|
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 04:58 Jankisa 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 honestly have no idea why so many people take this guy seriously and try to engage with him. + Show Spoiler +He, to me, seems like a very troubled individual who has spent most of his time since he started posting here (again, I guess) insulting people and bringing up idiotic right wing talking points from the last 5 years.
The guy is basically a neo-Nazi, he wished for a mass casualty event in the Mexico thread, he uses the same "edgelord" phrases as white supremacist mass murderers but somehow any time he descends on this thread and derails it with his inane bullshit everyone flocks to engage with it, it's very strange to me.
For guys like oBlade or Introvert, I get it, while they have and support many views I find disgusting, they are relatively eloquent and don't seem to be outright nazis, this guy is not, even Ryzda and Jimmy can be entertaining and seem like relatively genuine people, this guy, if he weren't (poorly) hiding his power level would be posting how holocaust was exaggerated, so why anyone takes him seriously is beyond me.
Pretty sure we've established that they can't help themselves. As much as you all whine about it, it's also just what you all enjoy doing here.
You likely aren't alone in believing this either:
I guess the alternative is to just have a thread without them but that means we are just locking ourselves into an echo chamber, this is not really more productive then that but at least it gives us some insight into what their side is "into", even if they continue denying it's their side because they are "above that" and "actual conservatives"
Ignoring them is an option. Nevermind how your framing helps conservatives shift the Overton Window rightward (in part by basically accepting their framing that "2+2=5" is the "pragmatic compromise").
You guys literally echoing each other for pages of mocking and gawking comes off more like an 'echo chamber' than the excruciatingly rare occasions when you all try (and typically fail) to have any other US politics discussion amongst each other. You guys are practically allergic to discussing the differences in your political ideas and prescriptions at anywhere near the thoroughness and length you'll dogpile/mock and gawk the latest far-right nonsense.
If anyone wants to prevent this place from being an 'echo chamber' they need to focus on discussing the various Democrat/whatever other prescriptions they might have of how to get out of this mess, not perpetuating a petulant dogpile food fight with "middle schoolers", as fun as the latter may be in the moment.
|
United States43952 Posts
https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-noncitizen-voter-roll-removal-mary-howard-elley
Summarized from the article
Howard-Elley didn’t pay much attention when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott helped fuel that narrative by announcing that the state had removed thousands of supposed noncitizens from its rolls, claiming some had a history of voting.
Then the U.S. citizen learned she was among them.
The elections office in Montgomery County, just north of Houston, had sent Howard-Elley a letter in late January saying that she had been flagged after she indicated that she was not a U.S. citizen in response to a jury summons. She had 30 days to provide the county proof of citizenship or she would be removed from the voter rolls, according to the letter.
Howard-Elley wanted to ensure she could vote. She ordered several copies of her certified Louisiana birth certificate and confirmed receipt with an elections office employee. She thought the matter was resolved.
She didn’t realize her registration was canceled until reporters called her this month. Darla Brooks, the Montgomery County voter registration manager, told both Howard-Elley and the news organizations that she had not been reinstated in March because her birth certificate arrived after the 30-day window she was given to prove her citizenship.
On Oct. 14, Brooks said Howard-Elley had now also missed the registration deadline for this year’s election and would not be able to vote.
Three county election officials gave different answers to the question of whether they would reinstate a voter in Howard-Elley’s situation, though all stressed they would try their best to follow the law.
One said the voter should be reinstated. The other two said they would likely reinstate the voter after the registration deadline only if the county had erred in some way.
“The system is very flawed,” Howard-Elley said. “I feel really sad that we’re in a situation like this. You would think in 2024 we wouldn’t have issues like this.”
She intends to cast her ballot for Trump.
|
On April 25 2026 01:31 KwarK wrote:https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-noncitizen-voter-roll-removal-mary-howard-elleySummarized from the article Show nested quote +Howard-Elley didn’t pay much attention when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott helped fuel that narrative by announcing that the state had removed thousands of supposed noncitizens from its rolls, claiming some had a history of voting.
Then the U.S. citizen learned she was among them.
The elections office in Montgomery County, just north of Houston, had sent Howard-Elley a letter in late January saying that she had been flagged after she indicated that she was not a U.S. citizen in response to a jury summons. She had 30 days to provide the county proof of citizenship or she would be removed from the voter rolls, according to the letter.
Howard-Elley wanted to ensure she could vote. She ordered several copies of her certified Louisiana birth certificate and confirmed receipt with an elections office employee. She thought the matter was resolved.
She didn’t realize her registration was canceled until reporters called her this month. Darla Brooks, the Montgomery County voter registration manager, told both Howard-Elley and the news organizations that she had not been reinstated in March because her birth certificate arrived after the 30-day window she was given to prove her citizenship.
On Oct. 14, Brooks said Howard-Elley had now also missed the registration deadline for this year’s election and would not be able to vote.
Three county election officials gave different answers to the question of whether they would reinstate a voter in Howard-Elley’s situation, though all stressed they would try their best to follow the law.
One said the voter should be reinstated. The other two said they would likely reinstate the voter after the registration deadline only if the county had erred in some way.
“The system is very flawed,” Howard-Elley said. “I feel really sad that we’re in a situation like this. You would think in 2024 we wouldn’t have issues like this.”
She intends to cast her ballot for Trump.
Wait, is saying "I am not a citizen" without any proof a way to get out of jury duty? Does the US not know who is a citizen and who is not?
|
On April 25 2026 00:54 KwarK wrote:
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.
Murder laws have disproportionate racial effects in the US. That does not make them racist. They are racially neutral.
There is a reason to restrict felon voting rights just like felon gun rights. (Independent of whether any one state used to have an arbitrary "moral turpitude" clause which allows capricious squelching of voting rights.) Yet such restrictions will be equally disproportionate as the original felony laws whose offenders they restrict. That's what Virginia has. You think that's racial disenfranchisement?
You cannot go "Alabama 1901 Constitution" like a magic spell with a bunch of made-up quotes to poison the well of 21st century voting bills that we have the full text of and can read for ourselves.
Yes the Alabama Constitution could have been bad. That may be why they replaced it.
We have over a century of civil rights law and case law since then. You cannot do the same things you used to be able to do. "But if we let a Republican state pass a law requiring people to get ID (which almost all Republican states already have), they might use it to disenfranchise blacks, say by making BS literacy tests like Democrats did 70 years ago or moral turpitude laws like Democrats 120 years ago (which they haven't despite your unhinged alarmism)."
You're not enlightening yourself by thinking you're reenacting history's great battles.
A given voter ID proposal NOW is either reasonable or it's not. It has nothing to do with race. Every race votes at different rates already. Hispanics 50%, blacks 60%, whites 70%. Hispanics were never fucking enslaved by the hundreds of thousands in the antebellum cotton industry. People vote at different rates because they want to or don't. In 2008 blacks and whites both voted around 65%. Maybe black voters felt more motivated that year. The idea a voter ID is racist because it reduces turnout is implying one racial demographic's candidate preferences are so shit that they can't be bothered to vote if they have to show IDENTIFICATION. That is not the system's problem. You have greater turnout with universal unsecured mail-in voting than without. You have greater turnout with that plus voting by SMS than without. You can have greater turnout by voting by putting ink on your hand after you voted like during the reconstruction of Iraq. You can have the greatest turnout by having no registration or system whatsoever. Some of these systems are appropriate for a modern election in the greatest country in the world, and some aren't, and it has nothing to do with the alleged voting rates in each case, assuming you can even multivariate distinguish that from simply the election being important or not or the candidates being shit or not, which you can't.
On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:
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.
The Civil War is not stopping black people from getting IDs either.
You can just go and read Florida law and it says this, this, and this IDs are acceptable.
"Okay, but what if they abuse it for RACIAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT?"
How exactly would they do that?
"Uhhh I don't know but like the devil must be in the details somewhere there's a super long tradition of Democrats doing it that ended abruptly in the 60s."
I think the devil is just that you aren't paying attention to the details. On purpose or not.
|
United States43952 Posts
On April 25 2026 01:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 00:54 KwarK wrote:
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. Murder laws have disproportionate racial effects in the US. That does not make them racist. They are racially neutral There is a reason to restrict felon voting rights just like felon gun rights. (Independent of whether any one state used to have an arbitrary "moral turpitude" clause which allows capricious squelching of voting rights.) Yet such restrictions will be equally disproportionate as the original felony laws whose offenders they restrict. That's what Virginia has. You think that's racial disenfranchisement? You cannot go "Alabama 1901 Constitution" like a magic spell with a bunch of made-up quotes to poison the well of 21st century voting that we have the full text of and can read for ourselves. Yes the Alabama Constitution could have been bad. That may be why they replaced it. We have over a century of civil rights law and case law since then. You cannot do the same things you used to be able to do. "But if we let a Republican state pass a law requiring people to get ID (which almost all Republican states already have), they might use it to disenfranchise blacks, say by making BS literacy tests like Democrats did 70 years ago or moral turpitude laws like Democrats 120 years ago (which they haven't despite your unhinged alarmism)."You're not enlightening yourself by thinking you're reenacting history's great battles. A given voter ID proposal NOW is either reasonable or it's not. It has nothing to do with race. Every race votes at different rates already. Hispanics 50%, blacks 60%, whites 70%. Hispanics were never fucking enslaved by the hundreds of thousands in the antebellum cotton industry. People vote at different rates because they want to or don't. In 2008 blacks and whites both voted around 65%. Maybe black voters felt more motivated that year. The idea a voter ID is racist because it reduces turnout is implying one racial demographic's candidate preferences are so shit that they can't be bothered to vote if they have to show IDENTIFICATION. That is not the system's problem. You have greater turnout with universal unsecured mail-in voting than without. You have greater turnout with that plus voting by SMS than without. You can have greater turnout by voting by putting ink on your hand after you voted like during the reconstruction of Iraq. You can have the greatest turnout by having no registration or system whatsoever. Some of these systems are appropriate for a modern election in the greatest country in the world, and some aren't, and it has nothing to do with the alleged voting rates in each case, assuming you can even multivariate distinguish that from simply the election being important or not or the candidates being shit or not, which you can't. Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:
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. The Civil War is not stopping black people from getting IDs either. You can just go and read Florida law and it says this, this, and this IDs are acceptable. "Okay, but what if they abuse it for RACIAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT?" How exactly would they do that? "Uhhh I don't know but like the devil must be in the details somewhere there's a super long tradition of Democrats doing it that ended abruptly in the 60s." I think the devil is just that you aren't paying attention to the details. On purpose or not.
“Personally I don’t see how terrorists could possibly abuse nitroglycerin”
Terrorist sympathizers who like to pretend to be idiots
|
United States43952 Posts
On April 25 2026 01:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 01:31 KwarK wrote:https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-noncitizen-voter-roll-removal-mary-howard-elleySummarized from the article Howard-Elley didn’t pay much attention when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott helped fuel that narrative by announcing that the state had removed thousands of supposed noncitizens from its rolls, claiming some had a history of voting.
Then the U.S. citizen learned she was among them.
The elections office in Montgomery County, just north of Houston, had sent Howard-Elley a letter in late January saying that she had been flagged after she indicated that she was not a U.S. citizen in response to a jury summons. She had 30 days to provide the county proof of citizenship or she would be removed from the voter rolls, according to the letter.
Howard-Elley wanted to ensure she could vote. She ordered several copies of her certified Louisiana birth certificate and confirmed receipt with an elections office employee. She thought the matter was resolved.
She didn’t realize her registration was canceled until reporters called her this month. Darla Brooks, the Montgomery County voter registration manager, told both Howard-Elley and the news organizations that she had not been reinstated in March because her birth certificate arrived after the 30-day window she was given to prove her citizenship.
On Oct. 14, Brooks said Howard-Elley had now also missed the registration deadline for this year’s election and would not be able to vote.
Three county election officials gave different answers to the question of whether they would reinstate a voter in Howard-Elley’s situation, though all stressed they would try their best to follow the law.
One said the voter should be reinstated. The other two said they would likely reinstate the voter after the registration deadline only if the county had erred in some way.
“The system is very flawed,” Howard-Elley said. “I feel really sad that we’re in a situation like this. You would think in 2024 we wouldn’t have issues like this.”
She intends to cast her ballot for Trump. Wait, is saying "I am not a citizen" without any proof a way to get out of jury duty? Does the US not know who is a citizen and who is not?
In any case, she insists she never said that. The AI that put her name on the disenfranchise list is asserting that she said it. There’s a faceless system depending on a bunch of officials making unaccountable decisions without any oversight beyond what Pro Publica provide.
Someone put her on the list and forced her to jump through hoops like requesting birth certificates out of state by mail and providing them within a short deadline. Then someone said that even though she provided the documents and was a citizen she couldn’t be reinstated due to the arbitrary deadline and rejected her without telling her, despite a law that says she should have been reinstated. Then someone said that she couldn’t be put back on and wasn’t allowed to vote.
Given the power of deciding who can vote has been given to all these systems for the explicit purpose of abusing it that’s a problem.
|
On April 25 2026 01:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 01:34 Simberto wrote:On April 25 2026 01:31 KwarK wrote:https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-noncitizen-voter-roll-removal-mary-howard-elleySummarized from the article Howard-Elley didn’t pay much attention when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott helped fuel that narrative by announcing that the state had removed thousands of supposed noncitizens from its rolls, claiming some had a history of voting.
Then the U.S. citizen learned she was among them.
The elections office in Montgomery County, just north of Houston, had sent Howard-Elley a letter in late January saying that she had been flagged after she indicated that she was not a U.S. citizen in response to a jury summons. She had 30 days to provide the county proof of citizenship or she would be removed from the voter rolls, according to the letter.
Howard-Elley wanted to ensure she could vote. She ordered several copies of her certified Louisiana birth certificate and confirmed receipt with an elections office employee. She thought the matter was resolved.
She didn’t realize her registration was canceled until reporters called her this month. Darla Brooks, the Montgomery County voter registration manager, told both Howard-Elley and the news organizations that she had not been reinstated in March because her birth certificate arrived after the 30-day window she was given to prove her citizenship.
On Oct. 14, Brooks said Howard-Elley had now also missed the registration deadline for this year’s election and would not be able to vote.
Three county election officials gave different answers to the question of whether they would reinstate a voter in Howard-Elley’s situation, though all stressed they would try their best to follow the law.
One said the voter should be reinstated. The other two said they would likely reinstate the voter after the registration deadline only if the county had erred in some way.
“The system is very flawed,” Howard-Elley said. “I feel really sad that we’re in a situation like this. You would think in 2024 we wouldn’t have issues like this.”
She intends to cast her ballot for Trump. Wait, is saying "I am not a citizen" without any proof a way to get out of jury duty? Does the US not know who is a citizen and who is not? In any case, she insists she never said that. The AI that put her name on the disenfranchise list is asserting that she said it. There’s a faceless system depending on a bunch of officials making unaccountable decisions without any oversight beyond what Pro Publica provide. Someone put her on the list and forced her to jump through hoops like requesting birth certificates out of state by mail and providing them within a short deadline. Then someone said that even though she provided the documents and was a citizen she couldn’t be reinstated due to the arbitrary deadline and rejected her without telling her, despite a law that says she should have been reinstated. Then someone said that she couldn’t be put back on and wasn’t allowed to vote. Given the power of deciding who can vote has been given to all these systems for the explicit purpose of abusing it that’s a problem.
Yeah, i am pretty sure i wouldn't want to have an "unamerican" name in that setup.
|
The "unhinged alarmism" is voter fraud that statistically is so close to nonexistent that it's not even correct to describe it as a rounding error.
This entire conversation, "what if this is the first year Republicans don't try to illegally disenfranchise voters? what then?" is absurd until you find a good excuse for why voter IDs are necessary at all.
|
On April 25 2026 00:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
You got question you got, because you just tried to explain to oBlade that there is massive republican/conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments, by quoting conservative Democrat from 1901. That just doesnt make sense, let alone argument.
On April 25 2026 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
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
So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901?
On April 25 2026 00:59 WombaT wrote:
@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.
Not sure why you @ me here?
|
On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:
So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901?
Yes Razyda. Checking a different party's box on your ballot turns you into a different person entirely, like a werewolf. You got it 100%.
|
On April 25 2026 01:31 KwarK wrote:https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-noncitizen-voter-roll-removal-mary-howard-elleySummarized from the article Show nested quote +Howard-Elley didn’t pay much attention when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott helped fuel that narrative by announcing that the state had removed thousands of supposed noncitizens from its rolls, claiming some had a history of voting.
Then the U.S. citizen learned she was among them.
The elections office in Montgomery County, just north of Houston, had sent Howard-Elley a letter in late January saying that she had been flagged after she indicated that she was not a U.S. citizen in response to a jury summons. She had 30 days to provide the county proof of citizenship or she would be removed from the voter rolls, according to the letter.
Howard-Elley wanted to ensure she could vote. She ordered several copies of her certified Louisiana birth certificate and confirmed receipt with an elections office employee. She thought the matter was resolved.
She didn’t realize her registration was canceled until reporters called her this month. Darla Brooks, the Montgomery County voter registration manager, told both Howard-Elley and the news organizations that she had not been reinstated in March because her birth certificate arrived after the 30-day window she was given to prove her citizenship.
On Oct. 14, Brooks said Howard-Elley had now also missed the registration deadline for this year’s election and would not be able to vote.
Three county election officials gave different answers to the question of whether they would reinstate a voter in Howard-Elley’s situation, though all stressed they would try their best to follow the law.
One said the voter should be reinstated. The other two said they would likely reinstate the voter after the registration deadline only if the county had erred in some way.
“The system is very flawed,” Howard-Elley said. “I feel really sad that we’re in a situation like this. You would think in 2024 we wouldn’t have issues like this.”
She intends to cast her ballot for Trump. leopard eating faces party.
The fact that it happens to these people and they don't even recognise that the leopard is eating their face is just... christ.
|
On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 00:34 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You got question you got, because you just tried to explain to oBlade that there is massive republican/conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments, by quoting conservative Democrat from 1901. That just doesnt make sense, let alone argument. Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
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 So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901? Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 00:59 WombaT wrote:
@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. Not sure why you @ me here?
Isn’t not changing, or even going back, kinda the whole point of conservativism?
|
Northern Ireland26703 Posts
On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 00:34 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You got question you got, because you just tried to explain to oBlade that there is massive republican/conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments, by quoting conservative Democrat from 1901. That just doesnt make sense, let alone argument. Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
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 So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901? Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 00:59 WombaT wrote:
@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. Not sure why you @ me here?
You have previously said disenfranchisement can’t happen because it’s illegal (it isn’t )
Assuming you are not aware of some of these things, I got an LLM to make a short summary based on a prompt consisting of a single sentence.
Take it or leave it, no skin off my dick like.
It’s a thread full of people who broadly know what they’re talking about (and me), it’s like you’re actively trying not to learn anything on any of the topics you pontificate on
|
On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 00:34 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You got question you got, because you just tried to explain to oBlade that there is massive republican/conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments, by quoting conservative Democrat from 1901. That just doesnt make sense, let alone argument. Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
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 So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901?
I said neither of those things in that post.
All I noted is that you pointing out the name of the political party affiliated with someone over a century ago doesn't speak to the platforms of current political parties at all, even if the parties' names haven't changed.
Here's a similar scenario: Most current KKK members who have political affiliations are Republican, because the current Republican party is much more closely aligned with the ultra-conservative ideology of the KKK than the current Democratic party is. If I were to ask those KKK members how they'd feel about currently being a Republican because Lincoln was also a Republican and he fought for the freedom of slaves, those KKK members would probably dismiss the Emancipation Proclamation as an action taken in a different era, by a Republican party leader who isn't at all like the current Republican party leaders, and that times have significantly changed for the Republican party. I'm inclined to agree.
|
United States43952 Posts
If the law from 1901 is still being actively used today then it's still relevant today. I'm not sure how anyone could dispute that.
|
On April 25 2026 02:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 00:34 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You got question you got, because you just tried to explain to oBlade that there is massive republican/conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments, by quoting conservative Democrat from 1901. That just doesnt make sense, let alone argument. On April 25 2026 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
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 So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901? I said neither of those things in that post. All I noted is that you pointing out the name of the political party affiliated with someone over a century ago doesn't speak to the platforms of current political parties at all, even if the parties' names haven't changed. Here's a similar scenario: Most current KKK members who have political affiliations are Republican, because the current Republican party is much more closely aligned with the ultra-conservative ideology of the KKK than the current Democratic party is. If I were to ask those KKK members how they'd feel about currently being a Republican because Lincoln was also a Republican and he fought for the freedom of slaves, those KKK members would probably dismiss the Emancipation Proclamation as an action taken in a different era, by a Republican party leader who isn't at all like the current Republican party leaders, and that times have significantly changed for the Republican party. I'm inclined to agree.
I am not so sure the ultra conservative ideology is 'white only'.
Reagan and the Republicans let the 1965 changes initiated under Johnson to continue. During Reagan's tenure 87 bazillion non-white people immigrated to the USA. In 1986, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty to 3M illegal immigrants. Reagan presided over the trend of non-white people immigrating that started in 1965 and signed a major legalization bill, but he didn’t initiate the demographic shift.
In Canada, Diefenbaker, of the Progressive Conservative party, removed racial and country of origin restrictions on immigration. This facilitated immigration from places like Korea, Pakistan, and India. Check the grad photos of the toughest programs in Canada's #1 tech school. I posted my 2010 photo in the past. Hardly any white people. Pakistan, India, Korea, and a smattering of Trinidad is what you'll see in those photos. By any metric Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker pulled off a smart move in 1962.
The non-white immigrants continued to pour into Canada during both Mulroney's, and Harper's stints as PM. Mulroney and Harper were leaders of the Conservative party.
So, I do not see any 'ideology' happening here. I see pragmatic decision makers.
|
On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901?
People didn't change, for the most part. The leadership of the two parties changed course and adopted new platforms. The rank and file politicians mostly moved between the two parties.
You really are trying hard to play dumb. You only need to consider one question that's been asked several times already: supporters of which party have pro-Confederate sympathies now and how such people used to vote decades ago. But, by all means, keep playing stupid.
|
On April 25 2026 04:24 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 02:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 00:34 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You got question you got, because you just tried to explain to oBlade that there is massive republican/conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments, by quoting conservative Democrat from 1901. That just doesnt make sense, let alone argument. On April 25 2026 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
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 So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901? I said neither of those things in that post. All I noted is that you pointing out the name of the political party affiliated with someone over a century ago doesn't speak to the platforms of current political parties at all, even if the parties' names haven't changed. Here's a similar scenario: Most current KKK members who have political affiliations are Republican, because the current Republican party is much more closely aligned with the ultra-conservative ideology of the KKK than the current Democratic party is. If I were to ask those KKK members how they'd feel about currently being a Republican because Lincoln was also a Republican and he fought for the freedom of slaves, those KKK members would probably dismiss the Emancipation Proclamation as an action taken in a different era, by a Republican party leader who isn't at all like the current Republican party leaders, and that times have significantly changed for the Republican party. I'm inclined to agree. I am not so sure the ultra conservative ideology is 'white only'. Reagan and the Republicans let the 1965 changes initiated under Johnson to continue. During Reagan's tenure 87 bazillion non-white people immigrated to the USA. In 1986, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty to 3M illegal immigrants. Reagan presided over the trend of non-white people immigrating that started in 1965 and signed a major legalization bill, but he didn’t initiate the demographic shift. In Canada, Diefenbaker, of the Progressive Conservative party, removed racial and country of origin restrictions on immigration. This facilitated immigration from places like Pakistan and India. Check the grad photos of the toughest programs in Canada's #1 tech school. I posted my 2010 photo in the past. Hardly any white people. Pakistan, India, Korea, and a smattering of Trinidad is what you'll see in those photos. By any metric Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker pulled off a smart move in 1962. The non-white immigrants continued to pour into Canada during both Mulroney's, and Harper's stints as PM. Mulroney and Harper were leaders of the Conservative party. So, I do not see any 'ideology' happening here. I see pragmatic decision makers.
You certainly have the freedom to believe that the KKK is more aligned with Republicans because they are "pragmatic decision makers", as opposed to anything related to aligning conservative ideology or aligning racist behavior. Maybe that's also why Confederate flags are disproportionately owned by Republicans too... the whole "pragmatism" thing. Sure.
Regardless, that doesn't detract from the thesis of my post, which is that parties change over time, even if those parties' names stay the same. Lincoln's Republican party, Reagan's Republican party, and Trump's Republican party are clearly not all identical.
|
Northern Ireland26703 Posts
On April 25 2026 04:25 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901? People didn't change, for the most part. The leadership of the two parties changed course and adopted new platforms. The rank and file politicians mostly moved between the two parties. You really are trying hard to play dumb. You only need to consider one question that's been asked several times already: supporters of which party have pro-Confederate sympathies now and how such people used to vote decades ago. But, by all means, keep playing stupid.
I mean, Christians are super scary because of the Crusades and various religious wars in Europe, nothing has changed in the interim that’s of any relevance
Of all the ridiculous arguments, this one for me takes the bleedin’ biscuit
|
United States43952 Posts
You can’t use “why are you bringing up X, that’s ancient history” while you’re still actively doing X.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
