***Official Political Discussion Thread***

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?

It isn't a comparison. My statement was that the laws are not discriminatory, on their face. That's it. I share your disgust with the historical discrimination and suppression of minority votes. Especially those practices in majority-black neighborhoods. You mistake my position as some sort of endorsement for bigotry--it isn't.
 
Let's not fall victim to the same black and white thinking that got us "both sides are the same" and "what do you have to lose."

Was McCain a bad politician and did his actions end up hurting Americans? Yes.

Is he as bad as Trump? Hell no.

Did he do some courageous things in his life? Yes, more than most Americans can claim.

The sad thing in all this is that I bet Trump will say something nice about him when he dies and the front page news for the next month will be about how Trump was Christian and gracious enough to offer condolences to his enemy, etc etc.

Anyway, my only point is that we shouldn't purity test our way out of everything.
 
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.

Have you ever heard of the fallacy fallacy?


Will not be praising McCain as I've seen others doing online. **** cancer though.
 
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.


number two.
 
IMG_20180824_154222.jpg
 
It isn't a comparison. My statement was that the laws are not discriminatory, on their face. That's it. I share your disgust with the historical discrimination and suppression of minority votes. Especially those practices in majority-black neighborhoods. You mistake my position as some sort of endorsement for bigotry--it isn't.
And I've been clear in my position that the legal standard is much higher to reach. Endorsing these laws just because they Republicans continually find work arounds is no different in my eyes. There's a reason why one party is the one who is consistently seeking to legislate Voter ID, gerrymandering, etc. And acting as if they aren't just because it isn't legally "discriminatory on its face" is bs, and you know it.
 
Another reminder why it is a bad idea to declare total victory after a handshake. North Korea talks stalling will come as a surprise to few people but it shows the complexity of the problem.
The NK problem has existed for many years and will take a whole lot more than a handshake and signing a non-binding commitment pledge. While the summit is undoubtedly a historic moment, North Korea is no stranger to pledging commitment or coming to some kind of agreement only to swiftly disregard it and continue as if no such negotiations took place. They have done this numerous times and it appears Trump is slowly learning that lesson.

A lesson he clearly had to be taught:
June 13:


June 15:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-sit-up-to-attention-like-north-koreans-video
Trump on North Korean nuclear threat: 'I have solved that problem' – video

June 16:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...go-to-north-korea-1535132989?mod=hp_lead_pos2
Trump Says Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Won’t Go to North Korea
Trump cites lack of progress on denuclearization
President Trump said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is canceling his trip to North Korea planned for next week due to a lack of progress in nuclear talks with Pyongyang.
“I have asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not to go to North Korea, at this time, because I feel we are not making sufficient progress with respect to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” Mr. Trump said on Twitter.
Mr. Trump also said he believed China was no longer cooperating on denuclearization as closely as it had in the past, which he said was due to the U.S. trade fight with the country. He said Mr. Pompeo would travel to North Korea after the U.S. had resolved its current trade dispute with China.

“Because of our much tougher Trading stance with China, I do not believe they are helping with the process of denuclearization as they once were,” Mr. Trump tweeted.

Trade talks between the U.S. and China failed to produce any visible sign of progress this week, reducing the prospects of a deal soon, people closely tracking the talks said.
Mr. Pompeo and the newly appointed Special Representative to North Korea, Stephen Biegun, had been expected to visit both countries in their trip to the region.
 
The timing of these laws related to voting is important to look at. In the early 2000's the GOP shifted its electoral strategy. Its plan was to hold its white majority with appeals to white supremacy but it would offshore its white supremacy, instead of being told to fear Americans blacks and Latino immigrants, we were told to fear the Muslims in the Middle East. Meanwhile, evangelical Christianity acted as a bridge to Democratic constituencies. All this was sweetened with modest Keynesian economics and expanded child tax credits that would act a de facto natalist incentive and while wages were stagnant, houses were easy to finance and they would always increase in value.

In the face of a sclerotic Democratic Party that tried to be culturally peacnik and hawkish, that was anti union but also made rhetorical swipes at big business and appeared anti growth, that was defined by bourgeoisie environmentalism and who tried to be socially liberal but not too socially liberal, the future, for many young people and people of color circa 2003 was in working for low wages, starting a family and buying a house in the exoburbs in the sunbelt.

On the aggregate that was the case. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but his party picked up seats in 2002 and in 2004 he won the popular vote and his party controlled congress. He expanded his margins with young voters, black voters and Latino voters. He won 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties at the time. The mode among the GOP's chattering class was excitement and a belief that majoritarianism in politics was good thing because they had just won the majority and looked to hold that majority for the foreseeable future. true, Bush did not breach the Democrats' blue wall in 2004 but he won everywhere else and over time, the census would mark growth in red, sunbelt states and ensure greater GOP wins in the future.

In retrospect, the GOP peaked in its ability to win largely fair elections. Its white majority hungered for more overt and domestic racial appeals. The Democratic Party grew a backbone over Iraq at least and started a 50 state strategy. The still very young millennial generation turned out not to be as religious as expected and the GOP lost the House and senate in 2006. Then it turned out that Houses do not indefinitely increase in value and that there are not enough decent jobs for everyone. In 2008 a black man from Chicago easily won the White House and the Democratic Party won states that had seemed very safe and very red just four years prior.

It was not so much that they lost an election or two, it was why and how they lost those elections, they now saw demographics turning against them. The GOP, for various reasons, did very well in 2010 and they used those wins, at the State level, to rewrite the rules of elections in order to exclude the most vulnerable members of that emergent Obama coalition. The effect and the timing of these laws make it undeniable that they have a racial focus with the intent of creating a partisan advantage.


TL;DR version:

Not to long ago, Republicans actually thought they would keep doing better with young, black and brown voters and when that was the case, they did nothing to restrict access to the ballot. Only when they saw that they would progressively do worse among those groups did they enact laws related to voting.
 
This number seems alarming. Not having voter ID laws is just not an option anymore when you look at these widespread voter fraud numbers. I mean, it's just unbelievable folks.
Tremendous numbers.

And those are just the ones that got caught folks, believe me there were millions and millions of illegals pouring in who voted for Hillary to steal her the popular vote. Why isn't Hillary's campaign investigated for that?
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/40...oreign-nationals-with-voting-in-2016-election
The Department of Justice on Friday announced that 19 foreign nationals have been charged with voting illegally in the 2016 presidential election.

Of the 19, nine made false claims of U.S. citizenship in order to vote, according to the charging documents.

The foreign nationals charged are citizens of countries ranging from Mexico and Nigeria to Italy and Germany.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement is said to be taking the lead in investigating the cases.

Conviction for a false claim of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote and voting by an alien carries a maximum penalty of six years in prison, a $350,000 fine and a term of supervised release following any imprisonment.

President Trump in 2016 claimed, without evidence, that millions of illegal ballots were cast for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and that without them he would have won the popular vote.
 
Last edited:
While the federal government has a level of corrupt I am not comfortable with, Trump and his people are still a couple standard deviations above your average Federal elected official.

Then Trump looks so bad too because the Obama Administration was relatively lower than the norm.

The Trump adminstration is what you will find in shady local muncipality or a third world country with weak independent political insitutions. They look so sloppy because they don't think they will ever be caught.

And that falls on America as a whole, we take non violent crimes by black and brown people 100000x more serious than "white collar crimes". Trump and his boys been finessing like this their whole lives, so they never thought that this time there would be consequences.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom