***Official Political Discussion Thread***

You're taking that quote out of context. According to the article, he said that has been the accusation. And that it was not accurate.

Actually, I’m taking nothing out of context

He said that sentence when he spoke to the Wisconsin Chapter of the Republican National Lawyers Association

when he was then reached by a reporter at a later date after being caught he ran with that BS you’re now going on about
 
1. I am against voter suppression tactics, period.
2. I don't know, but if that is the intended result that is truly disgusting.
3. I am not okay with pushing policies that intend to suppress black voter turnout.

A different question is impact. I am okay with voter ID laws that include provisions that simultaneously increase the access to the required government-issued IDs.

What is the impact? Is the GOP coupling these policies with those that make voting easier? What about the closing of polling places and the shortening and sometimes elimination of early/Sunday voting? These have also been tactics used by the GOP outside of voter ID restrictions. Many shot down by courts because of the negative impact they would have on African American communities. At what point do these actions become problematic from your stand point? Or what nuance would need to be present for these tactics to be problematic for you, as someone who’s vote could potentially go towards the Group implementing this strategy? Or are you saying the GOP has enacted counter measures for the negative impact of the policies they push that might suppress votes?
 
Last edited:
What is the impact? Is the GOP coupling these policies with those that make voting easier? What about the closing of polling places and the shortening and sometimes elimination of early/Sunday voting? These have also been tactics used by the GOP outside of voter ID restrictions. Many shot down by courts because of the negative impact they would have on African American communities. At what point do these actions become problematic from your stand point? Or what nuance would need to be present for these tactics to be problematic for you, as someone who’s vote could potentially go towards the Group implementing this strategy?

Did you read what I wrote? I outlined what was problematic. Any effort intended to suppress black voters is problematic to me, period. No matter who is doing it.

The NC law does have measures that make access to the required Voter IDs easier
 
Did you read what I wrote? I outlined what was problematic. Any effort intended to suppress black voters is problematic to me, period. No matter who is doing it.

The NC law does have measures that make access to the required Voter IDs

I read what you wrote. I’m specifically asking the questions in the context of what’s seems GOP strategic use of these tactics not limited to just voter is restrictions, that have impacts on African American communities, and how they square with your support of them, if you choose to support them with your vote. To clarify further, im not asking about whether the tactics themselves are good or bad, I’m asking if the GOP using them is okay? Like Georgia’s “Exact match” system, or the purging of voter registration rolls, or restrictions on early voting? Or are you saying the GOP has enacted counter measures for the negative impact of the policies they push that might suppress votes?
 
I read what you wrote. I’m specifically asking the questions in the context of what’s seems GOP strategic use of these tactics not limited to just voter is restrictions, that have impacts on African American communities, and how they square with your support of them, if you choose to support them with your vote. To clarify further, im not asking about whether the tactics themselves are good or bad, I’m asking if the GOP using them is okay? Like Georgia’s “Exact match” system, or the purging of voter registration rolls, or restrictions on early voting?

I believe that any effort intended to suppress black voters is problematic to me, period. I am 100% against it. If any of the efforts you describe fall into that category, then I am 100% against them.
 
I believe that any effort intended to suppress black voters is problematic to me, period. I am 100% against it. If any of the efforts you describe fall into that category, then I am 100% against them.

but to be clear, you being against them doesn’t necessarily mean your vote is swayed from the party perpetrating them?
 
Last edited:
I think “implicit pro-bribery position” is a reach.
How? After complaints about being unable to bribe foreign nationals, which is almost a requisite to do business in some countries, the administration says it's "looking at" the law that bars bribing foreign nationals. If someone complained about not being able to commit bribery, nobody who isn't at least open to supporting bribery would give them one second of consideration.

After complaints from Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy, the Nixon administration is looking at the law that bars illegal wiretapping. That scenario is no more ridiculous than the above.
 
but to be clear, you being against them doesn’t necessarily mean your vote is swayed from the party perpetrating them?

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.
 
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.

got it, thanks
 
How? After complaints about being unable to bribe foreign nationals, which is almost a requisite to do business in some countries, the administration says it's "looking at" the law that bars bribing foreign nationals. If someone complained about not being able to commit bribery, nobody who isn't at least open to supporting bribery would give them one second of consideration.

After complaints from Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy, the Nixon administration is looking at the law that bars illegal wiretapping. That scenario is no more ridiculous than the above.

I think you are reading too much into “looking at.”
 
Despite a court order, DOJ is refusing to hand over Kushner's 302(s). Not even a redacted copy, despite turning over a Michael Cohen 302 that was fully redacted from start to finish.
 
So basically, politicians who are accused of comitting crimes or those that did, who belong to a party with more politicians or individuals or even corporations who are accused of committing crimes or doing something illegal, are OK to vote for and align with, as long as the voters interests from the certain party are being heard and possibly done.

Politics is dirty. Same same, but different.
GOP are the ones that have become VERY different.
 
Damn, I check back in and DWalk is still being cornered and trying to squirm out of it. :lol: :lol:

I love how he tries to play expert to make a point, the clapback comes, then he feigns ignorance.
 
This Anthony person also uses a bunch of different alias' such as Anthony Hemelrijk, Anthony Heavenrich, Anthony von Himmelreich and Anthony Calloway.
Hemel in Dutch means heaven, rijk means rich.
In other words, something is very off about this guy. Looks like a crook judging by the search results.


(February 27 2012)
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/...cussions-and-6-new-comments-on-linkedin-.html
72c5f682a21c9eac2c43e8914b17039f.png
 
Last edited:
wrong.



giphy.gif


edit:
I want to let them slide for this... They got to dance their New Orleans song in the White House and that's cool, I guess. But... you gotta be aware of the optics. Whatever their intentions, this will be associated with Trump's WH, and as a bonus it's being sold as a pro-2A dance....

Tap dancing and biscuit behavior at its finest smh. It’s ignorant looking to. These bamas set us back smh
 
I believe that any effort intended to suppress black voters is problematic to me, period. I am 100% against it. If any of the efforts you describe fall into that category, then I am 100% against them.
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).
 
Back
Top Bottom