|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 24 2026 11:46 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2026 23:35 Billyboy wrote:On April 23 2026 19:27 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 17:09 LightSpectra wrote:On April 23 2026 15:49 Gorsameth wrote:
Yeah if you think Europeans dont consider republics fascists after electing someone who instigated an insurrection you have not been paying attention. Maybe they don't teach about the Beer Hall Putsch or March on Rome in whatever school baal went to. Also, deeply funny that he was emphasizing "people who voted for Nazis aren't ontologically evil, they didn't know there were plans to eradicate the Jews" while laughing off insinuations that Republicans are fascists as they routinely dehumanize immigrants and trans people with the same language like "vermin" or "a plague". The omens of the evils of fascism are simultaneously too hard to recognize for their average supporter, but also nothing to worry about whatsoever, you're being hysterical if you think you see them. So you think Germans that voted for the nazi party wanted a literal Jewish genocide. You also believe this of republicans, that they are also want the genocide of all immigrants and trans people. lmao you people live in some wild RPG fantasies, you imagine a world where the most powerful country with a military bigger than the rest of the world combined is ruled by a crazy genocidal fascist in control of the senate, house and court, but sadly for the RPG the result is a bit deflating though, deportations, std arab wars and tariffs aren't really that compelling for the narrative but don't let that stop you from living this fantasy to the fullest. I’m confused by your reasoning. It seems you are convinced that Germans who voted for the Nazis didn’t know what they were getting because the Nazis didn’t explicitly say it. Then when people here bring up a lot of comparisons between the Nazis before WW2 and Republicans, and there are lots, many that you have agreed with. You say no way the Republicans and fascists because they have not explicitly said it. You can’t have it both ways. You should be worried about how far the Republicans are going to take it, they have already pushed it much more than people thought before this election. Even look at project 2024 . There was tons of talk about how that was a Democrat scare tactic, now the Republicans are just following it and all their voters that said they were against it, are not shockingly in favour. The republicans keep pushing toward fascism and people who vote for them keep going along with it and I guess use confirmation bias to forget about what they were against a few short months ago. Yes I claim the majority of germans didn't knew the extent of what the nazis planned to do. Yes, MAGA flits with certain aspects of fascism and its dangerous. No, the republicans are not the nazis secretly planning to genocide migrants. Calling republicans nazis only normalizes real nazis in the shadows and also makes people believe if THIS is nazism it ain't so bad. The same way rednecks calling scandis commies, it doesn't help their cause, on the contrary.
Lucky I never called the Republicans Nazis nor accused them of secretly plotting genocide. I said you should be scared with how far they are going to push it, since they keep pushing further down this path. Where it goes neither of know, but I am certain it’s not good for anyone but him and his allies.
I get that it’s easier to argue against what you want me to say rather than what I did, but it would preferable to not do that.
|
United States44105 Posts
On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 24 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:37 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 12:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:15 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 10:58 WombaT wrote:On April 24 2026 10:47 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
I am yet to meet demented idiot sneakily implementing something...
President of US seem to meet all powerful criteria, while " idiot, doing whatever last person he saw told him, while being demented" is not exactly a powerhouse...
[quote]
Wombat reason people disagreed was that Republicans are going to abuse it...
Like... how? literally any way to abuse it would be illegal.
On the other side your example with moat and lasers (FU, all I think about now, is how to get permission for moat and where to get lasers) is rather exaggerated. I would say it is more like living in low crime area, and yet despite that you still lock the door when going on family holidays.
That analogy was meant to illustrate an overreaction to a non-existent problem. Not one of my best, I wouldn’t read too much into it. Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal. Others in the thread have outlined how this can be a factor, much better that I could so I’d recommend scrolling back a few pages. As for non existent problem, you do still lock doors when leaving house for extended period. "Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal." There is literally no legal way to abuse it. Nobody was able to give example, beside usual explanation "they are too stupid to sort their own paperwork". Wombat seriously please look through the thread recent pages andl give me specific example where people pointed out how it will be abused? The fact that you don’t know the history of racial disenfranchisement in the United States doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, it means that you don’t know it. Other people have knowledge that you don’t. Maybe you shouldn’t be so confident in your assertions of what is and isn’t possible given your track record of incomprehensible ignorance. It is quite amazing how you are able to complain about racial disenfranchisement, and yet manage didnt address anything I said. But hey, you accused me of ignorance... you won... I guess... There was nothing to address. People who know the subject say that this is just the latest in a long history of abusing rules. You show up and declare that that wouldn’t be possible. But it not only is possible, it’s already happening, it’s been happening since the civil war, it’s established, it’s studied, it’s documented. That’s why the people who know more than you are saying what they’re saying. Showing up and declaring “well I don’t think that’s possible” isn’t informing us about the subject, it’s informing us about the limits of your understanding. And if you’re going to just randomly list things that you don’t know we’ll be here forever. I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable. But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin. Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work. Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history. The conservatives. You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on.
https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdf
https://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/
Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript.
So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination.
That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character.
The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court.
It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime.
As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever.
Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today.
|
nah kwark you just proved his point for him:
>against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments
>It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution.
see? he's right!
|
United States44105 Posts
On April 24 2026 23:35 misirlou wrote:
nah kwark you just proved his point for him:
>against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments
>It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution.
see? he's right!
But the Supreme Court agreed with me (84 years later).
|
If I were acting in extreme bad faith I would say something incurably stupid like "who was president in 2017? That's right, if you wanted Alabama racism to end you should've voted for Trump."
|
On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao
Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look.
|
On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 24 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:37 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 12:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:15 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 10:58 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
That analogy was meant to illustrate an overreaction to a non-existent problem. Not one of my best, I wouldn’t read too much into it.
Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal.
Others in the thread have outlined how this can be a factor, much better that I could so I’d recommend scrolling back a few pages. As for non existent problem, you do still lock doors when leaving house for extended period. "Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal." There is literally no legal way to abuse it. Nobody was able to give example, beside usual explanation "they are too stupid to sort their own paperwork". Wombat seriously please look through the thread recent pages andl give me specific example where people pointed out how it will be abused? The fact that you don’t know the history of racial disenfranchisement in the United States doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, it means that you don’t know it. Other people have knowledge that you don’t. Maybe you shouldn’t be so confident in your assertions of what is and isn’t possible given your track record of incomprehensible ignorance. It is quite amazing how you are able to complain about racial disenfranchisement, and yet manage didnt address anything I said. But hey, you accused me of ignorance... you won... I guess... There was nothing to address. People who know the subject say that this is just the latest in a long history of abusing rules. You show up and declare that that wouldn’t be possible. But it not only is possible, it’s already happening, it’s been happening since the civil war, it’s established, it’s studied, it’s documented. That’s why the people who know more than you are saying what they’re saying. Showing up and declaring “well I don’t think that’s possible” isn’t informing us about the subject, it’s informing us about the limits of your understanding. And if you’re going to just randomly list things that you don’t know we’ll be here forever. I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable. But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin. Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work. Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history. The conservatives. You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. Show nested quote +These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Show nested quote +Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? Show nested quote +The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today.
Wasnt this dude a Democrat??
|
On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 24 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:37 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 12:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:15 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
As for non existent problem, you do still lock doors when leaving house for extended period.
"Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal."
There is literally no legal way to abuse it. Nobody was able to give example, beside usual explanation "they are too stupid to sort their own paperwork". Wombat seriously please look through the thread recent pages andl give me specific example where people pointed out how it will be abused?
The fact that you don’t know the history of racial disenfranchisement in the United States doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, it means that you don’t know it. Other people have knowledge that you don’t. Maybe you shouldn’t be so confident in your assertions of what is and isn’t possible given your track record of incomprehensible ignorance. It is quite amazing how you are able to complain about racial disenfranchisement, and yet manage didnt address anything I said. But hey, you accused me of ignorance... you won... I guess... There was nothing to address. People who know the subject say that this is just the latest in a long history of abusing rules. You show up and declare that that wouldn’t be possible. But it not only is possible, it’s already happening, it’s been happening since the civil war, it’s established, it’s studied, it’s documented. That’s why the people who know more than you are saying what they’re saying. Showing up and declaring “well I don’t think that’s possible” isn’t informing us about the subject, it’s informing us about the limits of your understanding. And if you’re going to just randomly list things that you don’t know we’ll be here forever. I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable. But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin. Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work. Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history. The conservatives. You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat??
A conservative, you mean? https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5676#113502
|
On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 24 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:37 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 12:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:15 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 10:58 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
That analogy was meant to illustrate an overreaction to a non-existent problem. Not one of my best, I wouldn’t read too much into it.
Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal.
Others in the thread have outlined how this can be a factor, much better that I could so I’d recommend scrolling back a few pages. As for non existent problem, you do still lock doors when leaving house for extended period. "Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal." There is literally no legal way to abuse it. Nobody was able to give example, beside usual explanation "they are too stupid to sort their own paperwork". Wombat seriously please look through the thread recent pages andl give me specific example where people pointed out how it will be abused? The fact that you don’t know the history of racial disenfranchisement in the United States doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, it means that you don’t know it. Other people have knowledge that you don’t. Maybe you shouldn’t be so confident in your assertions of what is and isn’t possible given your track record of incomprehensible ignorance. It is quite amazing how you are able to complain about racial disenfranchisement, and yet manage didnt address anything I said. But hey, you accused me of ignorance... you won... I guess... There was nothing to address. People who know the subject say that this is just the latest in a long history of abusing rules. You show up and declare that that wouldn’t be possible. But it not only is possible, it’s already happening, it’s been happening since the civil war, it’s established, it’s studied, it’s documented. That’s why the people who know more than you are saying what they’re saying. Showing up and declaring “well I don’t think that’s possible” isn’t informing us about the subject, it’s informing us about the limits of your understanding. And if you’re going to just randomly list things that you don’t know we’ll be here forever. I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable. But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin. Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work. Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history. The conservatives. You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript.Show nested quote +These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Show nested quote +Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? Show nested quote +The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination.
...Yeah literal quotes. You really put one past everyone here.
On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:
That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character.
The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court.
It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime.
Since Knox was a Democrat the only thing you can be doing is saying he was a conservative, which, okay, don't assume it, prove it.
But I should have been even clearer. The reason is I thought it was obvious that although there is party continuity back until their formation, before Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Act there WEREN'T such things as "liberals" and "conservatives" as we call them today. In other words mapping a... 1901? person to a 21st century compass is an act of futility to begin with. The only thing I really care about is since the Civil Rights Act the only "disenfranchisement" has been that the Daily Show said it's Republicans' secret plan. But I'm open, what makes you think Knox was a conservative like say William F Buckley, what parallels are there? since writing white supremacist state constitutions is not something conservatives do today, there must be something.
|
Prove you're not a horse.
|
United States44105 Posts
On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 24 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:37 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 12:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:15 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
As for non existent problem, you do still lock doors when leaving house for extended period.
"Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal."
There is literally no legal way to abuse it. Nobody was able to give example, beside usual explanation "they are too stupid to sort their own paperwork". Wombat seriously please look through the thread recent pages andl give me specific example where people pointed out how it will be abused?
The fact that you don’t know the history of racial disenfranchisement in the United States doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, it means that you don’t know it. Other people have knowledge that you don’t. Maybe you shouldn’t be so confident in your assertions of what is and isn’t possible given your track record of incomprehensible ignorance. It is quite amazing how you are able to complain about racial disenfranchisement, and yet manage didnt address anything I said. But hey, you accused me of ignorance... you won... I guess... There was nothing to address. People who know the subject say that this is just the latest in a long history of abusing rules. You show up and declare that that wouldn’t be possible. But it not only is possible, it’s already happening, it’s been happening since the civil war, it’s established, it’s studied, it’s documented. That’s why the people who know more than you are saying what they’re saying. Showing up and declaring “well I don’t think that’s possible” isn’t informing us about the subject, it’s informing us about the limits of your understanding. And if you’re going to just randomly list things that you don’t know we’ll be here forever. I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable. But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin. Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work. Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history. The conservatives. You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat??
This is why you get the responses you do. They’re what you deserve.
|
Northern Ireland27012 Posts
On April 24 2026 11:52 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 00:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Baal, a bunch of us (including KwarK, Falling, maybenexttime, LightSpectra, WombaT, Luolis, Gorsameth, Simberto, Harris1st, justanothertownie, Velr, misirlou, Geiko, and I) have responded to your posts regarding in-person voter ID, non-existent widespread voter fraud, and/or fascist cheating Republicans. You asked some questions and received some answers. You made some comments and received some responses from a variety of posters who have a variety of backgrounds and live in a variety of countries. Try not to be so flippant and dismissive of counterpoints and criticism. I asked Europeans views on photo ID to vote like they do in their country and I didn't get many direct answers, I got mainly "Republicans are suppressing vote" to which beforehand I said was true, but shouldnt the ID still happen in better terms to secure elections? To that specific question I haven't gotten many replies. To responses like "give no quarrel to fascists" or "there is no evidence of fraud" I am flippant, and that is the right response to that.
You’ve had it answered about 80 times. Indeed, often with the same rough answers:
1. Better, perhaps sure, but secure from what?
2. Will it be free or cheap, easy and quick to obtain etc and not aid attempts at disenfranchising fuckery?
3. We’ve generally no innate issue with voting being tied to some kind of photo ID
Myself, I’d generally be in favour of a form of universal ID combined with attempts to centralise various functions that are often served by multiple identifiers in multiple places. For voting, to verify one’s right to work, could verify your right to drive, could be tied to medical services in nations like the UK with an institution like the NHS, etc etc. I know this isn’t exactly universally popular on either political wing, but just to illustrate that I’m not against photo IDs, quite the opposite.
The whole point of my terrible analogy was that yes, my house surrounded by a moat and adorned with death lasers IS more secure, but to an excessive sense, for a non-existent problem (in that analogy).
How much is it gonna cost? And who’s paying the bill? The thread has largely focused on disenfranchisement and skipped around this, but it’s a factor as well.
Which brings us back to the fraud accusation, which is the (ostensible) rationale given for these policies. That there actually is fraud becomes rather important if you’re going to spend money to prevent it.
Going into arbitrary numbers land, if say 10%, or even 5% of votes in a given election are shown to be fraudulent, I don’t think anyone perhaps outside of the beneficiaries are going to be against efforts to combat it and spend some money to do so. If it’s 0.0001%, much less so.
We don’t live in an abstract world, for better or worse. People may (rightly) hate benefit/welfare fraud, which absolutely does happen. But to completely eliminate it will cost far more, and inconvenience legitimate claimants than just sucking it up a bit.
Back to your central question there, which appears to be that the Dems should introduce photo ID requirements and sidestepping the whole Republicans will do fuckery concerns, I’d say yes except it’s the United States. You’ve different regimes state by state on both the ID side of things and how that’s instituted, as well as how elections are administered
|
On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look.
Sorry Ender there are not any. He was attempting a shitty gotcha. He is trying to state it is so obvious that without that requirement they can’t possibly have secure elections.
I run into this in my job all the time, then I unpack and explain and it works a really high percentage of the time, one on one. But it takes a fair bit of time to build the credibility and I have to take a lot of “jokes” along the way.
|
I love when Republicans pretend to not know about the party shift that happened in the late 20th century. Yep, the Confederacy and its apologists in the 1800s were Democrats. That's true.
Now which party is flying Confederate flags and defending their statues? Which party thinks it's cool if police officers choke unarmed black people to death in broad daylight? Which party says they fear for their lives if their airplane pilot is black because they're probably a DEI hire? Which party defended slavery by saying "slaves loved their masters"? Which party described the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the same law that led to the South voting Republican every election, as "a huge mistake"?
|
United States44105 Posts
The party of the guy is completely irrelevant to the point. I was not at any point arguing that it's only bad for people of one party to pass laws that appear on the face of it to be racially neutral but in practice result in racial disenfranchisement.
Some people who are bizarrely ignorant of their own history (and also Razyda whose ignorance knows no borders ("Brits are super weird, they have an annual celebration honouring Guy Fawkes by creating effigies of him and burning them, even though he could in some ways be considered a terrorist")) and will really go into a public forum and declare that as long as the law appears racially neutral then there's no problem with it.
"We require everyone to show ID, black or white, who could have an issue with that."
These people are somehow unaware that it is part of a long and continuous legal tradition that was founded explicitly to bypass the 15th amendment and create white supremacy. An unbroken legal chain that not only still has relevance today, it's still in force today. When they started writing these voting restrictions they also explicitly described the loophole by which they planned to argue that it wasn't a racial disenfranchisement law, it would just work out that way.
That is the context in which new laws to add voting restrictions must be evaluated within. And it's not just a historical context, it's a contemporary context, the chain is unbroken, the laws are still on the books in a great many states. And so when people show up and say "well the proposed new law doesn't specifically say 'blacks'" it is important to understand that these people are joining in that legal tradition of enshrining white supremacy, they're arguing the Knox loophole.
When people say "yes, but they plan to use their dominance of the broader societal structures to create an disproportionate racial impact" that's not a conspiracy theory, the guy who came up with the laws explained that yes, that really is what they planned to do. And we've got over a century of evidence of the impact of these laws and we can see that yes, that is how it turned out.
That's the context.
If there was a hypothetical non racist conservative on here advocating for additional voter restrictions in good faith then upon learning of that context they ought to go "shit, there's really no way to implement this without it becoming a racial disenfranchisement law". Upon learning the actual history of racial disenfranchisement on the United States they'd recognize it'd be like giving nitroglycerine to terrorists so long as the terrorists promise to only use it responsibly. It doesn't matter if there's a perceived need and the desired impact would be good, you would have to be insane to trust the existing systems in place to implement additional voter restrictions in a non racial way after those systems created a bunch of restrictions explicitly to implement white supremacy and they're literally still doing that right now. The metaphorical terrorists are still actively bombing places daily, anyone arguing for giving them more nitroglycerine on the basis that they didn't explicitly supply it for the purpose of terrorism is covering up their racism with the most transparent of fig leaves.
|
Northern Ireland27012 Posts
@Razyda there you go, I hope you’re grateful for the a single sentence in Chat GPT hours of research…
Voter disenfranchisement in the United States refers to ways in which eligible citizens are prevented—intentionally or indirectly—from registering to vote or casting a ballot. It’s not usually one single policy, but a mix of laws, administrative practices, and structural issues. Here are the main mechanisms:
⸻
1. Voter ID Laws
Some states require specific forms of identification to vote.
* Supporters say this prevents fraud.
* Critics argue it disproportionately affects low-income voters, elderly people, and minorities who are less likely to have qualifying IDs.
⸻
2. Voter Roll Purges
States regularly remove names from voter registration lists.
* This can happen due to inactivity, address changes, or errors.
* Problems arise when eligible voters are mistakenly removed and only discover it when they try to vote.
⸻
3. Felony Disenfranchisement
In many states, people with felony convictions lose voting rights—sometimes permanently.
* This disproportionately affects certain communities due to disparities in the criminal justice system.
* Policies vary widely by state (some restore rights after release, others don’t).
⸻
4. Limited Polling Access
This includes:
* Fewer polling stations in certain areas
* Long wait times (sometimes hours)
* Reduced early voting periods
These barriers tend to affect urban areas and minority communities more heavily.
⸻
5. Gerrymandering
This is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries.
* It doesn’t stop people from voting directly, but it can dilute the impact of their vote.
* Political parties in power often draw districts to favor themselves.
⸻
6. Registration Barriers
* Strict registration deadlines
* Limited online registration access (in some states)
* Complicated processes for first-time voters
These can discourage or prevent eligible people from registering.
⸻
7. Mail Voting Restrictions
Rules around absentee or mail-in voting vary by state.
* Some states require specific excuses or impose strict deadlines.
* Rejected ballots (due to signature mismatches, etc.) can also disenfranchise voters.
⸻
8. Misinformation and Intimidation
* False information about voting dates, eligibility, or requirements
* Aggressive “poll watching” or law enforcement presence
These can discourage turnout, especially among vulnerable groups.
⸻
9. Language and Accessibility Barriers
* Lack of multilingual ballots or assistance
* Inaccessible polling locations for people with disabilities
⸻
Big Picture
Disenfranchisement in the U.S. is often debated politically. Some measures are framed as protecting election integrity, while others are criticized for suppressing participation. The real impact tends to depend on how these policies are implemented and who is most affected.
|
Northern Ireland27012 Posts
On April 25 2026 00:50 LightSpectra wrote:I love when Republicans pretend to not know about the party shift that happened in the late 20th century. Yep, the Confederacy and its apologists in the 1800s were Democrats. That's true. Now which party is flying Confederate flags and defending their statues? Which party thinks it's cool if police officers choke unarmed black people to death in broad daylight? Which party says they fear for their lives if their airplane pilot is black because they're probably a DEI hire? Which party defended slavery by saying "slaves loved their masters"? Which party described the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the same law that led to the South voting Republican every election, as "a huge mistake"?
It may be among the stupidest of all arguments going, at least in this kind of context. I may as well just start banging on about the fucking Whigs or something
It can be appropriate in some, absolutely.
|
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. Most voters, even votets of color, support voter ID. Surely they, know the history, would have most reason to object.
What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating. You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws. How long should early voting be, for example. Voter ID is broadly popular, easy to get in every state that requires it, and is nothing like a poll tax or literacy test. It's telling that's where the people opposed are going with their argument instead of talking about an ID requirement itself.
|
United States44105 Posts
There's no good way to give American societal structures additional methods of restricting voting. ought to be as self evident asThere's no good way to give ISIS guns. The reaction to the two statements should be identical. And if someone saysWe're not telling ISIS to misuse the guns, giving guns doesn't imply any specific use, it's a neutral policy, and I see no reason why to expect any specific result. you should treat them as if they're an ISIS member. Even if they repeatedly promise that they're not as they advocate over and over for the "Give ISIS guns" bill.
They've told us what they intend to do with if they get them. We've seen what they've done with them in the past. We can see what they're doing with them in the present. We know exactly what they'll do if they get more in the future.
|
United States44105 Posts
On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Surely they, know the history, would have most reason to object.
Americans are laughably ignorant about American history and it's by design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
