|
cravius posted:Removing formulas based on 40 year old data is common sense This is a huge rhetorical shift. It does not back up your claim that the VRA was not gutted when you say that it deserved to be gutted on account of being 40 years old.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:22 |
|
|
cravius posted:yes, some states were bad 60 years ago so they should be discriminated against forever. seems like sound logic The republicans making it easier to maintain power by disenfranchising voters is real. The dems want to maintain their own power by getting as many people to vote as possible. That's a thing too. It has to do with racism in part, but it also has to do with demographics. If 90% of a population in an area doesn't vote for you and threatens your power to get elected it is in your interest to make sure to depress their turnout or make sure that their votes don't effect you by pushing them into other districts. By splitting these people into discreet groups, concentrating their numbers where they won't effect you and disenfranchising those you can't deal with you are able to maintain your power. I live in the South. Attitudes have changed, but not as much as you think. Racism is still here and thriving. People can't be as blatant as "How many bubbles are in this bar of soap?" which was a real test to vote that was applied to black people. Instead they keep the DMV's closed or just straight up purge you from voter registries. Or they just close down enough of the lines until you have to wait hours on a day that you are not guaranteed to have off. Voter fraud happens, but the impact is so small and the consequences so awful that it's barely a thing. You're looking at dozens to hundreds statewide in any election. Not statistically significant. Election fraud however is massive and real. Anyone blind to election fraud isn't paying attention. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
*takes the guy who says voter rights discriminate against the south seriously*
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Joe-Bob posted:This is a huge rhetorical shift. It does not back up your claim that the VRA was not gutted when you say that it deserved to be gutted on account of being 40 years old. No it really isn't. Removing the unconstitutional clauses does not "gut" the whole VRA 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Considering the first move after the VRA was partially struck was North Carolina moving to limit access of African Americans to the right to vote, YES. Maybe not forever, but this new data should be good for at least another 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Reminder that this is the strategy which helped them get their asses handed to them in 2010 and 2014 (and 2016), and made 2012 a disappointing year overall as well. If this election prompts the DNC to start doing the things again that ten years ago delivered them the House and Senate and the majority of statehouses and governorships, then we can take that as a peanut in what is otherwise the heaping pile of poo poo that is the year 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
cravius posted:No it really isn't. Removing the unconstitutional clauses does not "gut" the whole VRA Whether the clause is unconstitutional or not is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not the law has been gutted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
cravius posted:yeah this didnt happen
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Don't see anything in there specifically targeting African Americans. Sorry
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
i thought this sunday was going to be a stinker but the lord has blessed me by providing a guy spouting off 1960s conservative talking points as a bit to rile people up, against whom i may sharpen my rhetorical wit
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
cravius posted:Don't see anything in there specifically targeting African Americans. Sorry Actually it does. Read it again, stupid?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
This is probably going to seem like a stupid as hell question, but is the right to vote something that is explicitly constitutionally protected? If so, how do people justify purging voter rolls and imposing restrictions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Sorus posted:If so, how do people justify purging voter rolls and imposing restrictions? States Rights, literally. States have the right to periodically update the rolls to remove felons, the dead, etc, as well as further determine who is eligible to vote. Some states enfranchised women far before they nationally got the right to vote in 1920.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Actually it does. Read it again, stupid? Nope still don't see it. Some of the people who happened to be targeted included some African Americans, but where's the language specifically restricting black voting. Thats what was claimed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Sorus posted:This is probably going to seem like a stupid as hell question, but is the right to vote something that is explicitly constitutionally protected?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
cravius posted:Nope still don't see it. Some of the people who happened to be targeted included some African Americans, but where's the language specifically restricting black voting. Thats what was claimed. Sublinked in the article: quote:North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature rewrote the state’s voting rules in 2013 shortly after the Supreme Court struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that had given the Justice Department the power to oversee changes in election procedures in areas with a history of racial discrimination. Forty of the state’s 100 counties had been subject to oversight. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/u...&pgtype=article
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Republicans don't regard voter suppression laws as restricting minority voting rights because they don't see race Democrats are the real racists for thinking minorities aren't capable of following the rules to vote (Actual right wing media argument for voter suppression)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
cravius posted:Nope still don't see it. Some of the people who happened to be targeted included some African Americans, but where's the language specifically restricting black voting. Thats what was claimed. The legislature specifically requested information on what factors increased the African-American share of the vote, and then restricted these exact factors. If you are trying to argue that this is a coincidence, I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Sublinked in the article: Yeah that's one implication you can draw I guess. But that's a lot different from "explicitly limiting the ability of black people to vote." Cause that didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
cravius posted:Yeah that's one implication you can draw I guess. But that's a lot different from "explicitly limiting the ability of black people to vote." Cause that didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Back in the 60s very few places in the South explicitly prevented black people from voting either. They used things like literacy tests, poll fees, etc. Things that could filter out all the black people without explicitly targeting them. This is not a new thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Oh my god you're so loving stupid. Or trolling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Not to mention the VRA including section 2 was reauthorized in 2006 with a vote of 390 - 33 in the house and 98 - 0 in the Senate per congress.gov so the idea that that section was too old and outdated is ridiculous. Congress had the opportunity to update it less than a decade before and they overwhelmingly decided not to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Or trolling. Most easily trolled forum, after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Article 1 Section 4 of the Constitution makes clear that the Congress can pass any law it wants to regulate federal elections. It could pass a law that requires all ballots for Congressional elections in Kansas to be made of tree bark, if it wanted. The VRA, which Congress passed, repeatedly, was much more reasonable and the court had no right to intervene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Article 1 Section 4 of the Constitution makes clear that the Congress can pass any law it wants to regulate federal elections. It could pass a law that requires all ballots for Congressional elections in Kansas to be made of tree bark, if it wanted. The VRA, which Congress passed, repeatedly, was much more reasonable and the court had no right to intervene. Wouldn't that be balanced with the 14th and 19th amendments WRT most jurisprudences?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
cravius posted:Yeah that's one implication you can draw I guess. But that's a lot different from "explicitly limiting the ability of black people to vote." Cause that didn't happen. There's nothing in the White Citizen's Council that specifically said it banned black people, maybe they weren't a bad idea?!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Wouldn't that be balanced with the 14th and 19th amendments WRT most jurisprudences? It's true that Congress cannot make a law to restrict the vote to peoples granted it under the 14th and 19th, but that's obviously also not what the VRA did. Also, Congress is not allowed to pick the place where voting for Senators occurs, a legacy of when they were chosen by state legislatures that's technically still operative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
cravius posted:I'm the people unironically arguing that the laws of the land should apply to certain states differently than others I agree, VRA should apply to all states because there are alot of oligarchists in the states who should be facing labor camps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
cravius posted:I'm the people unironically arguing that the laws of the land should apply to certain states differently than others Agree, federal preclearance should apply to all states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Can't decide if stupid or trilling hrmmmm
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
the entire voter id controversy could be avoided if whites were in favor of compulsory ID laws where the government registers everyone living here and gives out a free ID for all government related services. unfortunately for some reason white people hate that idea
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:the entire voter id controversy could be avoided if whites were in favor of compulsory ID laws where the government registers everyone living here and gives out a free ID for all government related services. unfortunately for some reason white people hate that idea Because it's communism
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
spunkshui posted:Only thing it does is make democrats look like huge hypocrites. To be fair, if the GOP had superdelegates we wouldn't have President-Elect Donald Trump, so maybe it's not all that bad an idea. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Getting Snowden back will be Trump's big move in his first days of office, Russia only tolerates him to use as a bargaining piece. Trump: Thanks again for leaking those e-mails! That bitch didn't know what hit her! Snowden: Um...I think you're thinking of Assange. Trump: ...gently caress!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Considering the first move after the VRA was partially struck was North Carolina moving to limit access of African Americans to the right to vote, YES. And to follow up on this, NC still disenfranchised thousands of black voters through a loving ridiculous positive affirmation scheme where Person A challenges Person B's eligibility to vote, and it's on Person B to refute and provide evidence to the contrary of Person A's dumbass claim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Abisteen posted:Not to mention the VRA including section 2 was reauthorized in 2006 with a vote of 390 - 33 in the house and 98 - 0 in the Senate per congress.gov so the idea that that section was too old and outdated is ridiculous. Congress had the opportunity to update it less than a decade before and they overwhelmingly decided not to. Noes posted:..... lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:The republicans making it easier to maintain power by disenfranchising voters is real. The dems want to maintain their own power by getting as many people to vote as possible. That's a thing too. Voter fraud happens the same way me and Huma Abedin going steady happens: through wishing on a shooting star and then crying profusely into a pillow night after night, alone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Phone posted:Voter fraud happens the same way me and Huma Abedin going steady happens: through wishing on a shooting star and then crying profusely into a pillow night after night, alone. ...for instance, the woman who voted for Trump twice because she thought her first vote would get changed to Hillary. But not the second? Somehow? I'm not really sure what her motivation was, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:22 |
|
|
Of course cravius is making a "racism ended in the '60s, why do we still need the VRA?" argument, he iirc also was the guy who said we should get rid of birthright citizenship. Gee, this is totally a person who understands what institutional racism is and is arguing in good faith, guys. Anyhow arguing in favor of voter ID laws is like arguing in favor of anti-welfare fraud laws. It's an overreaching solution to a minuscule problem that just so happens to massively limit the ability of the poor to use government services and saves rich white people money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:44
|
|
