CURRENT EVENTS

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 713
  • Views: 11K
  • Politics 
approx 75 million people were given no choice as to who they wanted as the dim potus nominee. It was dictated to them by a handful of people. That's world record disenfranchisement there Dr. Bob
Primaries aren't required by law. In fact, there were no open primaries for the majority of the country's history. Sort of weird to call that disenfranchisement.

I'd say the world record disenfranchisement was all the elections conducted without any meaningful participation by black people because of slavery and Jim Crow. Wouldn't you agree?
 
I would like for Biden to have dropped out earlier and had a normal Dem primary, but while I can't speak for other Dems, I don't feel like I was disenfranchised.
But you were because the right to cast a vote for your desired candidate was taken away from you. The fact that you were ok with it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
IMG_8631.jpeg

How would the United States be “of no further force and effect”? That’s a phrase we use frequently in contracts when we terminate (or contemplate termination of) legal documents. Trump likely sees it regularly, has a general gist of the impact must think it sounds official or something.

Anyway, funny how he pivots from attacking the globalists at the WSJ to attacking judges.
I don’t think any US officials could dream up policies worse than what Trump has done to enhance and promotes Chinas position in the world. He will make China Great and the world leader way sooner than anyone predicted.
 
the room has nothing to do with it. 75 million people were denied their right to vote. That is the very definition of disenfranchisement.
Could you please point me to the federal law or constitutional provision that gives voters the "right" to choose a party's presidential candidate? Thanks in advance. I assume you have this at your fingertips since you're so strident about it.
 
Guess we’ll just have to have a do over.
not sure that would help you. aoc? newsome? pritzger in a van down by the river? I mean the choices you had available in no way reflects the fact that your party disenfranchised its voters. Maybe because all the choices suck is why you don't care. it happens.
 
I guess this qualifies as a thoughtful response from you, so thank you. I still have questions:

1. What do you mean, "the concerns were real"? Sure, they were real, but they were completely unfounded. So is that how we should be making policy? It's the government's job to protect people from threats that don't actually exist? This is the goal?
I don't want to relitigate the 2020 election results. I'll just say there were "irregularities" in Fulton and Dekalb counties. Before you ask, Biden won Georgia and was certified the winner.
2. What about concerns among minorities and liberals that polling place voting requirements are going to be used for disenfranchisement? I mean, those concerns are both real and founded, given that many of the people most affected by these requirements literally grew up and reached adulthood in an era when they were not allowed to vote because of poll taxes, literacy tests, and so forth.

There are plenty of laws in place to protect minorities from your parade of horribles. The youngest person who voted in 1964 (24th Amendment), the year poll tax abolished, would now be 83.
But let's say those concerns are outdated, and today are not founded. If we're making policy to protect people from non-existent threats, then how do you resolve this dispute? One group says, without foundation, that there's voting fraud. One group says the anti-fraud measures are disenfranchising. What principle do you suggest to sort this out, other than just a preference for white people?
I understand what you are saying. I just don't believe election integrity is a frivolous concern or a non-existent threat and when you weigh it against the miniscule "cost" of requiring an ID to vote, it's worth it.
3. People who didn't vote because they thought the election was rigged were stupid. That was a bad decision. I don't care about that at all.

4. You've spoken negatively about preclearance. I find that hard to reconcile with your current stance, since one of the points of preclearance was to establish confidence in the elections. The Voting Rights Act said, basically, "the DOJ is always on the case and will protect you from disenfranchising shenanigans, so the elections are not actually rigged." So if you want people to be confident in elections, you would favor preclearance. Is there any actual reason you don't, other than a preference for white people?

The Voting Rights Act is outdated as per the Supreme Court. There are other ways of protecting folks from disenfranchisement than relying on an Act from the 1960s designed to combat Jim Crow laws.
5. You didn't answer my question about deterrence so I will pose it again: how much should we invest in deterring non-threats? Should the school have spent $100 to put a button lock to prevent someone from stealing a 1000 pound, $1500 machine? Should we also have anti-alligator patrols in the sewers, to make sure that they don't get out and start chomping people in downtown Manhattan.

At what point is deterrence overkill, and even harmful because of its side effects? Are there any other non-problems you'd like to focus on? Why isn't the deterrence that we already have enough?

Case by case basis using a cost/benefit approach. Yes, it's stupid to spend $100 to prevent a virtually impossible occurrence. I just believe my assertion of voters' concern about election integrity outweighs the minimal if any cost of requiring an ID.
And as long as we are into deterrence, let's game this out. Homicide is illegal, but that's clearly not enough deterrence because still have homicides. What if we imposed a prophylactic measure to add additional deterrence? You know, like gun control. Is there any reason you are hostile to deterrence in one area but not the other, except for a preference for white people?

I reject the premise of your question - that I have a "preference for white people." Plus, I don't see controlling guns as an effective deterrence to homicide unless you literally confiscate the 393M guns currently in civilian hands. The number of murders reduced by such action is exponentially outweighed by the cost of confiscating the guns (civil unrest/deaths of law enforcement if not a civil war).
 
Actually, it doesn't, because according to 2022 data from the Pew Research Center, some of the states with the highest percentages of illegal immigrants in their populations are ones that regularly send Republicans to Congress and award their electoral votes to Republican candidates. Nevada, a swing state, tops the list with 5.8 percent of its population being undocumented. But Trump’s home state of Florida comes third, with 5.2 percent. Arizona and Georgia—two other swing states—are all in the top fifteen on the list, with undocumented immigrants making up between 3.2 and 3.5 percent of their populations.

But the biggest kahuna is Texas, coming second overall with an undocumented population percentage of 5.4 percent. That’s enough people—some 1.6 million—for Texas to lose two House seats and Electoral College votes if Trump’s plan comes to fruition. Imagine how mad Republicans would be if he makes them draw two new sets of district maps back-to-back and they end up with barely anything to show for it.
Simple. They only count undocumented people in blue states silly. You know that is going to happen.
 
I don't want to relitigate the 2020 election results. I'll just say there were "irregularities" in Fulton and Dekalb counties. Before you ask, Biden won Georgia and was certified the winner.


There are plenty of laws in place to protect minorities from your parade of horribles. The youngest person who voted in 1964 (24th Amendment), the year poll tax abolished, would now be 83.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't believe election integrity is a frivolous concern or a non-existent threat and when you weigh it against the miniscule "cost" of requiring an ID to vote, it's worth it.


The Voting Rights Act is outdated as per the Supreme Court. There are other ways of protecting folks from disenfranchisement than relying on an Act from the 1960s designed to combat Jim Crow laws.


Case by case basis using a cost/benefit approach. Yes, it's stupid to spend $100 to prevent a virtually impossible occurrence. I just believe my assertion of voters' concern about election integrity outweighs the minimal if any cost of requiring an ID.


I reject the premise of your question - that I have a "preference for white people." Plus, I don't see controlling guns as an effective deterrence to homicide unless you literally confiscate the 393M guns currently in civilian hands. The number of murders reduced by such action is exponentially outweighed by the cost of confiscating the guns (civil unrest/deaths of law enforcement if not a civil war).
Holy shit, you are capable of intelligent discourse! Check it out. If only you were like this more often, and like your other trolling persona less often. I don't agree with most of this, but at least it's cogent.

1. Part of the problem in this debate is that the measures under debate are typically low-cost and low-benefit. As conservatives say, it's not hard to get an ID and everyone is used to producing it. But as liberals say, the whole idea is combatting a problem that not only doesn't exist, but it can't really exist. So we get this debate over whether a useless but mostly harmless policy is a good idea.

Personally, I agree with you that election integrity is important; I think election integrity is best served by eschewing useless policies unless they are completely harmless, which they are not per everyone's admission.

2. You still didn't answer the question about how to resolve contrasting claims of right here -- why we should privilege the "elections might be stolen by illegals" narrative over the "elections, especially in the south, are not fair to minorities" narrative? The latter is more firmly grounded. Can you give a principled reason for preferring your narrative over the other? See, that's where the rubber hits the road, don't you think?

3. If you're going case-by-case with a cost benefit approach, that would suggest getting rid of voter ID. There are no actual benefits and some costs.

4. The Voting Rights Act was renewed in 2007 by a unanimous vote of the Senate. 98-0, I believe. That suggests to me that the VRA is very much not outdated. The Supreme Court started killing it methodically starting in 2009, and continuing through Shelby County, Brnovich and the monstrosity to come next term. In what way would you say it's outdated?

I'm really not interested in what five partisan, unethical, bribe-taking ideologues have to say about a bill that passed the Senate unanimously. The latter is far more informative than the former. If the preclearance requirement was so unfair, why didn't any Senator vote against it? Not a one. In the House, there were 30 nays, but that's still overwhelming bipartisanship.

5. There are plenty of laws in place to prevent your parade of horribles. There actually aren't that many laws protecting minority voting and the ones that exist are under grave danger. The Eighth Circuit has already cut them off at the knees and if that holding (that there is no private right of action under section 2) were to be nationalized, there would be no protections at all.

6. You're right that gun control isn't the greatest analogy for the reason you point out. But let's say we could wave a magic wand and get rid of all guns. Would you support that? You know as a prophylactic to murder? Somehow I doubt it.
 
I have no real issue with Lutnick except for his visibility. He's the commerce secretary. Eh. Vance and Vought aren't in the cabinet. Obviously the worst of the worst are Zeldin, Noem, Bondi, Hed, and RFK, in no particular order. Probably Gabbard as well.
Given you were being hyper-technical, Gabbard is not a member of the Cabinet either.
 
Back
Top