happening, but tens of thousands of cases of people not voting due to those laws.
There has to be some proportion between the positive expected result and the negative byproduct to make that argument work, otherwise it becomes apparent that the negative byproduct is the actual goal, while the positive expected result is simply a pretext to achieve that actual goal.
|
On May 30 2017 23:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 23:49 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2017 23:42 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:07 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:
So we have one party that's completely useless, with another party actively looking to fuck over minorities, in the name of "eliminating waste". They gotta cut something in an attempt to balance the budget. It alternates between being sad and funny, but more sad these days. I'm guessing one of the more "completely useless" facets of the Democratic Party is pretending the GOP is "actively looking to fuck over minorities." It's a cute propaganda line, but pretty sad and funny in its own right. When really we all know that whether African Americans have the right to vote in Alabama is a states rights issue. Sessions told me so. Then you look into the issue, and it becomes any and all ID's required to vote is racism 1-2-3. You could have free hand-couriered photo ids and it would still be discriminatory bullshit in the eyes of the left. Any voter ID law that does not meet the specific guidelines set out by the appeals court is racism. If voter identification is a concern for any state, there is an easy way to craft a law solve that issue. The recent set of laws have not met those guideline and were subsequently thrown out by the courts as voter repression. If we didn’t have to do this song and dance every four years, I would say you have a point. But every 4 years we have to go through a new round of litigation to deal with ID laws from states held by the GOP. And now the civil rights enforcement is being removed from the department of education. I bet it will be removed from HUD too. So we can go back to the classic and most powerful tool of racial discrimination, real estate. The IDs aren't even relevant to the problem I was referring to. In Alabama if you are convicted of "a crime of moral turpitude" then the local electoral registrars can permanently strike your name from the electoral rolls. A crime of moral turpitude isn't defined anywhere, it's whatever a registrar feels it is at the time. There is no appeals process. The author of that rule said that the reason they needed that particular rule in Alabama is so they could deliberately strip the vote from black people to preserve white supremacy in Alabama. It has subsequently been used for exactly that. Sessions said it is a states rights issue and part of the heritage of Alabama. Danglars said that if it was really a problem then Alabama would fix it.
And when I get time I'll look into that specific case. I'll be honest, the last time you deliberately misinterpreted my stance on constitutional law to imply I support white supremacists makes me highly unwilling to spend time investigating it. I gather Alabama doesn't only have a racist laws, but a majority racist populace in your view.
|
On May 31 2017 00:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:51 LegalLord wrote:
IDs in principle aren't a problem. The courts do suggest that they almost intentionally disproportionately target black voters, which does make them highly problematic. I heard and registered the exact opposite. And do you mean disproportionately affect or actually target blacks? If they're passing out free photo ids and just refuse to put offices in the inner cities and reasonable registration deadlines, that's absolutely wrong. But in a democracy, one of the absolutely core ways citizens participate in their government, and deceased voters that cast ballots every year is a travesty. I absolutely want to deny the dead the right to vote, but you may claim zombie discrimination and I'll cop to that. Yeah, but once again, is that actually happening in any significant amounts? From what i remember from the last time it came up, there are basically single digits of cases of that happening, but tens of thousands of cases of people not voting due to those laws. There has to be some proportion between the positive expected result and the negative byproduct to make that argument work, otherwise it becomes apparent that the negative byproduct is the actual goal, while the positive expected result is simply a pretext to achieve that actual goal.
The other thing that came up is that many of the laws are drafted to prohibit voting if the person does not have an ID and allow the people at the polling location to reject them. The Federal courts rejected those previsions and require that the person be provided with a provisional ballot. They can meet the ID requirement at a later date.
On May 31 2017 00:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 23:56 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2017 23:49 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2017 23:42 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:07 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:
So we have one party that's completely useless, with another party actively looking to fuck over minorities, in the name of "eliminating waste". They gotta cut something in an attempt to balance the budget. It alternates between being sad and funny, but more sad these days. I'm guessing one of the more "completely useless" facets of the Democratic Party is pretending the GOP is "actively looking to fuck over minorities." It's a cute propaganda line, but pretty sad and funny in its own right. When really we all know that whether African Americans have the right to vote in Alabama is a states rights issue. Sessions told me so. Then you look into the issue, and it becomes any and all ID's required to vote is racism 1-2-3. You could have free hand-couriered photo ids and it would still be discriminatory bullshit in the eyes of the left. Any voter ID law that does not meet the specific guidelines set out by the appeals court is racism. If voter identification is a concern for any state, there is an easy way to craft a law solve that issue. The recent set of laws have not met those guideline and were subsequently thrown out by the courts as voter repression. If we didn’t have to do this song and dance every four years, I would say you have a point. But every 4 years we have to go through a new round of litigation to deal with ID laws from states held by the GOP. And now the civil rights enforcement is being removed from the department of education. I bet it will be removed from HUD too. So we can go back to the classic and most powerful tool of racial discrimination, real estate. The IDs aren't even relevant to the problem I was referring to. In Alabama if you are convicted of "a crime of moral turpitude" then the local electoral registrars can permanently strike your name from the electoral rolls. A crime of moral turpitude isn't defined anywhere, it's whatever a registrar feels it is at the time. There is no appeals process. The author of that rule said that the reason they needed that particular rule in Alabama is so they could deliberately strip the vote from black people to preserve white supremacy in Alabama. It has subsequently been used for exactly that. Sessions said it is a states rights issue and part of the heritage of Alabama. Danglars said that if it was really a problem then Alabama would fix it. And when I get time I'll look into that specific case. I'll be honest, the last time you deliberately misinterpreted my stance on constitutional law to imply I support white supremacists makes me highly unwilling to spend time investigating it. I gather Alabama doesn't only have a racist laws, but a majority racist populace in your view.
Why does the makeup of the population matter? All that matters is who is in power and who is writing the laws. If it is a minority that wants to actively repress black voters and the rest of the population can’t be bothered to stop them, I don’t really care which of them are or are not racist.
|
United States43570 Posts
On May 31 2017 00:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 23:56 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2017 23:49 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2017 23:42 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:07 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:
So we have one party that's completely useless, with another party actively looking to fuck over minorities, in the name of "eliminating waste". They gotta cut something in an attempt to balance the budget. It alternates between being sad and funny, but more sad these days. I'm guessing one of the more "completely useless" facets of the Democratic Party is pretending the GOP is "actively looking to fuck over minorities." It's a cute propaganda line, but pretty sad and funny in its own right. When really we all know that whether African Americans have the right to vote in Alabama is a states rights issue. Sessions told me so. Then you look into the issue, and it becomes any and all ID's required to vote is racism 1-2-3. You could have free hand-couriered photo ids and it would still be discriminatory bullshit in the eyes of the left. Any voter ID law that does not meet the specific guidelines set out by the appeals court is racism. If voter identification is a concern for any state, there is an easy way to craft a law solve that issue. The recent set of laws have not met those guideline and were subsequently thrown out by the courts as voter repression. If we didn’t have to do this song and dance every four years, I would say you have a point. But every 4 years we have to go through a new round of litigation to deal with ID laws from states held by the GOP. And now the civil rights enforcement is being removed from the department of education. I bet it will be removed from HUD too. So we can go back to the classic and most powerful tool of racial discrimination, real estate. The IDs aren't even relevant to the problem I was referring to. In Alabama if you are convicted of "a crime of moral turpitude" then the local electoral registrars can permanently strike your name from the electoral rolls. A crime of moral turpitude isn't defined anywhere, it's whatever a registrar feels it is at the time. There is no appeals process. The author of that rule said that the reason they needed that particular rule in Alabama is so they could deliberately strip the vote from black people to preserve white supremacy in Alabama. It has subsequently been used for exactly that. Sessions said it is a states rights issue and part of the heritage of Alabama. Danglars said that if it was really a problem then Alabama would fix it. And when I get time I'll look into that specific case. I'll be honest, the last time you deliberately misinterpreted my stance on constitutional law to imply I support white supremacists makes me highly unwilling to spend time investigating it. I gather Alabama doesn't only have a racist laws, but a majority racist populace in your view.
It doesn't need an absolute majority of racists if they take away the right of minorities to vote. That's actually why they wrote the law they did. They were afraid that one day racists might no longer be in the majority so they attempted to grandfather in a system that would allow racists to retain power. They literally said all of this at the time they set up the system. And not in the roundabout "I'm just interested in the 'integrity of the ballot' way that you do that pretends that you view all interference equally". They literally said that the law was to strip African Americans of the ballot and that everyone should vote for it because the future of white supremacy hinged on it.
|
On May 31 2017 00:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:51 LegalLord wrote:
IDs in principle aren't a problem. The courts do suggest that they almost intentionally disproportionately target black voters, which does make them highly problematic. I heard and registered the exact opposite. And do you mean disproportionately affect or actually target blacks? If they're passing out free photo ids and just refuse to put offices in the inner cities and reasonable registration deadlines, that's absolutely wrong. But in a democracy, one of the absolutely core ways citizens participate in their government, and deceased voters that cast ballots every year is a travesty. I absolutely want to deny the dead the right to vote, but you may claim zombie discrimination and I'll cop to that. Yeah, but once again, is that actually happening in any significant amounts? From what i remember from the last time it came up, there are basically single digits of cases of that happening, but tens of thousands of cases of people not voting due to those laws. There has to be some proportion between the positive expected result and the negative byproduct to make that argument work, otherwise it becomes apparent that the negative byproduct is the actual goal, while the positive expected result is simply a pretext to achieve that actual goal.
With no way of truly quantifying fraudulent votes in this nation (apart from states that have voter id laws) we run into underreported problems. Just because, say 100 people were cited for jaywalking in LA mean that only 100 actually jaywalked? Michigan has their poll challenger programs which you can look into. North Carolina had increased black voter turnout after a voter ID law was passed.
Anyways, verifying the integrity of the vote is a noble end in itself. Not an issue who cares if only x murders are committed in our city, they're not worth investigating administrative and legislative solutions.
|
On May 31 2017 00:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 00:01 Simberto wrote:On May 30 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:51 LegalLord wrote:
IDs in principle aren't a problem. The courts do suggest that they almost intentionally disproportionately target black voters, which does make them highly problematic. I heard and registered the exact opposite. And do you mean disproportionately affect or actually target blacks? If they're passing out free photo ids and just refuse to put offices in the inner cities and reasonable registration deadlines, that's absolutely wrong. But in a democracy, one of the absolutely core ways citizens participate in their government, and deceased voters that cast ballots every year is a travesty. I absolutely want to deny the dead the right to vote, but you may claim zombie discrimination and I'll cop to that. Yeah, but once again, is that actually happening in any significant amounts? From what i remember from the last time it came up, there are basically single digits of cases of that happening, but tens of thousands of cases of people not voting due to those laws. There has to be some proportion between the positive expected result and the negative byproduct to make that argument work, otherwise it becomes apparent that the negative byproduct is the actual goal, while the positive expected result is simply a pretext to achieve that actual goal. With no way of truly quantifying fraudulent votes in this nation (apart from states that have voter id laws) we run into underreported problems. Just because, say 100 people were cited for jaywalking in LA mean that only 100 actually jaywalked? Michigan has their poll challenger programs which you can look into. North Carolina had increased black voter turnout after a voter ID law was passed. Anyways, verifying the integrity of the vote is a noble end in itself. Not an issue who cares if only x murders are committed in our city, they're not worth investigating administrative and legislative solutions.
I agree with all this, but the issue is how it is done. If the government goes above and beyond to make sure every living citizen is tracked down and given a voter ID card, without any cost to them other than some kinda $10 property tax increase or something like that, sign me up. The issue is when this is done in a way that inept, shitty people end up not getting ID cards by their own incompetence. They should still be permitted to vote and this ends up as an artificial barrier to their vote.
Edit: Isn't there a Euro country or two who has managed internet voting? I forget, but I could have sworn that existed too.
|
On May 31 2017 00:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 00:01 Simberto wrote:On May 30 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:51 LegalLord wrote:
IDs in principle aren't a problem. The courts do suggest that they almost intentionally disproportionately target black voters, which does make them highly problematic. I heard and registered the exact opposite. And do you mean disproportionately affect or actually target blacks? If they're passing out free photo ids and just refuse to put offices in the inner cities and reasonable registration deadlines, that's absolutely wrong. But in a democracy, one of the absolutely core ways citizens participate in their government, and deceased voters that cast ballots every year is a travesty. I absolutely want to deny the dead the right to vote, but you may claim zombie discrimination and I'll cop to that. Yeah, but once again, is that actually happening in any significant amounts? From what i remember from the last time it came up, there are basically single digits of cases of that happening, but tens of thousands of cases of people not voting due to those laws. There has to be some proportion between the positive expected result and the negative byproduct to make that argument work, otherwise it becomes apparent that the negative byproduct is the actual goal, while the positive expected result is simply a pretext to achieve that actual goal. With no way of truly quantifying fraudulent votes in this nation (apart from states that have voter id laws) we run into underreported problems. Just because, say 100 people were cited for jaywalking in LA mean that only 100 actually jaywalked? Michigan has their poll challenger programs which you can look into. North Carolina had increased black voter turnout after a voter ID law was passed. Anyways, verifying the integrity of the vote is a noble end in itself. Not an issue who cares if only x murders are committed in our city, they're not worth investigating administrative and legislative solutions.
NC also gerrymandered their districts to prevent that turn out translating into political power for blacks, which was recently thrown out by the SC.
But lets make this simple. Do you believe the NC legislature is trying to repress black voters?
|
On May 31 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 00:05 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:56 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2017 23:49 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2017 23:42 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:07 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:
So we have one party that's completely useless, with another party actively looking to fuck over minorities, in the name of "eliminating waste". They gotta cut something in an attempt to balance the budget. It alternates between being sad and funny, but more sad these days. I'm guessing one of the more "completely useless" facets of the Democratic Party is pretending the GOP is "actively looking to fuck over minorities." It's a cute propaganda line, but pretty sad and funny in its own right. When really we all know that whether African Americans have the right to vote in Alabama is a states rights issue. Sessions told me so. Then you look into the issue, and it becomes any and all ID's required to vote is racism 1-2-3. You could have free hand-couriered photo ids and it would still be discriminatory bullshit in the eyes of the left. Any voter ID law that does not meet the specific guidelines set out by the appeals court is racism. If voter identification is a concern for any state, there is an easy way to craft a law solve that issue. The recent set of laws have not met those guideline and were subsequently thrown out by the courts as voter repression. If we didn’t have to do this song and dance every four years, I would say you have a point. But every 4 years we have to go through a new round of litigation to deal with ID laws from states held by the GOP. And now the civil rights enforcement is being removed from the department of education. I bet it will be removed from HUD too. So we can go back to the classic and most powerful tool of racial discrimination, real estate. The IDs aren't even relevant to the problem I was referring to. In Alabama if you are convicted of "a crime of moral turpitude" then the local electoral registrars can permanently strike your name from the electoral rolls. A crime of moral turpitude isn't defined anywhere, it's whatever a registrar feels it is at the time. There is no appeals process. The author of that rule said that the reason they needed that particular rule in Alabama is so they could deliberately strip the vote from black people to preserve white supremacy in Alabama. It has subsequently been used for exactly that. Sessions said it is a states rights issue and part of the heritage of Alabama. Danglars said that if it was really a problem then Alabama would fix it. And when I get time I'll look into that specific case. I'll be honest, the last time you deliberately misinterpreted my stance on constitutional law to imply I support white supremacists makes me highly unwilling to spend time investigating it. I gather Alabama doesn't only have a racist laws, but a majority racist populace in your view. It doesn't need an absolute majority of racists if they take away the right of minorities to vote. That's actually why they wrote the law they did. They were afraid that one day racists might no longer be in the majority so they attempted to grandfather in a system that would allow racists to retain power. They literally said all of this at the time they set up the system. And not in the roundabout "I'm just interested in the 'integrity of the ballot' way that you do that pretends that you view all interference equally". They literally said that the law was to strip African Americans of the ballot and that everyone should vote for it because the future of white supremacy hinged on it.
Forgive me for needing to do my own research as well as hearing your perspective on the matter. You've made enough false accusations of racism in this thread over a period of years to warrant caution. "Take my word for it, I'm the guy that implied you stood with the Confederates on slavery." I'll get around to it in the coming weeks, chill out.
|
United States43570 Posts
Danglars is obsessively eager to gather evidence that preserves the integrity of the ballot in some cases, going as far as to say "sure, there's no evidence of it being a problem but can you prove that it doesn't exist, I say "no", you can only prove that you haven't found it yet, we must look harder and keep looking until we find that it is a problem" but in other cases is strangely relaxed. It's almost as if this isn't really about the integrity of the ballot.
|
In this case I have to say that I'm ok with deferring to the opinion of the courts, who have had the chance to listen to the arguments and make decisions based on a thorough consideration of them. They seem to be generally suspicious of many of these voter ID laws which I think is noteworthy. If these laws are designed to be a delay tactic as the courts process the case, then it's fair to cry foul.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 31 2017 00:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 00:15 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2017 00:01 Simberto wrote:On May 30 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:51 LegalLord wrote:
IDs in principle aren't a problem. The courts do suggest that they almost intentionally disproportionately target black voters, which does make them highly problematic. I heard and registered the exact opposite. And do you mean disproportionately affect or actually target blacks? If they're passing out free photo ids and just refuse to put offices in the inner cities and reasonable registration deadlines, that's absolutely wrong. But in a democracy, one of the absolutely core ways citizens participate in their government, and deceased voters that cast ballots every year is a travesty. I absolutely want to deny the dead the right to vote, but you may claim zombie discrimination and I'll cop to that. Yeah, but once again, is that actually happening in any significant amounts? From what i remember from the last time it came up, there are basically single digits of cases of that happening, but tens of thousands of cases of people not voting due to those laws. There has to be some proportion between the positive expected result and the negative byproduct to make that argument work, otherwise it becomes apparent that the negative byproduct is the actual goal, while the positive expected result is simply a pretext to achieve that actual goal. With no way of truly quantifying fraudulent votes in this nation (apart from states that have voter id laws) we run into underreported problems. Just because, say 100 people were cited for jaywalking in LA mean that only 100 actually jaywalked? Michigan has their poll challenger programs which you can look into. North Carolina had increased black voter turnout after a voter ID law was passed. Anyways, verifying the integrity of the vote is a noble end in itself. Not an issue who cares if only x murders are committed in our city, they're not worth investigating administrative and legislative solutions. I agree with all this, but the issue is how it is done. If the government goes above and beyond to make sure every living citizen is tracked down and given a voter ID card, without any cost to them other than some kinda $10 property tax increase or something like that, sign me up. The issue is when this is done in a way that inept, shitty people end up not getting ID cards by their own incompetence. They should still be permitted to vote and this ends up as an artificial barrier to their vote. Edit: Isn't there a Euro country or two who has managed internet voting? I forget, but I could have sworn that existed too.
Estonia I think. I don't know a ton about them but what I've heard is they are very much at the forefront of adapting snd integratint new technology into their institutions and education.
|
On May 31 2017 00:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:On May 31 2017 00:05 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:56 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2017 23:49 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2017 23:42 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:07 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:
So we have one party that's completely useless, with another party actively looking to fuck over minorities, in the name of "eliminating waste". They gotta cut something in an attempt to balance the budget. It alternates between being sad and funny, but more sad these days. I'm guessing one of the more "completely useless" facets of the Democratic Party is pretending the GOP is "actively looking to fuck over minorities." It's a cute propaganda line, but pretty sad and funny in its own right. When really we all know that whether African Americans have the right to vote in Alabama is a states rights issue. Sessions told me so. Then you look into the issue, and it becomes any and all ID's required to vote is racism 1-2-3. You could have free hand-couriered photo ids and it would still be discriminatory bullshit in the eyes of the left. Any voter ID law that does not meet the specific guidelines set out by the appeals court is racism. If voter identification is a concern for any state, there is an easy way to craft a law solve that issue. The recent set of laws have not met those guideline and were subsequently thrown out by the courts as voter repression. If we didn’t have to do this song and dance every four years, I would say you have a point. But every 4 years we have to go through a new round of litigation to deal with ID laws from states held by the GOP. And now the civil rights enforcement is being removed from the department of education. I bet it will be removed from HUD too. So we can go back to the classic and most powerful tool of racial discrimination, real estate. The IDs aren't even relevant to the problem I was referring to. In Alabama if you are convicted of "a crime of moral turpitude" then the local electoral registrars can permanently strike your name from the electoral rolls. A crime of moral turpitude isn't defined anywhere, it's whatever a registrar feels it is at the time. There is no appeals process. The author of that rule said that the reason they needed that particular rule in Alabama is so they could deliberately strip the vote from black people to preserve white supremacy in Alabama. It has subsequently been used for exactly that. Sessions said it is a states rights issue and part of the heritage of Alabama. Danglars said that if it was really a problem then Alabama would fix it. And when I get time I'll look into that specific case. I'll be honest, the last time you deliberately misinterpreted my stance on constitutional law to imply I support white supremacists makes me highly unwilling to spend time investigating it. I gather Alabama doesn't only have a racist laws, but a majority racist populace in your view. It doesn't need an absolute majority of racists if they take away the right of minorities to vote. That's actually why they wrote the law they did. They were afraid that one day racists might no longer be in the majority so they attempted to grandfather in a system that would allow racists to retain power. They literally said all of this at the time they set up the system. And not in the roundabout "I'm just interested in the 'integrity of the ballot' way that you do that pretends that you view all interference equally". They literally said that the law was to strip African Americans of the ballot and that everyone should vote for it because the future of white supremacy hinged on it. Forgive me for needing to do my own research as well as hearing your perspective on the matter. You've made enough false accusations of racism in this thread over a period of years to warrant caution. "Take my word for it, I'm the guy that implied you stood with the Confederates on slavery." I'll get around to it in the coming weeks, chill out.
On May 31 2017 00:22 KwarK wrote:
Danglars is obsessively eager to gather evidence that preserves the integrity of the ballot in some cases, going as far as to say "sure, there's no evidence of it being a problem but can you prove that it doesn't exist, I say "no", you can only prove that you haven't found it yet, we must look harder and keep looking until we find that it is a problem" but in other cases is strangely relaxed. It's almost as if this isn't really about the integrity of the ballot.
Daang you guys, did you ignite your keyboards just now? Because what I can smell from here are definitely some buuurns. 
|
On May 30 2017 23:39 Plansix wrote:
It isn’t like she came out of no place either. She has been a political figure since the fall of the Berlin Wall. She has more than a few reasons to be tired of the post 2000 US.
Merkel actually got along with Bush quite well, while she had a lot of issues with Obama in the beginning. Only during Obamas second term they found together.
|
On May 30 2017 23:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 23:07 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:
So we have one party that's completely useless, with another party actively looking to fuck over minorities, in the name of "eliminating waste". They gotta cut something in an attempt to balance the budget. It alternates between being sad and funny, but more sad these days. I'm guessing one of the more "completely useless" facets of the Democratic Party is pretending the GOP is "actively looking to fuck over minorities." It's a cute propaganda line, but pretty sad and funny in its own right. When really we all know that whether African Americans have the right to vote in Alabama is a states rights issue. Sessions told me so. Then you look into the issue, and it becomes any and all ID's required to vote is racism 1-2-3. You could have free hand-couriered photo ids and it would still be discriminatory bullshit in the eyes of the left.
false. most of the left would be fine with that. it's just that as a question of fact, the setups proposed by Republicans aren't those kinds of methods; the only ones they propose are the ones that have actual discriminatory effect (because that cuts down on Democratic votes).
though I do wonder why people wanna spend so much money on something that doens't fix an actual real problem; so much for fiscal responsibility.
|
On May 30 2017 22:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 22:00 Grumbels wrote:On May 30 2017 10:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 30 2017 10:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On May 30 2017 10:12 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 30 2017 06:53 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Krugman has posted and written about how WV keeps voting against its own interests. Although I suppose it's possible they thought Trump actually was going to fix everything. Krugman does come of as a bit snobbish at times but he makes good points.
That last bit is why the progressive left drives me insane with their rhetoric.... Yeah Krugman's a bit snobbish. But he is a noble laureate in economics who's probably tired of people thinking they know more about economics than he does. I read him mainly because he makes good points. I do wish he'd mellow his rhetoric a bit. Again he's mostly looking at it from solely an economics and policy perspective. Actually I didnt mind his words, I meant the bit he "quoted". It essentially tells us how effective talking down to people is... Like "I dont feel respected' is actually a pretty valid thing to say. Expecting people to overcome this layer of hostility, consider your underlying points and see that, lo, they are good and vote accordingly is expecting an awful lot. I don't think the DNC can realistically solve this issue, they will always come across as disrespecting "real America" simply by virtue of being a party mostly for educated people living in cities, who benefit from a global economy, whose arguments are rational rather than emotional. The sort of oversimplified narrative that the GOP specializes in, like "stop the liberal freakshow from taking away our freedom" can hardly be reversed and used to galvanize the Democratic base, it would go against everything liberals stand for such as adherence to norms. The Democrats have shouldered the label out of touch liberals since the civil rights movement and Nixon after that. It is an ever green election tactic. You can even see variants other countries, you just swap out “liberal” for the name of their left leaning party/faction.
On May 30 2017 23:39 Plansix wrote:
It isn’t like she came out of no place either. She has been a political figure since the fall of the Berlin Wall. She has more than a few reasons to be tired of the post 2000 US.
history tweets from plansix keepin it real ya'll.
plansix has really shouldered the burden of evading questions by pulling out old canards. its a tactic as old as the latin language. non sequitur!
|
My issue with voter ID laws is that they always seem to come up right before an election instead of after, thus creating confusion and undue 'hardships' to procure an id.
though it still baffles me how people don't have one on them at nearly all times, they are required to do almost anything, and if you don't drive, you get a state ID card instead of a state DL, its like ~20 bucks every 4 years or so (varies by state)
|
On May 31 2017 00:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 23:42 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 23:07 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2017 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:
So we have one party that's completely useless, with another party actively looking to fuck over minorities, in the name of "eliminating waste". They gotta cut something in an attempt to balance the budget. It alternates between being sad and funny, but more sad these days. I'm guessing one of the more "completely useless" facets of the Democratic Party is pretending the GOP is "actively looking to fuck over minorities." It's a cute propaganda line, but pretty sad and funny in its own right. When really we all know that whether African Americans have the right to vote in Alabama is a states rights issue. Sessions told me so. Then you look into the issue, and it becomes any and all ID's required to vote is racism 1-2-3. You could have free hand-couriered photo ids and it would still be discriminatory bullshit in the eyes of the left. false. most of the left would be fine with that. it's just that as a question of fact, the setups proposed by Republicans aren't those kinds of methods; the only ones they propose are the ones that have actual discriminatory effect (because that cuts down on Democratic votes). though I do wonder why people wanna spend so much money on something that doens't fix an actual real problem; so much for fiscal responsibility.
i don't mean to be incendiary here but rather to highlight the claims. to the right, people voting left is the problem. spending this money solves that problem by restricting some leftist voters from getting to the polls.
i mean i know you said as much in the first paragraph, but that is the answer to your question..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
