***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[blastercombo]

block feature working. Again, everyone, just block them and they’ll go away and make fries

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

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.

And I stand by mine as well. Regardless of intent, Policies that have a disparate impact on people of color are truly disgusting. Intent is important for litigation for sure, but I don’t draw my lines for morality based on what can be argued in court.

But to tie it back to your og point, my disgust lies with outcome. That’s the thing about racism and white supremacy. You can enable it and prop it up whether you know it or not. But that’s got nothing to do with establishing precedence in a court room.

 

[whywesteppin]

Trump worries Mueller interview will be a "perjury trap."

translation: Trump is 100% sure he's going to commit perjury.

 

[dacomeup]

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.

So is your personal standard that disparate impact isn't enough either? Because we see these states repeatedly try and suppress the vote, and it is pretty evident historically who vote suppression affects.

 

[dacomeup]

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

Meh, def not defending dude at all but I'm a lawyer and spend a fair amount of time on here.

 

[getback]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

 

[getback]

Meh, def not defending dude at all but I'm a lawyer and spend a fair amount of time on here.

Yeah I was genuinely asking because all of the criminal lawyers I dealt with were non-stop 80hrs/week, wound up balls of stress

 

[blastercombo]

Meh, def not defending dude at all but I'm a lawyer and spend a fair amount of time on here.

Did you also make pay for all your schooling working entry level fast food for 4 years?

 

[getback]

 

[dacomeup]

Yeah I was genuinely asking because all of the criminal lawyers I dealt with were non-stop 80hrs/week, wound up balls of stress

I'm a corporate lawyer. Some weeks are non-stop craziness but some weeks have their lulls to them. A lot of the bankers are on holiday in August so the work flow significantly slows down around this time.

Do you also make pay for all you schooling working entertaining level fast food for 4 years?

No, nor do I think that is remotely possible for one to do.

 

[rolaholic]

 

[fargin]

Me: APOLOGIES FOR WHAT ? !

 

[dwalk31]

Yeah I was genuinely asking because all of the criminal lawyers I dealt with were non-stop 80hrs/week, wound up balls of stress

Yea man, I don't do criminal, but that criminal lawyer grind is no joke.

 

[dwalk31]

So is your personal standard that disparate impact isn't enough either? Because we see these states repeatedly try and suppress the vote, and it is pretty evident historically who vote suppression affects.

It's not that I don't think it is enough... I guess the question is enough for what? To be disgusting? I think that everyone in here agrees voter suppression is bad/wrong. I think the best way to address it is attacking it from the discriminatory intent way, because I think that mere impact makes it too broad to have any meaning. The example I gave kind of demonstrates the point.

 

[blastercombo]

Yeah..... why not??

 

[gry60]

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

I wanna know how closing the majority of voting stations in a county is a socioeconomic issue. I am very curious.

 

[kdawg]

That was hilarious - he was nodding along and then started to look suspicious.

 

[gry60]

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.

Can you point us to studies that defend the hypothesis in bold?

 

[dwalk31]

Can you point us to studies that defend the hypothesis in bold?

The double standard in this thread is remarkable. On the one hand, deductive reasoning is an important skill, and the initial article (void of any cited study) was sufficient to show a disparate impact. But, on the other hand, you ask me for a study.

To answer your question directly, no. And you don't need a study to state what one could argue.

 

[gry60]

And I stand by mine as well. Regardless of intent, Policies that have a disparate impact on people of color are truly disgusting. Intent is important for litigation for sure, but I don’t draw my lines for morality based on what can be argued in court.

But to tie it back to your og point, my disgust lies with outcome. That’s the thing about racism and white supremacy. You can enable it and prop it up whether you know it or not. But that’s got nothing to do with establishing precedence in a court room.

If legality confirms morality, dwalk31 should definitely not have a problem with the 13th amendment.

You know, the one that prescribes slavery as a punishment for crimes...

But I just remembered how disgusted he tends to be when black people's human rights are infriged upon. So what is it?

 

[dwalk31]

If legality confirms morality, dwalk31 should definitely not have a problem with the 13th amendment.

You know, the one that prescribes slavery as a punishment for crimes...

But I just remembered how disgusted he tends to be when black people's human rights are infriged upon. So what is it?

I never said legality confirms morality. Perhaps you meant to mention another poster.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[gry60]

The double standard in this thread is remarkable. On the one hand, deductive reasoning is an important skill, and the initial article (void of any cited study) was sufficient to show a disparate impact. But, on the other hand, you ask me for a study.

To answer your question directly, no. And you don't need a study to state what one could argue.

The article describes a phenomenon (voter suppression) that has been studied by political scientists for decades, and whose studies have shown a clear and consistent link between voting center closures and drops in number of voters. So it isn't speculative.

You, on the other hand, have made an assertion that you don't want to defend. Then, you complain that your opinions are not taken seriously.

 

[dwalk31]

The article describes a phenomenon (voter suppression) that has been studied by political scientists for decades, and whose studies have shown a clear and consistent link between voting center closures and drops in number of voters. So it isn't speculative.

You, on the other hand, have made an assertion that you don't want to defend. Then, you complain that your opinions are not taken seriously.

You have cited no such study, to be clear. And I said that one could argue it. It is a logical conclusion that inability to drive to a polling location (because of a lack of car insurance) would suppress voter turnout. I feel that it is too attenuated to matter. Which is why I said focusing solely on a disparate impact is not the best method. It is too broad.

I have no issue with it being speculative. It is a political discussion thread. It is, understandably, filled with speculation.

 

[RustyShackleford]

You are such a hypocrite because when you want to deflect and downplay someone else's point you ask for proof/evidence/studies.

How you have a issue with one holding you to the same standards you demand of others.

Oh please, **** off with this schtick. Either engage in good faith or admit you are a troll.