The paymasters of both the Republican and Democratic parties don't want the machinery of empire to grind to a halt over what is to them a pointless feud between their own pawns.
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
He goes out as he governed, then: with a money-making scam aimed squarely at his own voters.
The contempt with which he holds his own supporters is staggering.
Voter ID laws exist solely to suppress votes, more accurately African American votes. There is no voter fraud because of a lack of voter ID.
Are you just pretending that voter ID laws aren't discriminatory, unnecessary and serve only to suppress votes, or do you honestly believe in the nonsense you spout?
His rant you quoted was in response to me asking this very question. I'm beginning to think it's the latter.
It's funny you think they care about pawns. Every election 'get out and vote pawns'. And then they immediately get removed from the board once its over
They aren't. The logic that voter id is discriminatory is the same flawed, inverted logic that claims literally everything is discriminatory. A solution minded person who thinks racial minorities lack id too much to have voter id would take the opportunity to provide some and overcome the disparity. Complaining that racial minorities are statistically worse off that white people on average and then declaring an action harder for poorer people can be applied to literally anything, and doesn't help anyone by shutting down programs on that logic. Everything is harder for those with less resources, even applying for help. Are you going to abolish help for the poor because it's discriminatory against the poorer? It's ridiculous reasoning that exists only to get you to hate Republicans.
There's a crucial difference between social programs that help a person and abridging a person's right to vote based on their lack of documentation.
Instead, the government in charge makes it *harder* to get those IDs, making the policy discriminatory.
If the proponents of Voter ID ever actually gave out those IDs , we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Jesus Christ, that's some convoluted mess of nonsensical half-baked ideas. You're trying to argue a proven fact with a bunch of ideological nonsense that's been proven to be false. I'm sorry, but that won't cut it. At least not with me.
In North Carolina, the state that was brought up specifically, they had free IDs available at the DMV. And if you couldn't manage to do that, you were still perfectly allowed to swear you couldn't and vote anyway. I pointed this out and was told I was making up nonsense.
Every state that requires government-issued photo ID provides them for free. Every one. In Alabama, you can request a mobile voter ID unit come to you and make you a photo id if you have no valid photo id.
And like, where's the complaint about voter id laws in all the other countries that have it? Why is the practice only ineffectual and discriminatory in America in red states?
Maybe because in the US it only seems to get pushed in areas where it would disproportionately affect black people.
Can you not imagine how having to swear an oath might deter someone who would otherwise vote?
It only seems that way because of circular logic. You're coming in with the presumption that Republicans are racist, so when red states make a voter id law, you assume it's to hurt black people, and then because the laws are happening in red states specifically, it reinforces the assumption that Republicans are racist.
But the reality is that voter id laws are perfectly fine everywhere in the world, they just get put down in the US because Democrats use it as evidence Republicans are racist. And it's not like letting it go just for politics sake would help, because if Republicans back down on non-racist policies because they were called racist by the opposition, it would then be advertised as an admission of racist guilt. Basically when it comes down to it, Lyndon Johnson broke American politics.
No, that's not the logic. I'm looking at the impact first-- the disenfranchisement, disproportionately, of black people. That leads me in a straight line to look at who's responsible (Republican legislators), and to discern their motive from that (skew election returns to the right). No presupposition of Republican racism is necessary. You can start squarely at the impact of the legislation and work from there.
Of course, it helps that Republican legislators are so brazen about it, by the fact that they don't attempt to introduce such measures in areas where it wouldn't electorally help them.
Voter ID laws are not perfectly fine everywhere in the world. We don't require ID here in the UK, and I'd be pissed off if they tried to introduce it.
Not least because the Conservatives fought tooth-and-nail to prevent national ID cards being introduced, meaning that the only ID cards would be documents like provisional driver's licenses or passports... which are both costly. Meaning that requiring ID to vote would disproportionately disenfranchise those on low-income brackets in the UK. See? No presupposition required.
I mean, at least lil devils had a point with how getting proper documentation is more difficult for Native Americans because they basically live outside of the system, but black people have no such excuse. What's stopping them from getting proper documentation?
Swearing an oath is meaningless if you're an atheist.
Clarence Thomas: Atheists Can’t Be Trusted Since Oaths Mean Nothing to Them
This is pure ignorance.
friendlyatheist.patheos.com
Systemic Racism, of course.
Red is compulsory voter ID laws worldwide, Blue is non-compulsory. Why doesn't the US act like the rest of the world?
1) Did you bother to read the page you cited? That Thomas claimed as much is very much treated as a mark of ignorant prejudice on his part. That it is - and I quote - "the sort of right-wing hypocrisy we’ve come to expect from people like Thomas", and that "Thomas’ bigotry is exactly why judges must be questioned about their stated beliefs. Anything that suggests they might rule in a way meant to please God instead of following our laws deserves to be called out."Swearing an oath is meaningless if you're an atheist.
This is an interesting opinion.Clarence Thomas: Atheists Can’t Be Trusted Since Oaths Mean Nothing to Them
This is pure ignorance.
2) As an atheist myself I both call bullshit and am very insulted by the insinuation that I'm apparently untrustworthy, morally deficient, can't be expected to do a job to the best of my ability, and don't put any value on my word of honor (all of which are baked into "what does an oath mean to them?") simply because of my theological perspective.
- Status