***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Belgium]

What have Voter ID laws in this country historically been used for? Who have they been used against? Why do you continually play stupid about this, as a supposed black man from the south?

It doesn't appear that he's arguing voter ID laws can't be discriminatory and generally conservatives in this thread have refused to acknowedge any existence of voter suppression in any form. It's progress I suppose.

In theory it shouldn't be discriminatory and courts can't always find sufficient ground to block voter ID laws on grounds of discriminatory targeting but in practice that is what typically motivates those kind of laws. The official stated reason is always voter fraud, which is an extremely rare crime in any part of the US.

Of course there have been plenty of examples of voter ID laws being struck down entirely or in part due to racially discriminatory intent and/or effects.
North Carolina is the prime example of that. Aside from establishing strict voter ID requirements,t heir voter ID law also reduced the early-voting period by a week and ended same-day voter registrations.

In combination with the state's voter ID law that was partially struck down for "targeting African-Americans with surgical precision", the Republican controlled state legislature and local GOP officials also took a number of other steps to suppress black voters.

A number of North Carolina counties' boards of election eliminated voting on Sunday during the first week of early voting. They also closed polling stations in specific locations with higher African-American populations.
Some counties also purged black voters from voter registration rolls and were successfully sued by the North Carolina NAACP who argued that the purges targeted black voters in a discriminatory manner.

 

[Mark Antony]

The only modern politican that has benefited from more right wing revisionist history than McCain, is Reagan.

As a kid I was a fan of his before I knew his politics because I wanted to be Top Gun and ****. But I'm not going to ignore the state of fear he created in AZ for immigrants or his voting against mlk day etc. And I especially won't be goaded into guilt by people that cheered Trump on when he insulted him in the past, now with the fake moral outrage again.

 

[dacomeup]

The official stated reason is always voter fraud, which is an extremely rare crime in any part of the US.

Which is why the statement is complete bull ****. If you're in support of Voter ID laws, the question is why?

Discriminatory intent is a legal standard. That's much harder to prove, and shifts based upon who we have on the courts. When someone like dwalk is talking about "these discussions are important", I want to know why Voter ID Laws are important from HIS standpoint. Telling me how conservatives rationalize them legally by saying having them disparately affect black and brown people without "discriminatory intent" isn't necessary.

 

[RustyShackleford]

It doesn't appear that he's arguing voter ID laws can't be discriminatory and generally conservatives in this thread have refused to acknowedge any existence of voter suppression in any form. It's progress I suppose.

In theory it shouldn't be discriminatory and courts can't always find sufficient ground to block voter ID laws on grounds of discriminatory targeting but in practice that is what typically motivates those kind of laws. The official stated reason is always voter fraud, which is an extremely rare crime in any part of the US.

Of course there have been plenty of examples of voter ID laws being struck down entirely or in part due to racially discriminatory intent and/or effects.
North Carolina is the prime example of that. Aside from establishing strict voter ID requirements,t heir voter ID law also reduced the early-voting period by a week and ended same-day voter registrations.

In combination with the state's voter ID law that was partially struck down for "targeting African-Americans with surgical precision", the Republican controlled state legislature and local GOP officials also took a number of other steps to suppress black voters.

A number of North Carolina counties' boards of election eliminated voting on Sunday during the first week of early voting. They also closed polling stations in specific locations with higher African-American populations.
Some counties also purged black voters from voter registration rolls and were successfully sued by the North Carolina NAACP who argued that the purges targeted black voters in a discriminatory manner.

This is how systematic white supremacy works in America, pass laws that in theory might people of any color, but in practice disproportionately hurt minorities, specially African Americans.

Zero tolerance policies in schools

Gerrymandering

Stop-n-Frisk

Voter ID laws.

Sure it may seem reasonable to entertain conservative "what ifs" on these issues but these policies help lock in conservatice rule . They have helped plunder and oppress black people for decade, are unnecessary, and there are better alternatives, but it will hurt the GOP, soooo nahhh.

Chasing around most conservatives like D Walk with gentle explanations to see the light on such things is near futile. He wants folk to fall into the civility trap. So he can never face what kind of ****** up systems he gives tacit support to.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Which is why the statement is complete bull ****. If you're in support of Voter ID laws, the question is why?

Discriminatory intent is a legal standard. That's much harder to prove, and shifts based upon who we have on the courts. When someone like dwalk is talking about "these discussions are important", I want to know why Voter ID Laws are important from HIS standpoint. Telling me how conservatives rationalize them legally by saying having them disparately affect black and brown people without "discriminatory intent" isn't necessary.

This.

Most conservatives know that stopping voter ID laws will boost black voting which hurts them, so why should they care. Same goes for purging voter rolls, gerrymandering, closing DMVs, refusing to give ex-felons back their voting rights, banning straight ticket voting, restricting early voting, being against mail in voting, or moving away from first pass the ballot, or securing of elections from Russia, or anything else that improves turnout or making things more democratic.

Like David Frum said, the GOP knows their current platform can't win with the entire voting age public . So they will be against promoting anything that improves turnout, because it hurts them at the ballot box.

Screw morals, screw principles, screw fair representation, screw democracy if that means it helps the other guy.

 

[DADDYFATSACKS]

Will the public be able to visit Mccain’s Grave?

 

[blastercombo]

“Show ignored content”?

Lol


Nope

 

[RustyShackleford]

Will the public be able to visit Mccain’s Grave?

Please don't go desecrating the man's grave.

 

[DADDYFATSACKS]

Please don't go desecrating the man's grave.

That’s the plan. Just can’t get caught doing it

 

[elpablo21]

 

[IATT]

 

[blastercombo]

Hope that guy goes brain dead for a bit first so his family can see him that way

 

[dwalk31]

Smh

 

[dwalk31]

It is not a "position" that an overwhelming majority of regular posters in this thread over the past ~2 years who happen to identify as conservative have categorically denied the existence and possibility of voter suppression, including selectively closing polling stations, DMVs, ... with discriminatory intent.

There were many such discussions about various forms of voter suppression, not just some applications of voter ID laws.
In fact I specifically noted "certain kinds of voter ID practices" in my post, which you appear to disregard in your last sentence. Parts of North Carolina's voter ID law were struck down for example in a court ruling that argued certain parts of the law "targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision" with discriminatory intent.

I would also hope that most people on both sides can agree that voter suppression exists and believe that many do in fact agree on that. However when it comes to this thread that was not the case.


They did in fact argue unequivocally against the existence of voter suppression, some even going further on other topics and arguing that 'systemic racism' is a complete and total fabrication.

Even when it was explained to them that systemic racism encompasses many different aspects. For example people of color and specifically African-Americans face statistical disadvantages in the housing and job market, receive significantly longer sentences on average than whites convicted of similar crimes, face a disadvantage on loan applications, police treatment, ...
In NYC for example, black and latino individuals accounted for ~80-85% or so of stop and frisk searches year after year whereas whites only averaged about 10% of stops.
That continued for a number of years despite the NYPD's own records showing whites carried both weapons and contraband at higher rates.

Most of those same individuals, including an NYC resident, in fact supported NYC’s implementation of stop and frisk despite it being ruled unconstitutional in NYC. That same NYC resident also advocated for nationwide stop and frisk.

Yet still they categorically described any suggestion of systemic racism as a leftist fable.
A number of those individuals also argued that ‘white privilege’ had no merit whatsoever and was just another leftist fable.


As I said there are some exceptions such as yourself. Rico x Hood's views were a lot more nuanced than others' categorical denials. I'm not aware of Inthehallway's views on the matter.


As I mentioned, I don’t think anyone was surprised when aside from a few exceptions those individuals were later banned for overtly racist remarks ranging all the way up to nazi apologism in CL-1B’s case.
In fact one of them (Blco2) even made an alt to come back with the same shtick and was perm banned once again.

I have repeatedly advocated for more conservative posters. I don’t take any inherrent issue with conservatism or conservatives and will gladly discuss with anyone, whether I like them or not.
However this thread has for the most part attracted some of the bad apples in a large percentage of cases. With some exceptions of course. This is evidenced by the sheer number and percentage of bans for overtly racist remarks.

There would be a lot more conservative regulars if those individuals simply refrained from making the kind of overtly racist transgressions that got them perm banned from NT.

In all honesty does it really seem far fetched to you that a group of individuals who have since been banned for racism argued that voter suppression is non-existant amongst other things?

You're right. You just identified a particular group on Niketalk. I was moreso talking about the idea that "all conservatives" feel a certain way. In fairness, you didn't say that. My mistake.

 

[Belgium]

Excerpt:
The Journal reported in May that Mr. Cohen helped a major donor to President Trump’s inauguration pitch a nuclear-power investment to the Qatari sovereign-wealth fund. The pitch came in early April, shortly before federal authorities raided Mr. Cohen’s office, apartment and hotel room.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/michae...eveals-link-to-qatari-royal-family-1535127732
Michael Cohen Guilty Plea Reveals Link to Qatari Royal Family
Trump’s former lawyer received a $100,000 brokerage fee for a Florida real-estate deal in which he represented a company owned by Sheikh Abdul Aziz

A $100,000 real-estate brokerage fee that was part of former Trump attorneyMichael Cohen’s guilty plea Tuesday came from representing a company owned by a member of the Qatar royal family, according to interviews and real-estate documents.

Mr. Cohen admitted to failing to pay taxes on more than $4 million in income, among other felonies. That income included what prosecutors described as $100,000 in 2014 from “brokering the sale of a piece of property in a private aviation community in Ocala, Florida.”

The community is a fly-in development named Jumbolair, said Frank Merschman, who owns the development. Mr. Merschman said he bought some property in 2014 from a Qatari company, and Mr. Cohen represented the seller, Abdul Aziz Althani Holdings Inc.

That company is owned by a member of the Qatar royal family, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Jassim bin Hamad Al-Thani, 62 years old, according to the Panama Papers, documents from a Panamanian law firm obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, and shared with The Wall Street Journal.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz and his attorneys didn’t respond to requests for comment. He was described in the Panama Papers as a major shareholder in two Qatari banks.

Lanny Davis, an attorney for Mr. Cohen, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The Journal reported in May that Mr. Cohen helped a major donor to President Trump’s inauguration pitch a nuclear-power investment to the Qatari sovereign-wealth fund. The pitch came in early April, shortly before federal authorities raided Mr. Cohen’s office, apartment and hotel room.

Mr. Merschman said the Qatari company owned several properties adjacent to Jumbolair, and he initially bought one through a tax-foreclosure auction. He said he then received a call from Mr. Cohen, who said the owner, being in Qatar, hadn’t realized taxes were overdue and wanted to repurchase the property.

When Mr. Merschman declined that offer, he said, Mr. Cohen later offered to sell him two other properties owned by the Qatari company. “I don’t know how they knew each other, but [Mr. Cohen] knew all the people,” Mr. Merschman said. “He had done work for Mr. Aziz.”

In 2005, Abdul Aziz Althani Holdings paid Mr. Trump’s company $6.2 million for a fourth-floor condominium in Trump Park Avenue, New York property records show. Mr. Cohen owns a condo on the 10th floor of that building.

Mr. Merschman’s company in May 2014 paid $650,000 for the two additional properties, county real-estate records show. Mr. Merschman said he didn’t pay Mr. Cohen’s brokerage fee directly, but understands the fee was paid through a former owner of the property who was working for him at the time.

Mr. Merschman said the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed him a few months ago about the transaction, and “I cooperated with them 100%.”

Relevant article (August 2 2018 )
https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-tr...ush-sources-say-1533245330?mod=article_inline
Top Trump Donor Agreed to Pay Michael Cohen $10 Million for Nuclear Project Push
Consulting deal with Franklin L. Haney could have been among the most lucrative struck by president’s then-personal attorney

 

[dwalk31]

What have Voter ID laws in this country historically been used for? Who have they been used against? Why do you continually play stupid about this, as a supposed black man from the south?

I take issue with "supposed." I am not denying the history. But historically what has Christianity been used for in this country? Who has it been used against?

We can go down the history road, for sure. But I was just making a factual statement.

 

[dwalk31]

Hope that guy goes brain dead for a bit first so his family can see him that way

You're better.

 

[Wargames]

I take issue with "supposed." I am not denying the history. But historically what has Christianity been used for in this country? Who has it been used against?

We can go down the history road, for sure. But I was just making a factual statement.

 

[dwalk31]

Which is why the statement is complete bull ****. If you're in support of Voter ID laws, the question is why?

Discriminatory intent is a legal standard. That's much harder to prove, and shifts based upon who we have on the courts. When someone like dwalk is talking about "these discussions are important", I want to know why Voter ID Laws are important from HIS standpoint. Telling me how conservatives rationalize them legally by saying having them disparately affect black and brown people without "discriminatory intent" isn't necessary.

It appears our goal is the same. I am not sure what your issue is. We both are against voter discrimination and suppression. If, by chance, a voter ID was just required in a primarily white and affluent neighborhood, then I am sure you would not take issue with it. My only statement was that the laws aren't de facto discriminatory. I take it you agree with that as a fact.

I think what Belgium spoke to earlier is the real issue. Many in here try to attach positions to me based on what they have heard from others who they feel share my beliefs. There are some laws that are made with the intent to discriminate and suppress minority votes. It is disgusting.

 

[dacomeup]

I take issue with "supposed." I am not denying the history. But historically what has Christianity been used for in this country? Who has it been used against?

We can go down the history road, for sure. But I was just making a factual statement.

Christianity has nothing to do with this. I also could give a **** less about Christianity, so that doesn't appeal to me at all. Nice goal post move, though.

 

[rexanglorum]

Old racism: black in the back of the bus.
New racism: defund regional mass transit

Old racism: segregated schools
New racism: create small public school districts and price black people out of it

Old racism: rigged literacy tests, klan at polling places
New racism: use various measures to reduce black turnout and render the entire black vote in your state into something to be ignored

Old racism: freed slaves can’t assemble in public of be out at night
New racism: stop and frisk, profiling, “quality of life arrest”

On and on it goes. It’s not like the old days, you don’t have to categorically and explicitly make non white people into second class citizens. In fact, new white supremacy rests on the fact that in theory, black people could do whatever a white person wants. You just make doing those things more expensive tiresome and risky for black folks. Those inducements at the margin then make it so that in practice black people are still second class citizens.

 

[dwalk31]

Christianity has nothing to do with this. I also could give a **** less about Christianity, so that doesn't appeal to me at all. Nice goal post move, though.

Wasn't a move goal post move. I'm aware Christianity is unrelated. It was analogous to your argument. I basically highlighted a fallacy, but you knew that.

 

[aepps20]

Global Guts was just liberal propaganda. Trying to infect the minds of the children.

Only real Americans can climb the Aggro Crag

Well said comrade. Even as a youth I could spot Lib conjecture and innuendo a mile away. Global guts with their translators and backstories made me sick. I saw Belgium on their once. He destroyed the Libs and wore a #MBGA hat.

 

[dacomeup]

. If, by chance, a voter ID was just required in a primarily white and affluent neighborhood, then I am sure you would not take issue with it.

Ah, your selective deductions are back. You can deduce what my feelings are sentiments would be about an issue now. Noted. We don't have a problem with Voter fraud in this country. I see no need to waste time on effecting Voter ID laws anywhere. If anything, we should be trying to make it easier for people to vote in this country. I'm in support of making Election Day a national holiday, as it is in many countries around the world.a

Making up a stupid hypothetical does nothing here, as white people have not had black people continually denying them the right to vote, or placing countless obstacles, whether that be physical violence, poll tax, literacy tests and the list goes on. Voting has not been made difficult for people in rich neighborhoods throughout the history of this country. So what exactly does this comparison do?

 

[gry60]

If, by chance, a voter ID was just required in a primarily white and affluent neighborhood, then I am sure you would not take issue with it.

The Voter ID laws were introduced in 2013.

Do you know what else happened in 2013?

Congress didn't extend the provisions included in the voting rights act that would require the election process of the southern states that practiced Jim Crow laws to be under supervision of the federal government.

Why did the legislatures of those states wait until then?

Furthermore, the number of cases of voter fraud reported and prosecuted in the US since the early 2000's is in the tens, and is compared to 100s of millions of votes. In other words, the number of voter fraud cases is statistically insignificant.

Why pass laws that address a non-existent problem?