Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

You're right. Name-calling while trying to persuade people is counter-productive, like blocking roads while protesting!

Hrm.

Care to quote the part where I apologized for that and the dude seemed okay with it ? Or just the parts that suit you ?  

At any rate, carry on .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

America was built in systematic Racism based on White Supremacy is historical accurate and not ideological drivel. Your semantics statisfied?

It's not really semantics if the meaning is changed. Sorry, I just don't like strawmanning in any form, intentional or not.

35 minutes ago, Yukle said:

From a non-American perspective, it's pretty hard to defend how the US Supreme Court just upheld Ohio's voting laws, which allow them to remove voting rights from mostly ethnic minorities.

What the hell?!

In normal civilised nations, the idea that you can remove voting rights is considered a violation of human rights. Maybe you should give your ballot papers guns? That way the government would defend it.

Maybe I missed something, but how does this mostly affect ethnic minorities? As far as I know, all this law says is that if you haven't voted in a while, you need to reregister and then you're good to go. What's so controversial about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SweetPea said:

It's not really semantics if the meaning is changed. Sorry, I just don't like strawmanning in any form, intentional or not.

Racism is about power. Stating the U.S has a long history of Racism means a long history of power used based on Race. You parsing was semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Maybe I missed something, but how does this mostly affect ethnic minorities? As far as I know, all this law says is that if you haven't voted in a while, you need to reregister and then you're good to go. What's so controversial about this?

People regularly assume they're registered and go to vote, only to be told they've been purged from the rolls. If you have same day registration it isn't a big deal, but if you don't you're block a person from voting on a needless technicality. Only eleven states have same day registration, and Ohio isn't one of them, so this ruling will lead to people's rightful vote being blocked, and the people pushing it are targeting areas and populations that don't normally vote for them. It's dirty politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Maybe I missed something, but how does this mostly affect ethnic minorities? As far as I know, all this law says is that if you haven't voted in a while, you need to reregister and then you're good to go. What's so controversial about this?

Why is it necessary to take voters off the rolls at all? And why is it always Republicans who want to restrict voting rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Why is it necessary to take voters off the rolls at all? And why is it always Republicans who want to restrict voting rights?

Freedom?

*places hand over heart and stands at attention**

 

 

 

*Totally wasn't forced to do it at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Racism is about power. Stating the U.S has a long history of Racism means a long history of power used based on Race. You parsing was semantics.

What does power have to do with it? Anyway, all I'm saying is that there's a difference between stating that the US was built on racism, and that the US is built on racism. Maybe I just suck at English, but I really think there's a meaningful difference between the two.

1 minute ago, chiKanery et al. said:

People regularly assume they're registered and go to vote, only to be told they've been purged from the rolls. If you have same day registration it isn't a big deal, but if you don't you're block a person from voting on a needless technicality. Only eleven states have same day registration, and Ohio isn't one of them, so this ruling will lead to people's rightful vote being blocked, and the people pushing it are targeting areas and populations that don't normally vote for them. It's dirty politics. 

Ah, I see. So how much of a logistical problem does it create for people? When can they reregister if their state doesn't have same day registration?

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Why is it necessary to take voters off the rolls at all? And why is it always Republicans who want to restrict voting rights?

Apparently it's to prevent voter fraud. It seems reasonable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vin said:

Oooo denouncement time ! 

Everyone is free to Think as they like and getting called names by some people online isn't anything , so again no skin off my back . :)

Free thinking certainly ain't critical thinking -- you've made that abundantly clear. Please stop proving the point. 

59 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

That wasn't the claim. The racism in the history of the US is obvious. The claim was that America is built on systematic racism based on white supremacy, implying it still is.

To echo others that have already responded -- when was systemic racism dismantled? Did the government pay reparations? https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

Just now, SweetPea said:

What does power have to do with it? Anyway, all I'm saying is that there's a difference between stating that the US was built on racism, and that the US is built on racism. Maybe I just suck at English, but I really think there's a meaningful difference between the two.

There is a meaningful difference if something happened between "was built" and "is built" -- it was built and that has not changed. As stated above^

Just now, SweetPea said:

Apparently it's to prevent voter fraud. It seems reasonable to me.

Voter fraud is a canard without any legitimate documented support beyond one or two instances. That is not reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

To echo others that have already responded -- when was systemic racism dismantled? Did the government pay reparations? https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

There is a meaningful difference if something happened between "was built" and "is built" -- it was built and that has not changed. As stated above^

I said nothing regarding whether or not things have changed, and I don't particularly care to take part in that discussion, I merely pointed out a misrepresentation of a statement. 

Quote

Voter fraud is a canard without any legitimate documented support beyond one or two instances. That is not reasonable.

People have been known to collect welfare checks in the name of their dead relatives, and the same could happen to voting, so it's not unheard of. It's not a big issue either, the numbers are most likely negligible, but if you can do something simple to prevent voter fraud, why wouldn't you? It still sounds reasonable to me. Provided it doesn't prevent legitimate voters from voting, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

What does power have to do with it? Anyway, all I'm saying is that there's a difference between stating that the US was built on racism, and that the US is built on racism. Maybe I just suck at English, but I really think there's a meaningful difference between the two.

I'll defer to Vetrani Weekić response.

 

1 minute ago, SweetPea said:

I said nothing regarding whether or not things have changed, and I don't particularly care to take part in that discussion, I merely pointed out a misrepresentation of a statement.

I was not misrepresenting anything. People want to bury the past and state everything different when it is not. People want to pine for thos times yet deny what that means. My statements are an accurate representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My .02 about the Ohio voting case:

Republicans know that this will disproportionately affect D voters.  That is the reason for it.  It’s of course being couched within the narrative of protecting democracy by reducing voter fraud, but everyone knows the reason why.  Because they know who will be disenfranchised.  That’s one reason it’s irritating.  

The second reason it’s irritating is that they are right about it disenfranchising Dem voters disproportionately.  I know there are a myriad of underhanded and slimy ways the Rs try and choose the voters, but people can’t simply allow them to do it.  You would think that these little efforts here and there would galvanize would be Dem voters who are finding themselves pushed out of the voting process, but the fact is that no matter what they do - at this point in time - it is not THAT hard to make sure you are registered to vote anywhere in the United States.  I just feel like if people were trying to put one over on me like Rs seem to be to folks outside of their traditional demographic, I would be voting come hell or high water.  If everyone thought that way it would make a difference and it’s hard to understand why it doesn’t materialize.  

If Rs actually had to court the entire population to win office this country would be a little less fucked up.  As it stands they just have to convince 35%, but their group reliably votes and that’s how we get where we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

People have been known to collect welfare checks in the name of their dead relatives, and the same could happen to voting, so it's not unheard of. It's not a big issue either, the numbers are most likely negligible, but if you can do something simple to prevent voter fraud, why wouldn't you? It still sounds reasonable to me. Provided it doesn't prevent legitimate voters from voting, that is.

Solving a "problem" that does not exist does not seem like a worthy endeavor. Doubly so when it prevents voting.

The "problem" does not exist and the "solution" predominantly impacts low income and minority voters -- aka those that are already disenfranchised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just worked the polls this last election. We do have same day registration (Iowa). I will say that I don't know that I'm completely in favor of this. When the turn-outs are low (like for these primaries), it's not a big deal. However, when the turn-out is high, it causes delays as there is only one person processing these along with change of address and other irregularities that come up. In theory, I like the idea, in reality, it can be a practical headache. I have talked to people of both parties that have had to deal with same-day registration that are unhappy with the extra work and delay it causes. I am all for making it easy and giving ample opportunity for people to help others register, but same day is an avoidable hassle on what can be a really hectic day.

We also have a voter ID law that goes into effect next year. We started using this just this last election,, and I have to say I'm a fan. Along with the usual photo IDs that are accepted (DMV, military, passport), you can be issued a voter ID card that has a barcode to scan. I was sent one because I let my license expire by accident last year and they saw that in the system. Everyone registered to vote, but not in the system with a valid license or DMV issued ID was sent one. Had a few people use them. Made things run very smoothly and quickly. I don't have an issue with the implementation or policy in theory - in the past I've had issues with the way some of these policies were wanting to be implemented (types of IDs accepted, time frame for role-out, ease, etc.). Unless I'm missing something here, it's easy to get a valid form of voting ID and people have been given time to be educated about it.

The point of me telling you all this is that we had several people voting that were inactive in the system. They weren't purged, just marked as inactive. As soon as  we scanned in the ID, that flipped back to active. No fuss, no muss. What in the world is the point in purging them? It's just a fricking database. It's not hurting a damn thing and it makes it obvious that you're trying to game the system for your benefit. I'm all in favor of updating the roles to catch the people that didn't update paperwork (moving, deaths, etc). Not blind purges, but actual verification. For fuck's sake, voting is a right and you can't just take it away because that person hasn't exercised it. A lot of the same people get worked up about the 2nd amendment and would never stand for the types of restrictions on guns that they are perfectly happy with putting on voting rights. Oh, you used to own a gun, but haven't for several years? Sorry, you can't purchase one today. You'll have to go downtown and file some paperwork that gives you back your right to own a gun before we start that process. Have a nice day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Apparently it's to prevent voter fraud. It seems reasonable to me.

The "apparently" tells me you don't believe that rationale.

6 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

People have been known to collect welfare checks in the name of their dead relatives, and the same could happen to voting, so it's not unheard of. It's not a big issue either, the numbers are most likely negligible, but if you can do something simple to prevent voter fraud, why wouldn't you? It still sounds reasonable to me. Provided it doesn't prevent legitimate voters from voting, that is.

If you can disenfranchise thousands of legitimate voters to chase the ghost of voter fraud, and maybe throw a few thousand minority voters off the rolls in tightly contested states like Ohio and Michigan, why not, amirite?

In any case, why are Republicans so interested in this? Because it helps them win elections. They've turned the vote fraud bamboozle into a full-on industry, and elevated simpering numpties like Kris Kobach to national prominence over his zeal to rob minority voters of their voting rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

The "apparently" tells me you don't believe that rationale.

If you can disenfranchise thousands of legitimate voters to chase the ghost of voter fraud, and maybe throw a few thousand minority voters off the rolls in tightly contested states like Ohio and Michigan, why not, amirite?

In any case, why are Republicans so interested in this? Because it helps them win elections. They've turned the vote fraud bamboozle into a full-on industry, and elevated simpering numpties like Kris Kobach to national prominence over his zeal to rob minority voters of their voting rights.

I don't deny that the real reason likely is to influence the number of votes in favor of republicans. That's why I asked, how do they target minorities specifically? I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

It's not really semantics if the meaning is changed. Sorry, I just don't like strawmanning in any form, intentional or not.

Maybe I missed something, but how does this mostly affect ethnic minorities? As far as I know, all this law says is that if you haven't voted in a while, you need to reregister and then you're good to go. What's so controversial about this?

Firstly, it's controversial for a government to remove voting rights for any reason whatsoever!

Ohio's law isn't made in a vacuum. Their legislature knows that voting is on a Tuesday, and the employers are not obliged to pay you for taking a day off. And they ensure that it is a day off by providing too few voting booths in areas with lots of ethnic minorities. Knowing that they can't afford the day off, nor the long wait, they discourage voting at all. Then, they orchestrate the excuse to purge the voting rolls. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/11/supreme-court-upholds-ohio-voter-registration-purge-policy.html

It's not new for Republicans to use this strategy, among many others, to prevent non-whites from voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yukle said:

Firstly, it's controversial for a government to remove voting rights for any reason whatsoever!

Ohio's law isn't made in a vacuum. Their legislature knows that voting is on a Tuesday, and the employers are not obliged to pay you for taking a day off. And they ensure that it is a day off by providing too few voting booths in areas with lots of ethnic minorities. Knowing that they can't afford the day off, nor the long wait, they discourage voting at all. Then, they orchestrate the excuse to purge the voting rolls. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/11/supreme-court-upholds-ohio-voter-registration-purge-policy.html

It's not new for Republicans to use this strategy, among many others, to prevent non-whites from voting.

Thanks, this is what I wanted to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess I'm fool enough to jump into this racism discussion with a couple anecdotes.  First, I deliver mail in rural Alaska for a living.  Route is dominated by conservative old people, with whom I get to interact with daily - part of the job.

I'll call him 'M.'  One of M's in-laws is a teacher in a remote native Alaskan village.  Off the grid, no road access, you get there via boat or plane.  Population in the mid three digit range.  M's wife went to visit said in-law a month or so back, as the school year was wrapping up.  She involved herself (uninvited) into the local school system and rapidly made herself unpopular.  Reason?  She was doing things that *needed* done for a very long time that nobody bothered with, and it ruffled more than a few feathers.  (She might have used terms like 'lazy natives' - though that is unclear from the bits I heard.)  After she came back, word relayed through the relative was that though the native populace didn't like her, they kind of wished she'd stayed longer. Again, apparently because she got things done.  (And no, I don't know what 'things.')

 

I was running a bit later today than usual with the mail, so M and a few others were waiting for me at the mail boxes, having an animated discussion.  Subject turned to natives, whose villages have reputations for being unfriendly towards whites.  The one guy though - Ex-Pat from Canada, said he minded them far less than he did the Eskimos, whom he called 'real assholes.'  Ex-Pat (former contractor) recounted the time he was sent to an Eskimo village (presumably in Canada).  Locals made it very clear to him he was unwelcome within minutes of setting foot off the plane.  As soon as his task was completed, they loaded him back onto the plain and pretty much told him to not come back, ever.  (And yes, all I have is Ex-Pat's side of the story.) 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...