***Official Political Discussion Thread***

There's no "ifs" here.

Thomas Hofeller's files prove malicious intent towards Black voters.

The GOP's refusal to extend the voting rights act provision proves malicious intent towards Black voters.

The lack of significance in the number of election fraud cases over many decades shows that voter ID laws are a solution looking for a problem (unless the problem is the number of non-white voters).
This is literally a case where dwalk’s preposterous standard of proof for any and everything—an actual legal determination made in a court of law—is actually applicable. Literally.

And yet... :lol:
 
I’m not a single-issue voter. Instead, I make my decisions based on a balance of interests.

If a party is intending to suppress black votes that is something I am against and it would be a factor in my voting decision.

If a party makes efforts towards positive prison reform that is something I support and it would be a factor in my voting decision.

Just to give examples of considerations.
Bruh :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I love how you put this in here thinking this justifies your support of the GOP and Trump.

In reality prison and criminal justice reform is an issue is something pushed by the Dems.

You were flippant about the issue when you first got in here, you acted like it was something other people cared for. Hillary was the only candidate with criminal justice reform on her platform, and promised to take steps in the first 100 days. Trump was saying we need to be harsher on people. Yet you voted for Trump.

Trump agrees to sign on one compromised policy, and you act like he is the reform candidate.

If you cared so much about criminal justice reform, you would have been a Cory Booker supporter, not a Trump. Because Booker is the one that pushes policy, his views on reform go pass the norm, he negotiates consistently with the GOP to get the smallest of gains, and who was in Kushner's air to help convince Trump.

You should take us calling you a troll as a compliment, because it implies you know you are being dishonest. Otherwise if we thought your post where sincere, the only logical conclusion is that you are completely delusion.

:lol: :lol: DWalk, people in here are just too informed, too educated, and not complete idiots. So we are not gonna buy the nonsense you peddle.
 
Last edited:
This is literally a case where dwalk’s preposterous standard of proof for any and everything—an actual legal determination made in a court of law—is actually applicable. Literally.

And yet... :lol:
He has done this before. He is a master of moving the line when it comes to his standards.

You brahs remember when he was in here trolling us about the Mueller Report with "has anyone been arrested though" :lol:

When people started getting arrested, he switched gears.
 
This Anthony person, whatever his real name is, does look like someone who could surveil ambassador Yovanovitch.

No legit person uses this many fake names, all of which seem to lead back to an international fraud/money laundering/extortion conspiracy.
 
He has done this before. He is a master of moving the line when it comes to his standards.

You brahs remember when he was in here trolling us about the Mueller Report with "has anyone been arrested though" :lol:

When people started getting arrested, he switched gears.

I remember when Trump was going to get impeached for Russian collusion because of the Mueller investigation... never happened.

No doubt lines move in this thread all the time.
 
There's no "ifs" here.

Thomas Hofeller's files prove malicious intent towards Black voters.

The GOP's refusal to extend the voting rights act provision proves malicious intent towards Black voters.

The lack of significance in the number of election fraud cases over many decades shows that voter ID laws are a solution looking for a problem (unless the problem is the number of non-white voters).

Did you read what I wrote? I’ll post it again:

“I believe that any effort intended to suppress black voters is problematic to me, period. I am 100% against it.”
 
The spokeswoman Anthony (alias) used a few days ago was just sentenced to prison.
He has also clearly been lying since he was identified in the potential surveillance of Albassador Yovanovitch.
 
Last edited:
Bruh :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I love how you put this in here thinking this justifies your support of the GOP and Trump.

In reality prison and criminal justice reform is an issue is something pushed by the Dems.

You were flippant about the issue when you first got in here, you acted like it was something other people cared for. Hillary was the only candidate with criminal justice reform on her platform, and promised to take steps in the first 100 days. Trump was saying we need to be harsher on people. Yet you voted for Trump.

Trump agrees to sign on one compromised policy, and you act like he is the reform candidate.

If you cared so much about criminal justice reform, you would have been a Cory Booker supporter, not a Trump. Because Booker is the one that pushes policy, his views on reform go pass the norm, he negotiates consistently with the GOP to get the smallest of gains, and who was in Kushner's air to help convince Trump.

You should take us calling you a troll as a compliment, because it implies you know you are being dishonest. Otherwise if we thought your post where sincere, the only logical conclusion is that you are completely delusion.

:lol: :lol: DWalk, people in here are just too informed, too educated, and not complete idiots. So we are not gonna buy the nonsense you peddle.

I don’t need to, and wasn’t trying to, justify any support for anyone. I outlined that I am not a single-issue voter and gave examples of things that are considered. It certainly was not an exhaustive list.

Are you a single-issue voter?
Do you adopt all of the stances/positions taken by a particular party?
Do you balance interests when you decide who to vote for?

I thought it was common for a voters to balance interests when deciding who to vote for.

But it is fine if you knee-jerk it.
 
He has done this before. He is a master of moving the line when it comes to his standards.

You brahs remember when he was in here trolling us about the Mueller Report with "has anyone been arrested though" :lol:

When people started getting arrested, he switched gears.
Thats like somebody calling the cops on someone for no good reason.

Then that somebody says well you didnt get arrested.

I see this coming from a "certain" group of people. And its not poc.
 
There's no "ifs" here.

Thomas Hofeller's files prove malicious intent towards Black voters.

The GOP's refusal to extend the voting rights act provision proves malicious intent towards Black voters.

The lack of significance in the number of election fraud cases over many decades shows that voter ID laws are a solution looking for a problem (unless the problem is the number of non-white voters).

While he phrased it that way, the question wasn’t about intent. We know what the intent is. My question to Dwalk was whether or not he’d still vote for the perpetrating party knowing why and how it was being used . And he answered that question
 
Segregation "made sense" back in the day.

Censorship of politically controversial ideas "makes sense" too.

Not letting women drive "makes sense."

Doing things because they "make sense" is an anti-capitalist and anti-western idea.
 
That's like someone calling the cops on someone for no good reason.

Then that someone says well you didnt get arrested.

I see this coming from a "certain" group of people. And its not poc.

???

Pretty sure you and Rusty aren’t talking about the same thing.

Nor is what you mentioned even somewhat analogous to what he was talking about.
 
???

Pretty sure you and Rusty aren’t talking about the same thing.

Nor is what you mentioned even somewhat analogous to what he was talking about.
my point is you shift the reason or the answer sometimes.
 
I don’t need to, and wasn’t trying to, justify any support for anyone. I outlined that I am not a single-issue voter and gave examples of things that are considered. It certainly was not an exhaustive list.
You cited criminal justice reform, but it must've escaped you that the GOP blocked criminal justice reform under Obama and then stalled for 2 years to pass a watered down version. Even some Republicans complained at the time that McConnell, who openly takes pride in blocking whatever he could during Obama's term, refused to budge.
After taking office, Trump and the GOP appointed an AG who reversed a number of Obama's criminal justice reforms, such as reversing the phasing out of private prisons, reversing the demilitarization of the police, reversing lower sentencing for non-violent drug crimes, ...
Sessions ramped up the war on drugs and instructed US Attorneys to seek harsher sentences for non-violent drug crimes.
 
Last edited:
I think the National Archive’s reasoning makes sense
You should read 1984.

Like, really.

Imagine if the National Archives replaced the bodies of lynched Black folks with grapes so as to not offend them good southern white spectators and their offspring. Would it not make it so much easier to deny the atrocities of the Jim Crow era?

Imagine if the Polish government decided to bulldoze Auchswitz? Would make it so much easier for Holocaust deniers.

China and Japan routinely get flak because of the way they choose to cover the unsavory parts of their history. How can the US pretend to be above them (or any dictatorship) when the agency that should be the reference for the country's history engages in censorship?

Dude, you're crooked. Sheesh!
 
I do my best :D

Despite the false narrative that I try to dodge or squirm away from issues/questions.

i don’t Think it’s totally a false narrative. The only way to hold you to answer a question under the specific context it’s being asked to keep asking you clarifying questions. You try to avoid “gotcha” questions like the plague. Most people just don’t have the patience to get you to answer a question under the frame work it’s posed. You don’t make that easy and I suspect that it’s deliberate.
 
Last edited:
I don’t need to, and wasn’t trying to, justify any support for anyone. I outlined that I am not a single-issue voter and gave examples of things that are considered. It certainly was not an exhaustive list.

Are you a single-issue voter?
Do you adopt all of the stances/positions taken by a particular party?
Do you balance interests when you decide who to vote for?

I thought it was common for a voters to balance interests when deciding who to vote for.

But it is fine if you knee-jerk it.
The thing is, you gave two examples why you would vote Democrat, yet you are going to vote GOP.

You whole shtick is to supposedly call out people's morals, demand discourse, and use civility as a shield. When people point out how your claimed morals don't align with your voting habits, you try to spin it like they do but you obviously struggle to form a cogent argument because the evidence is against you; so instead you troll by feigning ignorance about issues.

In fact feigning ignorance is a go to tactic for you:

You do it with Belgium Belgium on foreign policy, with me on economics, with multiple posters on voting rights.

On balance the GOP might be the party for you, but you are being completely dishonest about what issues are important to you, and what motivates your voting habits. Just say you want a tax cut, don't like immigrants, or are against the women's right to chose. At least be honest with yourself and people in here.

I am not a single issue voter but I am nothing like you. If I were like you I would be saying **** like "I really want to make sure as many people as possible are denied health insurance, I think for profit healthcare is the most important thing, not affordable access to care. But I am supporting Bernie Sanders for the presidency because.... 'reasons' ". That is how asinine you sound.
 
Last edited:
Did you read what I wrote? I’ll post it again:

“I believe that any effort intended to suppress black voters is problematic to me, period. I am 100% against it.”
So now, you're gonna act like you didn't say "IF voter suppression is happening", as if we were talking about hypotheticals.
 
You cited criminal justice reform, but it must've escaped you that the GOP blocked criminal justice reform under Obama and then stalled for 2 years to pass a watered down version. After taking office, Trump and the GOP appointed an AG who reversed a number of Obama's criminal justice reforms, such as phasing out private prisons. Sessions also ramped up the war on drugs and instructed US Attorneys to seek harsher sentences for non-violent drug crimes.

I’m not sure what gave you that impression.My focus on criminal justice reform did not begin with President Trump or President Obama. I remember the 1994 crime bill.

For me, I am pro-reform, period. As Van Jones has mentioned, the goals are the same—and these are important issues—no matter who is in office. I am happy that the First Step Act and Fair Chance Act have passed. We still have much more to do.
 
dwalk31 dwalk31 is employing the same tactic every single conservative in here has done when they get cornered and the light is shined on their supposed morals vs Support for the GOP.

They argue they are some version of "I'm a centrist"

Blco was independent right leaning voter.

Ninja was a moderate populist

One dude I remember was a right wing technocrat that was peddling race science

Dwalk is a mix issue voter than happens to fall to on the GOP side

Yet all defend far right reactionary politicians, and happily give them their votes.
 
You should read 1984.

Like, really.

Imagine if the National Archives replaced the bodies of lynched Black folks with grapes so as to not offend them good southern white spectators and their offspring. Would it not make it so much easier to deny the atrocities of the Jim Crow era?

Imagine if the Polish government decided to bulldoze Auchswitz? Would make it so much easier for Holocaust deniers.

China and Japan routinely get flak because of the way they choose to cover the unsavory parts of their history. How can the US pretend to be above them (or any dictatorship) when the agency that should be the reference for the country's history engages in censorship?

Dude, you're crooked. Sheesh!

I’ve read 1984. It has been a while since I did, admittedly. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t they purge all of the other records in that book?

Here, the national archives is not the only means of record keeping. Other photos of the event are not purged. The comparison seems nonsensical.

Unless you think the ministry of truth and the national archives are comparable.
 
I’m not sure what gave you that impression.My focus on criminal justice reform did not begin with President Trump or President Obama. I remember the 1994 crime bill.

For me, I am pro-reform, period. As Van Jones has mentioned, the goals are the same—and these are important issues—no matter who is in office. I am happy that the First Step Act and Fair Chance Act have passed. We still have much more to do.
Under Obama and for the majority of the Trump administration, the GOP actively blocked or reversed criminal justice reform.
Trump then ran on a "rule of law" and "tough on crime" platform, which his AG then instituted to the detriment of people of color.


Under those circumstances, how could criminal justice reform possibly have played any substantial role in your determination in the 2016 election? Trump and the GOP's platform was the polar opposite of criminal justice reform, aside from going back in the other direction.
 
dwalk31 dwalk31 is employing the same tactic every single conservative in here has done when they get cornered and the light is shined on their supposed morals vs Support for the GOP.

They argue they are some version of "I'm a centrist"

Blco was independent right leaning voter.

Ninja was a moderate populist

One dude I remember was a right wing technocrat that was peddling race science

Dwalk is a mix issue voter than happens to fall to on the GOP side

Yet all defend far right reactionary politicians, and happily give them their votes.

In your view, anyone that votes for the Republican Party is morally bankrupt, and if they post in this thread they should be ridiculed for it.

I completely respect your opinion. We can agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom