The News Thread

rms said:
"People that should have evacuated didn't, so they are having to be evacuated," Gov. Edwards said.

Sounds familiar..
Click to expand...

It happens pretty much every time there's a hurricane hit unless they force evacuations - a hugely politically unpopular move. People will stick it out because of a variety of reasons, but for many low income folks they don't have a lot of options for evacuating in terms of somewhere to go. When you live paycheck to paycheck, coughing up the money to get out of the area and live in a hotel is not easy to come by - especially if you figure "most of the time nothing happens so it probably won't this time either".
 
Dak said:
There are ways to do it without sending out the SWAT teams or whatever. More expensive ways to do it than simply start raiding in Latino neighborhoods, but there are ways to do it. That said, what laws would they be lacking protection from in being forced to prove citizenship? We're all supposed to be protected from unwarranted search and seizure, but police have had no issue making unwarranted seizures, if not searches as well. Of course if there were searches for illegals, they could easily be warranted.
Click to expand...

It's not warrented because you would be literally picking people based on their race. It seems we have a fundamental disagreement on this. You think it's ok to racially profile, while I see it as against the Constitution and the basic priniples of this country.

I don't "value" the Consitution per se. It's supposed to be the rules governing government but it's mostly a fiction to make us all feel good about one thing or another.
Click to expand...

Ok. At least that clarifies your viewpoint.

I'm not getting into an entirely separate reparation debate, especially when it's quite obvious you haven't given it much thought. I had a professor that was very pro-rep and had to give it a lot of thought. Even most pro-reparations people don't even pretend to try to figure out who specifically is guilty or deserving or all that. They stick with generalized monetary transfers from the FedGov.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't have a position on this issue; I'm just trying to help you become more consistent in your viewpoints.

Well for starters, amending the Constitution is highly difficult/unlikely on this issue, so any fear you feel is amusing. It's not something Trump can EO. But you haven't actually explained why such a revision is such a problem.
Click to expand...

1. I don't think people should be punished for something their parents did.

2. The idea would have catastrophic consequences. You would have grown adults who have spent their entire life as Americans suddenly having their citizenship taken away. They've set their entire life up under the premise that they are Americans and now out of nowhere they have that taken away from them? It's absolutely absurd. Moreover, these people are for the most part NOT citizens of other countries. Therefore, they would suddenly be without a country. It would be entirely unreasonable to send them to their parent's country since they aren't citizens of those countries. In fact, they wouldn't even be able to get a passport to go to those countries, since they would be citizens of said nations. Moreover, you couldn't deport them, since they aren't from another country. Therefore, you would create a whole new cluster of disenfranchised undocumented immigrants who would literally have nowhere to go legally. Basically, all it would accomplish is decreasing the number of minority voters, aka eliminationism.


Oh yeah, that's totally what I said. Do you see why you can't be taken seriously?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you described what you saw and you saw animals. Your words, not mine. Sorry if you don't like being called out on the racism embedded worldview.

They do appear slanted against the low income, only because of the early voting/same day issue - but there's plenty of low income whites in the South, and for the rest of the country for that matter. Maybe low income whites don't use those "voting practices" though, I don't know so I won't say they aren't actually targeted racially. I didn't research the bills, because I didn't vote for the bills, nor the people who voted for the bills. All that aside - I've argued elsewhere recently specifically against the supposed racism in requiring a state ID, and that's what I was attempting to do here. If I spoke otherwise or led you to believe otherwise then I'll retract those statements as in error. If you do think that requiring a state ID be presented to vote is racist, I'll be happy to see your defense though.
Click to expand...

You are so amazingly arrogant. First, you know nothing about the laws but conclude that they aren't racist. Now that you've concluded that one part of the law discriminates against the poor, but presumably none of it is racist. Nevermind that numerous federal courts, including the most conservative in the nation, have concluded that these laws target minorities.

You're willing to dismiss the evaluation of economic experts without addressing a single specific, simply because "they are experts and experts can be wrong;" you're willing to spontaneously dismiss the conclusions of federal judges. Yet, you without having researched a subject are fit to draw conclusions on it? If you ever pulled your head out of your ass, you might actually learn a thing or two.

As for the need to have voter IDs, my counterargument is twofold:
1. This solves a problem that hasn't been proven to exist. The number of voter impersonation cases is something like 35, and while I'm sure there are other cases that haven't been caught, there isn't evidence that this is a prevelent crime. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves: is it right to create laws that can disenfranches swaths of voters for the sake of stopping a crime that, so far as the evidence shows, is extremely infrequent? The answer for me is obvious. No.

2. There is an issue with access to IDs that disproportionately impacts minorities and the poor. It essentially creates a "poll tax" for those who don't drive-disproportionately poor, minorities, the old and the young. While paying for an ID might not be a big deal for you or I, someone on a shoestring budget might not be able to afford it. Of course, this can be resolved by accepting other forms of ID, i.e. Student IDs and public assistant cards. (As an aside, some states allowed gun licenses and military IDs, but not student IDs or public assistant cards, which made the agenda all the more transparent).

Furthermore, in some cases, getting to the DMV can be an undue burden. For example, a single mother who doesn't have a car and works M-F could find it very difficult to get to the DMV and get an ID. That can be further compounded if there are not DMVs in your neighborhood.

In Alabama, their voter ID laws were conjoined with a shutdown of DMVs in black neighborhoods: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/alabama-dmv-closings-draw-call-federal-voting-rights-probe

In sum, when all the evidence is taken into account, it's fairly clear what these voting laws are really about.

Lastly, one point I would make is voting is a right, not privilege. Laws that impede that right without a thorough, evidence based justification should be universally rejected.
 
crimsonfloyd said:
It's not warrented because you would be literally picking people based on their race. It seems we have a fundamental disagreement on this. You think it's ok to racially profile, while I see it as against the Constitution and the basic priniples of this country.
Click to expand...

I find it obvious that it's ok to profile as in accordance with crime statistics in a given local - or even broadly, whatever the nature of the statistics/profiling is. This saves the taxpayers, of all races, sexes, or creeds, some undue hassle of one sort or another.

crimsonfloyd said:
Like I said, I don't have a position on this issue; I'm just trying to help you become more consistent in your viewpoints.
Click to expand...

I am quite consistent, but ya know....

12080.jpg



crimsonfloyd said:
1. I don't think people should be punished for something their parents did.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. But is not having an undue benefit a punishment?

crimsonfloyd said:
2. The idea would have catastrophic consequences. You would have grown adults who have spent their entire life as Americans suddenly having their citizenship taken away. They've set their entire life up under the premise that they are Americans and now out of nowhere they have that taken away from them? It's absolutely absurd. Moreover, these people are for the most part NOT citizens of other countries. Therefore, they would suddenly be without a country. It would be entirely unreasonable to send them to their parent's country since they aren't citizens of those countries. In fact, they wouldn't even be able to get a passport to go to those countries, since they would be citizens of said nations. Moreover, you couldn't deport them, since they aren't from another country. Therefore, you would create a whole new cluster of disenfranchised undocumented immigrants who would literally have nowhere to go legally. Basically, all it would accomplish is decreasing the number of minority voters, aka eliminationism.
Click to expand...

This is a much better argument, and one you could have made without all the other appeals to racism or whatever the fuck. A practical matter of "well even if you declare them non-citizens, they aren't legally citizens of anywhere else, so what happens now?" is an actual issue that must be dealt with - as opposed to LOL RACISTSTSTSTSSSSS! These are the grounds for one time "concessions", for "grandfathering".


crimsonfloyd said:
Yeah, you described what you saw and you saw animals. Your words, not mine. Sorry if you don't like being called out on the racism embedded worldview.
Click to expand...

And you want to accuse me of doubling down on weak arguments. lolz


crimsonfloyd said:
You are so amazingly arrogant. First, you know nothing about the laws but conclude that they aren't racist. Now that you've concluded that one part of the law discriminates against the poor, but presumably none of it is racist. Nevermind that numerous federal courts, including the most conservative in the nation, have concluded that these laws target minorities.
Click to expand...

I already said I was talking about IDs specifically. I retracted anything that suggested otherwise. Next.

crimsonfloyd said:
As for the need to have voter IDs, my counterargument is twofold:
1. This solves a problem that hasn't been proven to exist. The number of voter impersonation cases is something like 35, and while I'm sure there are other cases that haven't been caught, there isn't evidence that this is a prevelent crime. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves: is it right to create laws that can disenfranches swaths of voters for the sake of stopping a crime that, so far as the evidence shows, is extremely infrequent? The answer for me is obvious. No.

2. There is an issue with access to IDs that disproportionately impacts minorities and the poor. It essentially creates a "poll tax" for those who don't drive-disproportionately poor, minorities, the old and the young. While paying for an ID might not be a big deal for you or I, someone on a shoestring budget might not be able to afford it. Of course, this can be resolved by accepting other forms of ID, i.e. Student IDs and public assistant cards. (As an aside, some states allowed gun licenses and military IDs, but not student IDs or public assistant cards, which made the agenda all the more transparent).

Furthermore, in some cases, getting to the DMV can be an undue burden. For example, a single mother who doesn't have a car and works M-F could find it very difficult to get to the DMV and get an ID. That can be further compounded if there are not DMVs in your neighborhood.

In Alabama, their voter ID laws were conjoined with a shutdown of DMVs in black neighborhoods: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/alabama-dmv-closings-draw-call-federal-voting-rights-probe

In sum, when all the evidence is taken into account, it's fairly clear what these voting laws are really about.

Lastly, one point I would make is voting is a right, not privilege. Laws that impede that right without a thorough, evidence based justification should be universally rejected.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask what some states allowed. You keep moving the goalposts around and not answering the question. So I'm going to restate and expand it:

How many people out there do not have a state ID and/or driver's license, and also could not possibly make it to a driver's license office within a 2+ year period, as well as paying some sum that is less than $20 - - - - And how are such requirements racist?

I actually took a younger brother today to get his first state ID and the cost without proof of residency (a low income problem) was $15. With proof it would be 13. For a duplicate or update, with proof of residency even less. If there is some portion of the population that cannot meet these criteria - why should they have any say in who has access to the levers of power? One of the knocks on Trump is how his uneducated voter base shouldn't be sending such a person to a position that has any control over nuclear planetary destruction. Apparently his voter base can at least muster gas money and <20$. What does that say for those who can't? I'm just trying to get you to be consistent after all.
 
Dak said:
I find it obvious that it's ok to profile as in accordance with crime statistics in a given local - or even broadly, whatever the nature of the statistics/profiling is. This saves the taxpayers, of all races, sexes, or creeds, some undue hassle of one sort or another.
Click to expand...

In other words you believe in systematic racism and don't value the 14th Amendment. I'd have more respect for you at least owned up to what you are because your positions clearly support targetting people based on their race.

I agree completely. But is not having an undue benefit a punishment?
Click to expand...

It's a due benefit, aka a right, per the US Consitution.

I didn't ask what some states allowed. You keep moving the goalposts around and not answering the question.
Click to expand...

My point from the beginning has been that there is systematic racism and eliminationism occuring against minorities in this country. I have backed it up with a healthy variety sources. You've countered with unsubstantiated armchair poly sci.

So I'm going to restate and expand it:

How many people out there do not have a state ID and/or driver's license, and also could not possibly make it to a driver's license office within a 2+ year period, as well as paying some sum that is less than $20 - - - - And how are such requirements racist?
Click to expand...

About 15% of the US population live in poverty, so 15% is a good estimate. $24K is the poverty line for a family of four. If you're supporting a family of 4 on $2K a month, once you subtract rent, food, utilities, etc. yes, $20 can be a burden.

And as far as how are such requirements racist, that was already made clear. Since the law disproportionately impacts minorities and said impact was beknownst to the authors of the law, the law is racist.

Since that has clearly been demonstrated, let's flip the script. Why do we need Voter ID laws when the number of proven voter fraud cases is statistically insignificant?


If there is some portion of the population that cannot meet these criteria - why should they have any say in who has access to the levers of power?
Click to expand...

You are really demonstrating a poor understanding of the legal foundations of this country. Voting is right, not a priviledge. That is made clear in multiple amendments. One cannot be "too poor to vote".

One of the knocks on Trump is how his uneducated voter base shouldn't be sending such a person to a position that has any control over nuclear planetary destruction. Apparently his voter base can at least muster gas money and <20$. What does that say for those who can't? I'm just trying to get you to be consistent after all.
Click to expand...

LMAO. Now you're really reaching for straws. You're also showing that your intellectual integrity is as low as your moral character. I never claimed that Trump supporters shouldn't be allowed to vote and you know it. Trying to accuse me of falling into a contradiction for something that other people said is lazy and desperate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arg
We need voter id to stop illegals, dead people, and double voters from voting. If extremely low income people are prevented from voting, that's fine too, because their choice will, by default, not be good for the taxpayers keeping the country running.
 
The ultra-poor being able to vote is detrimental to the working class and middle class. Who can disagree with that?
 
arg said:
The ultra-poor being able to vote is detrimental to the working class and middle class. Who can disagree with that?
Click to expand...

the middle and upper classes depend on the lower class, as does the economy, so why shouldn't they vote? Because they require handouts? fucking boring aug, your opinions are shit and you keep on spewing them
 
  • Like
Reactions: arg
crimsonfloyd said:
One cannot be "too poor to vote".
Click to expand...

arg said:
If extremely low income people are prevented from voting, that's fine too, because their choice will, by default, not be good for the taxpayers keeping the country running.
Click to expand...

Why the fuck did you like his comment if you disagree fundamentally with what he said? Is there any intelligent life back there? Hello?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG and arg
i liked it just so he would read my reply, just like i liked yours, after i had already posted without hitting the reply button


make no mistake all you lefties' posts are absolute garbage to me. my liking it is sort of a sarcastic mockery
 
Last edited:
Besides the obvious answer, your logic assumes that poor people stay poor, middle class stay middle class and rich stay rich.

Keeping people from voting based on income is hilariously stupid. What about housewives? For someone that pretends to be right-wing, you sure are intent on eroding much of the right-wing vote.
 
CASSETTEISGOD said:
Besides the obvious answer, your logic assumes that poor people stay poor, middle class stay middle class and rich stay rich.
Click to expand...
they generally do. and if they change classes, it's usually downward. classes vote in their own best interest. the best interest of the ultra-poor is bad for all other classes including the working poor.

Keeping people from voting based on income is hilariously stupid. What about housewives? For someone that pretends to be right-wing, you sure are intent on eroding much of the right-wing vote.
Click to expand...
pretty sure right wing housewives have id. even the poor-ish rednecks. i mean they have guns and tractors right?

This is the main reason we need voter id. The democrats are fighting hard to let illegal immigrants vote.

http://www.progressivestoday.com/report-illegals-told-vote-democrats-face-deportation/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431676/obama-administration-enabling-noncitizen-voting
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ensure-illegals-can-vote-in-november-election
http://www.investors.com/politics/e...illegals-voting-reveals-political-motivation/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MetalAges
Fellas - about the T&A thread......
Replies
54
Views
3K
Bloodbath
DarkGift
D
Zephyrus
MDF Anticipated Highlights/Sample Setlist Thread
Replies
9
Views
793
GMD Social Forum
Crucified Coma
C
Attilio II
  • Locked
the 9/11 conspiracy thread
Replies
29
Views
1K
GMD Social Forum
skeptik
S
King Richard
Good news football fans
Replies
12
Views
653
GMD Social Forum
AchrisK
A
F
Question about katatonia artwork
Replies
7
Views
2K
Katatonia
Lord Byron
L
Top Bottom
Back