Republican voter suppression...

Julio3000 said:
I’m willing to admit that straight, 100% voter participation would probably create, in a snapshot, some outcomes that I wouldn’t prefer. That said, I think it would be a better outcome in the long run, considering the class and demographic biases in our “democracy.” To suggest that you support less participation puts you on one side of the line. I’m loath to define what it is, but...some words come to mind.

I guess I’m willing to risk the so-called tyranny of the majority to be on the other side of that line.
Click to expand...

Ah yes of course. It has to be racism
 
sturg33 said:
Do yall actually think someone going to the ballot box, voting down the line based on nothing but a letter, is an objectively good thing?

This slices both ways. The low informed voters also got us catastrophes like Iraq war and NCLB. It got us fascist Trump and corpse Biden. It doesn't lead to good candidates with good proposal bc the votes come down to nothing but party lines

Voting on nothing but a letter or a slogan is not something to strive for, in my opinion
Click to expand...

I’m just confused now. I’m absolutely not a fan of our two-party system, but trying to blame a broad franchise for the Iraq war (or trying to compare the Iraq war to NCLB) seems like moving the goalposts from your previous arguments.
 
I mean, if you want to argue that our electoral system hasn’t been stacked against non-whites, and against working class people overall, go ahead. But you’d be wrong, and easily, demonstrably so.
 
Julio3000 said:
I’m just confused now. I’m absolutely not a fan of our two-party system, but trying to blame a broad franchise for the Iraq war (or trying to compare the Iraq war to NCLB) seems like moving the goalposts from your previous arguments.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is people who simply vote for the party are not objectively good. It leads to candidates not needing to persuade voters with actual policies. The masses vote in lockstep and further degrades the need for debate and nuance. This is why every year our choices get worse and worse

57 is voting for D no matter what... there is not a candidate that has a D next to their name that 57 won't vote for.

That is not an objectively good thing. Id prefer he not vote. The same goes the other way around.

People who think the GA voting bill is literally Jim Crow 2.0, are a net negative to societal outcomes if they cast a vote.
 
Interesting case study you chose, though. Bush wasn’t elected on a platform of “invade Iraq,” in 2000, though. He ran for re-election in 2004, and Rs worked to make the election boil down to culture-war stuff in swing states instead of a pure referendum on the Iraq war. State-level anti-gay-marriage referenda were the tool of choice in that case, and they won, where it mattered. Still, there was a massive voter suppression effort in Ohio and Florida that cycle. Who knows what that result would have been with more liberal voting standards? Angels dancing on the head of a pin, now.

But it’s curious that the example of majority tyranny you chose to hit me with—GWB invades Iraq—was a consequence of a contested presidential election which won a minority of the popular vote and was ultimately, controversially, decided by the Supreme Court.

So the Iraq War and the gay-bashing won, narrowly, by proxy in 2004. And both have been substantially repudiated since then.

Not sure this is making the argument you wanted it to.
 
sturg33 said:
What I'm saying is people who simply vote for the party are not objectively good. It leads to candidates not needing to persuade voters with actual policies. The masses vote in lockstep and further degrades the need for debate and nuance. This is why every year our choices get worse and worse

57 is voting for D no matter what... there is not a candidate that has a D next to their name that 57 won't vote for.

That is not an objectively good thing. Id prefer he not vote. The same goes the other way around.

People who think the GA voting bill is literally Jim Crow 2.0, are a net negative to societal outcomes if they cast a vote.
Click to expand...

Not sure I disagree with you, and not sure you’re right about how people vote.
 
Julio3000 said:
Not sure I disagree with you, and not sure you’re right about how people vote.
Click to expand...

Except, yeah, that people who think the GA voting bill are Jim Crow 2.0 are pretty much right. Can’t say that means who they’re voting FOR is good, but it’s certainly less bad.
 
Julio3000 said:
Interesting case study you chose, though. Bush wasn’t elected on a platform of “invade Iraq,” in 2000, though. He ran for re-election in 2004, and Rs worked to make the election boil down to culture-war stuff in swing states instead of a pure referendum on the Iraq war. State-level anti-gay-marriage referenda were the tool of choice in that case, and they won, where it mattered. Still, there was a massive voter suppression effort in Ohio and Florida that cycle. Who knows what that result would have been with more liberal voting standards? Angels dancing on the head of a pin, now.

But it’s curious that the example of majority tyranny you chose to hit me with—GWB invades Iraq—was a consequence of a contested presidential election which won a minority of the popular vote and was ultimately, controversially, decided by the Supreme Court.

So the Iraq War and the gay-bashing won, narrowly, by proxy in 2004. And both have been substantially repudiated since then.

Not sure this is making the argument you wanted it to.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a good example. Bc Bush didn't campaign that way. But after he chose to be Mr nation builder, the R coalition went with him and voted him in again (this time by majority). My point was that people voted for him regardless of his shift in policy... and whether you want to describe them as low informed or tribal, his presidency was an objectively bad outcome for our country. I dont want voters participating if they are voting on tribes or bad information.
 
I mean, you mentioned racism. So it’s worth asking if it’s a coincidence that all the areas that were subject to Justice Department pre-clearance under the CRA were freed from such under the Shelby decision and all of the sudden started closing polling places, etc.

Look. I want more people to vote. Period. You’re tap-dancing all around with hypotheticals and ****. Make it easy to vote. Live with the consequences. If you believe in “liberty” and “freedom” and all that rhetoric, you should support it.
 
Julio3000 said:
Except, yeah, that people who think the GA voting bill are Jim Crow 2.0 are pretty much right. Can’t say that means who they’re voting FOR is good, but it’s certainly less bad.
Click to expand...

GA expanded their voting access and rank in the top 15 in the country in voting access... acting as if what they did is akin to Jim Crow, is insulting to people who lived through that era and incredibly ignorant.

Thats a really stupid ****ing opinion
 
sturg33 said:
It wasn't a good example. Bc Bush didn't campaign that way. But after he chose to be Mr nation builder, the R coalition went with him and voted him in again (this time by majority). My point was that people voted for him regardless of his shift in policy... and whether you want to describe them as low informed or tribal, his presidency was an objectively bad outcome for our country. I dont want voters participating if they are voting on tribes or bad information.
Click to expand...

I’m wondering—and I’m wholly sincere—if there’s any example of voters not voting on tribes or bad information, and, if not, how you would suggest that would happen.
 
I'm not tap dancing around anything and I'm getting tired of saying the same thing to who is apparently lost the ability to critically think.

I dont want idiots voting.

They have the right to.

I dont support sending mass ballots to every address in the country. If you can't be bothered to put in a slither of effort, then dont vote

How do I make it more clear?
 
sturg33 said:
GA expanded their voting access and rank in the top 15 in the country in voting access... acting as if what they did is akin to Jim Crow, is insulting to people who lived through that era and incredibly ignorant.

Thats a really stupid ****ing opinion
Click to expand...

Not really gonna take your word for it, for reasons that should be clear by now, from this thread alone.
 
Julio3000 said:
Not really gonna take your word for it, for reasons that should be clear by now, from this thread alone.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

The people who had to drink out separate water fountains due to the color of their skin is equivalent to expanding voting access to 16 days, more hours, and placing drop boxes throughout the state that didn't exist a year prior.

Same exact thing.
 
sturg33 said:
I'm not tap dancing around anything and I'm getting tired of saying the same thing to who is apparently lost the ability to critically think.

I dont want idiots voting.

They have the right to.

I dont support sending mass ballots to every address in the country. If you can't be bothered to put in a slither of effort, then dont vote

How do I make it more clear?
Click to expand...

Why not?

Why shouldn’t every eligible voter find it as easy as possible to vote?

You’ve given your answer. I think you’re wrong, and I know who your answer serves.

But, really, why not? Why, instead of trying to rush to a crowded polling place after work to stand in line for hours to vote—if possible at all—should a working person not receive a ballot at home and mail it in? What biases are you bringing to this question?
 
sturg33 said:
Yeah.

The people who had to drink out separate water fountains due to the color of their skin is equivalent to expanding voting access to 16 days, more hours, and placing drop boxes throughout the state that didn't exist a year prior.

Same exact thing.
Click to expand...

They pretend to be serious. In reality they want absolutely zero restrictions on voting while ignoring the obvious fraud risk it creates.

Just a few years ago it was common knowledge that mail in ballots is how elections are stolen. Now, we must have universal mail in voting in every state or else you’re a racist.
 
sturg33 said:
Yeah.

The people who had to drink out separate water fountains due to the color of their skin is equivalent to expanding voting access to 16 days, more hours, and placing drop boxes throughout the state that didn't exist a year prior.

Same exact thing.
Click to expand...

I think you might be better served to listen to the people who lived through former about their opinions about the latter.
 
You’re getting hung up on cases, and my point has been: easy to vote, or hard to vote?

You say hard. I say easy. Everything else is smoke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top