***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[nomnom]

The reason why Libby women are so fat and their “men” are so scrawny is because they don’t have Chris Hayes, Amy Goodman and the Chapo Trap House boy’s arent telling them to take supplements.

The right wing defenders of Western Civilization are in tippy top shape because no matter what patriotic news they consume, the host will remind them to take various health products. In fact, those hosts are so kind they’ll tell the listener exactly where to get the health products.

I’ve noticed that right wingers really only have like 2 cartoonists to always share online LOL

Im like THIS BEN GARRISON GUY AGAIN?

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[gry60]

Just waiting for the increase in US casualties abroad when the military can no longer dangle US citizenship in front of locals' faces in exchange for cooperation.

"Winning wars is easy" - DJT.

 

[ksteezy]

Aepps not getting that shout out yet

Is he asking Sean Hannity for advice??...lol

 

[dwalk31]

Does intent even matter is the result impacts black voter turnout? If people’s ability to vote was as activeley preserved as people’s ability to buy guns, something like this wouldn’t even be entertained.

Of course intent matters. You don't think it would be truly disgusting if that was their intent?

 

[dwalk31]

Aepps not getting that shout out yet

Isn't Phillip Mud white? And Trump mentioned his mental condition. Seems to support my theory that his tweet insults are race-neutral.

 

[dwalk31]

Totality of circumstances is pretty convincing, no? Don't know why you need a smoking gun for every situation. As a lawyer, I'd think you'd understand that.

Discriminatory intent would be a large consideration in the totality of the circumstances, no? Surely you know the current standard is not merely disparate impact.

 

[leavemeglazzies]

If that statue indeed is a monument to racism, then it is absoultely despicable.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Of course intent matters. You don't think it would be truly disgusting if that was their intent?

That’s not the point. Whether the intention was good or bad, if it results in crippling people’s ability to vote it shouldn’t be an option. Like I’ve mentioned before, white supremacy isn’t just about the means, it’s about the ends too.

 

[whywesteppin]

COAL GANG SHOUTOUT ALERT



Coal Gang HQ right now:

 

[plansb]

The coal gang bat signal is up. Time to assemble

 

[dwalk31]

That’s not the point. Whether the intention was good or bad, if it results in crippling people’s ability to vote it shouldn’t be an option. Like I’ve mentioned before, white supremacy isn’t just about the means, it’s about the ends too.

Your position, in my opinion, is far too broad to implement practically. Especially when the issue is largely socio-economic.

 

[dwalk31]

For what it’s worth, it’s exchanges like this that make you fall out of favor with a lot of people here in this thread. Whether you believe it or not, you’re coming off as if black voter suppression is bad if the intent is suppressing the black vote, but implying that under other Circumstances (known only to you) there may be reasonable intention to suppress an areas black vote. That’s how you’re coming off

I understand your point. But that is a knee-jerk reaction to my post. When thought about carefully, showing intent is better for the Plaintiffs in these cases. It helps to establish clear ways to show intent for race-based discrimination in relation to voter's rights laws.

To be clear, it is never reasonable to intentionally suppress black votes.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Your position, in my opinion, is far too broad to implement practically. Especially when the issue is largely socio-economic.

You’re saying that policy makers and influencers understanding that their decisions, whether well intended or not, can have far reaching implications on people of color, or of a specific community and they should understand that, is not possible?

For what it’s worth, it’s exchanges like this that make you fall out of favor with a lot of people here in this thread. Whether you believe it or not, you’re coming off as if black voter suppression is bad if the intent is suppressing the black vote, but implying that under other Circumstances (known only to you) there may be reasonable intention to suppress an areas black vote. That’s how you’re coming off. Sounds like I’m listening to Jordan Peterson.

 

[rolaholic]

AMAZING news for coal gang
comrade @aepps20

 

[dwalk31]

You’re saying that policy makers and influencers understanding that their decisions, whether well intended or not, can have far reaching implications on people of color, or of a specific community and they should understand that, is not possible?

I think it is completely possible for them to understand that. But your position is far to broad to realistically implement. Arguably, many laws result in voter suppression. One could plausibly argue that a requirement for car insurance to drive has a disparate impact on minority voters and results in voter suppression. That is why I said your position is too broad. A more narrow focus accomplishes the goal (reducing/ending voter suppression) better than focusing solely on the disparate impact. That is just in my opinion. It appears we agree that voter suppression, especially as it relates to minority and low-income communities, is awful.

 

[dacomeup]

Discriminatory intent would be a large consideration in the totality of the circumstances, no? Surely you know the current standard is not merely disparate impact.

I'm not talking about the Constitutionality of this, clearly. I was just talking about your daily "if the intent was ___", "if they mean to do ____" then it is disgusting shtick. Just find it funny how you need a smoking gun for everything. You can't deduce from repeated actions and the history of these places what people are trying to do? Aren't you a black man from the south?

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

I think it is completely possible for them to understand that. But your position is far to broad to realistically implement. Arguably, many laws result in voter suppression. One could plausibly argue that a requirement for car insurance to drive has a disparate impact on minority voters and results in voter suppression. That is why I said your position is too broad. A more narrow focus accomplishes the goal (reducing/ending voter suppression) better than focusing solely on the disparate impact. That is just in my opinion. It appears we agree that voter suppression, especially as it relates to minority and low-income communities, is awful.

I don’t think the goal is as broad as you’re making it seem in this case. There are no degrees of separation forcing you to bend and twist to make conclusions. If this specific action leads to less people being able to vote without some kind of contingency plan to mitigate it, the impact and who it impacts is clear. That doesn’t change regardless of whether or not the intent was nefarious

 

[dwalk31]

I'm not talking about the Constitutionality of this, clearly. I was just talking about your daily "if the intent was ___", "if they mean to do ____" then it is disgusting shtick. Just find it funny how you need a smoking gun for everything. You can't deduce from repeated actions and the history of these places what people are trying to do? Aren't you a black man from the south?

In fairness, you brought up the "totality of the circumstances" and being a lawyer. I thought it was clear that you were talking about some constitutional standard. And a smoking gun isn't necessary for everything. I like to think that I am pretty good with deduction, but obviously not in this situation, since I misunderstood your post.

But yea, I'm a black dude from Decatur.

 

[cashbanks]

page upon page spent entertaining absolute nonsense for what?

 

[getback]

In fairness, you brought up the "totality of the circumstances" and being a lawyer. I thought it was clear that you were talking about some constitutional standard. And a smoking gun isn't necessary for everything. I like to think that I am pretty good with deduction, but obviously not in this situation, since I misunderstood your post.

But yea, I'm a black dude from Decatur.

Are you a PT attorney? Just asking because you seem to have a lot of time for NT.

 

[dwalk31]

I don’t think the goal is as broad as you’re making it seem in this case. There are no degrees of separation forcing you to bend and twist to make conclusions. If this specific action leads to less people being able to vote without some kind of contingency plan to mitigate it, the impact and who it impacts is clear. That doesn’t change regardless of whether or not the intent was nefarious

We can agree to disagree on how important intent is. If you notice in the article, the ACLU is arguing that the closings were done with a discriminatory intent--not that they would merely have a disparate impact. If they win, then similar closings will have a precedent of having a discriminatory intent. That is why it is so important to narrow the focus, in my opinion.

I stand by my initial statement. If this was done with a discriminatory intent, then it is truly disgusting.

 

[dwalk31]

Are you a PT attorney? Just asking because you seem to have a lot of time for NT.

I'm not. But I spend a lot of time on the computer. Some days are more busy than others. I'm not in court that often.

What do you do?

 

[getback]

I'm not. But I spend a lot of time on the computer. Some days are more busy than others. I'm not in court that often.

What do you do?

eCommerce, but trying to get back in the CJ system.