US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9026

On October 20 2017 00:10 Gorsameth wrote:

Can you get any more blatant?
Please tell me the courts will utterly slam this down. This is Middle East Dictator level shit.

On election night, Anthony was shocked to see Trump carry Wisconsin by nearly 23,000 votes. The state, which ranked second in the nation in voter participation in 2008 and 2012, saw its lowest turnout since 2000. More than half the state’s decline in turnout occurred in Milwaukee, which Clinton carried by a 77-18 margin, but where almost 41,000 fewer people voted in 2016 than in 2012. Turnout fell only slightly in white middle-class areas of the city but plunged in black ones. In Anthony’s old district, where aging houses on quiet tree-lined streets are interspersed with boarded-up buildings and vacant lots, turnout dropped by 23 percent from 2012. This is where Clinton lost the state and, with it, the larger narrative about the election.

[...]

Three years after Wisconsin passed its voter ID law in 2011, a federal judge blocked it, noting that 9 percent of all registered voters did not have the required forms of ID. Black voters were about 50 percent likelier than whites to lack these IDs because they were less likely to drive or to be able to afford the documents required to get a current ID, and more likely to have moved from out of state. There is, of course, no one thing that swung the election. Clinton’s failings, James Comey’s 11th-hour letter, Russian interference, fake news, sexism, racism, and a struggling economy in key swing states all contributed to Trump’s victory. We will never be able to assign exact proportions to all the factors at play. But a year later, interviews with voters, organizers, and election officials reveal that, in Wisconsin and beyond, voter suppression played a much larger role than is commonly understood.

[...]

A few weeks earlier, US District Judge James Peterson, who oversaw the implementation of the voter ID law, had found that Wisconsin’s process for issuing IDs was a “wretched failure” that “has disenfranchised a number of citizens who are unquestionably qualified to vote.” Eighty-five percent of those denied IDs by the DMV were black or Latino, he noted in his ruling. The roster of people denied IDs bordered on the surreal: a man born in a concentration camp in Germany who’d lost his birth certificate in a fire; a woman who’d lost use of her hands but was not permitted to grant her daughter power of attorney to sign the necessary documents at the DMV; a 90-year-old veteran of Iwo Jima who could not vote with his veteran’s ID. One woman who died while waiting for an ID was listed as a “customer-initiated cancellation” by the DMV.

On October 20 2017 00:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Wonder if something is about to drop.

On October 20 2017 00:04 Nebuchad wrote:


I can't really bring myself to watch these types of things anymore. I've come to the position that debates are only fruitful when both parties engaged in them are intellectually honest. Cruz, in this case, is obviously not. So nothing can really come out of it. He's a skilled enough orator that he will use language that ensures nobody who was on his side is suddenly going to think Sanders has a decent point.

Only positive thing I can think of is that it brought awareness to the concept of a raise in taxes being required for social democracy, as Drone points out. It can't and shouldn't come as a surprise to people if you ever manage to get there.

On October 20 2017 00:48 Danglars wrote:

Hmm ... people who don't agree with me aren't being intellectually honest.

I wonder what kind of atmosphere that creates for intellectual debate and arguing the other side to your side.

On October 19 2017 23:39 Danglars wrote:

Notice how I didn't mention Rice once. Come back to me when you read it again.

On October 20 2017 01:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:


You specifically mentioned the Flynn unmasking. Flynn's name was unmasked because of Rice's orders. McMaster was investigating all of the unmasking to find if any was unlawful. None of it has been found to be unlawful in the current investigations, and as far as I know no new evidence has arisen since the last set of statements. Keep trying to portray it as an evil Democratic boogeyman.

On October 20 2017 01:01 Dromar wrote:


I think this post is a great example of intellectual dishonesty. He didn't say that Cruz was intellectually dishonest because he disagreed with Cruz' positions. And I think you're intelligent enough to make that distinction.

That means you are intentionally misrepresenting Neb's statement. I wonder what kind of atmosphere that creates for intellectual debate and arguing the other side to your side.

On October 20 2017 01:01 Dromar wrote:


I think this post is a great example of intellectual dishonesty. He didn't say that Cruz was intellectually dishonest because he disagreed with Cruz' positions. And I think you're intelligent enough to make that distinction.

That means you are intentionally misrepresenting Neb's statement. I wonder what kind of atmosphere that creates for intellectual debate and arguing the other side to your side.

I can't really bring myself to watch these types of things anymore. I've come to the position that debates are only fruitful when both parties engaged in them are intellectually honest. Cruz, in this case, is obviously not. So nothing can really come out of it. He's a skilled enough orator that he will use language that ensures nobody who was on his side is suddenly going to think Sanders has a decent point.

On October 20 2017 01:25 crms wrote:
Nice to see confirmation that @TEN_GOP account was in fact a Russian account. Also remember our resident 'conservative' voices have linked bullshit tweets from that account lol.