Republican voter suppression...
- Thread starter goldfly
- Start date
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Since this has been a bell I’ve been ringing since before it was fashionable, I’ll underscore it here. More participation in elections is good and should be valued and encouraged by any free society. Laws that add obstacles to voting, without any specific empirical evidence of fraud prevention, are suppressive by nature. I want voting to be as easy as falling off a log in every community, including my own, which is fire-engine red.
Voting should be easy and convenient. If it isn’t, it should be considered a failure and the question should be asked: why? Any time I see that question asked, the answer seems to be that the people for whom narrowly-timed, restrictive in-person voting is most difficult tend to be of a particular class.
Voting should be easy and convenient. If it isn’t, it should be considered a failure and the question should be asked: why? Any time I see that question asked, the answer seems to be that the people for whom narrowly-timed, restrictive in-person voting is most difficult tend to be of a particular class.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Without the avatar I can't tell which of the 2 are talking.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
There are people that post here who have been refreshingly upfront about the desirability of suppressing turnout by particular classes of voters. See page 11 of this thread for a sample.
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
yup...your honesty in favoring suppression of turnout of folks who vote the wrong way is commendable
i suppose the alternative, the hard work of persuading someone with whom you disagree, is not an option
tyrants...commies...away with their votes!
Last edited:
sturg33
I
I would advise you see who is on the side of arresting people for the walking outside without a mask, and who is on the side of banning books, and who is on the side of mass censorship.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I don’t want to personalize this, but sturg has been pretty up front about his disdain for democracy and belief that voting should be restricted to a...not really sure how to describe it, but I guess I’d venture to say an *elite* class.
Ok. If that’s what you believe, so be it. You’re on record with it. But it’s rich to try to make arguments about ballot access that you represent as being value-neutral and in good faith and deployed for the general well-being when you have a pretty long track record of stating the opposite.
I remember a couple of exchanges sturg and I had about corporate power. My POV was that things like corporate-funded political corruption, monopoly, monopsony, and regulatory capture were logical and rational outgrowths of capitalism. His POV was that such things were a perversion of capitalism and were ultimately the fault of government, though he didn’t seem to really regret the extent that they redounded to the benefit of capital. So the best I understand it is that his ideology is that capitalism never fails, and where it is failed by the state it is forgivable and necessary. On the other hand, the franchise should be limited to the degree possible—in the direction of capital—and a more representative democracy is mob rule and should be avoided.
So I get why it’s frustrating to argue with him, but what I don’t get is why one would even bother. It’s an extremist POV. It’s an anti-democratic, far right (like, in the mid-20th Europe sense) POV. Hold an extremist point of view if you want, sure, but don’t dress it up in the language of freedom, liberty, plurality, and democratic ideals. You can support that kind of oligarchy or you can support “individual liberty,” but you can’t really have both.
Ok. If that’s what you believe, so be it. You’re on record with it. But it’s rich to try to make arguments about ballot access that you represent as being value-neutral and in good faith and deployed for the general well-being when you have a pretty long track record of stating the opposite.
I remember a couple of exchanges sturg and I had about corporate power. My POV was that things like corporate-funded political corruption, monopoly, monopsony, and regulatory capture were logical and rational outgrowths of capitalism. His POV was that such things were a perversion of capitalism and were ultimately the fault of government, though he didn’t seem to really regret the extent that they redounded to the benefit of capital. So the best I understand it is that his ideology is that capitalism never fails, and where it is failed by the state it is forgivable and necessary. On the other hand, the franchise should be limited to the degree possible—in the direction of capital—and a more representative democracy is mob rule and should be avoided.
So I get why it’s frustrating to argue with him, but what I don’t get is why one would even bother. It’s an extremist POV. It’s an anti-democratic, far right (like, in the mid-20th Europe sense) POV. Hold an extremist point of view if you want, sure, but don’t dress it up in the language of freedom, liberty, plurality, and democratic ideals. You can support that kind of oligarchy or you can support “individual liberty,” but you can’t really have both.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I guess I’d argue that making it harder to vote was more of an imposition on freedom than a state, local, or municipal mask mandate during a pandemic. Also, though I can think of cases where people have actually been sentenced to jail for mistakenly voting in contravention of local laws, I doubt anyone’s doing time for violating mask ordinances.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
But you quite literally advocate the opposite case.
sturg33
I
I quite literally don't.
If you can find a post of mine where I advocate for removing someone's right to vote, please share
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
idiots...commies...tyrants
in other words people who don't see things the way you do
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I don’t know where you stand on “removing” someone’s right to vote, but you’ve been pretty clear on support of measures to make it harder to vote, in theory and practice.
I can’t think of a test for removing the right to vote, except, like, the states that limit voting for felons. I’m not sure where you stand on that, so I can’t say. But you’re pretty consistent in advocating for a smaller franchise.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
the comedic gold and unintended irony are always there
sturg33
I
Nsacpi makes two contradictory arguments all the time.
One the one hand... he says the election of Trump was the single greatest threat to democracy in our lifetime's... that his election was busted all norms of our republic and should be opposed at all costs.
On the other hand... he says he supports all the voters who got him elected
It's my opinion that if you hold the first viewpoint, then it is quite logical to want a different outcome in an election, by hoping less people vote for Trump, or more people voting for HRC.
----------------------------------------
I want fewer idiots voting who support restricting people's rights. I want fewer idiots voting who believe we should lock ourselves down from the scary virus. I want fewer idiots voting who think Walmart should pay cashiers $43 a hr.
Of course, what I want and what I think people have the right to do are two different things.
One the one hand... he says the election of Trump was the single greatest threat to democracy in our lifetime's... that his election was busted all norms of our republic and should be opposed at all costs.
On the other hand... he says he supports all the voters who got him elected
It's my opinion that if you hold the first viewpoint, then it is quite logical to want a different outcome in an election, by hoping less people vote for Trump, or more people voting for HRC.
----------------------------------------
I want fewer idiots voting who support restricting people's rights. I want fewer idiots voting who believe we should lock ourselves down from the scary virus. I want fewer idiots voting who think Walmart should pay cashiers $43 a hr.
Of course, what I want and what I think people have the right to do are two different things.