Voter Suppression and Why The Republicans Love It So Much?

[babe]

Back to the thread topic;

If you boil it down right, the fact is most conservatives, or even most Ruplicans in this country today, actually feel that their votes are not being counted or respected. It is the recent history of the "tea party" where a lot of candidates played to tea party issues, then went to Washington and became what they had campaigned against. And that kind of abuse is what build the Trump victory before Trump ever stood up to feel the breeze in front of them.

Pelosi exercises such power over the Dems in the house no9bodty in that party will break ranks with her orders, and even the Dem base is sick of that today.

I hear that the "Globalist' lawyers and moneygamers are out working on "stealing" 2022, Gerrymandering for all its worth. The Jan 6 issue is being exploited by Pelosi's star chanber to try to lay the groundwork for lawsuits to prevent specific Republicans from running for office, pulling up some legislation from the dustbins of a yesteryear, something like nobody who supported the Confederacy being eligible for office. Whatever it takes.

And while there are some true believer commies in the immigrant camps, and who will be useful when needed, the fact is coming out that most of the immigrants want the America that is capitalist, that gives them the chance to work and to save and start their own businesses.

As I've said in other threads, buying elections is going to get prohibitively expensive because the people aren't buying it.

 

[Gameface]

I support globalism.

I wish we had a single world government.

I'd be happy to settle for individual nations which operate under a global body that prevents military conflict, abritrates trade disputes, insures basic rights for all humans in all places, etc..

This fear that a global authority would only exist to oppress is absurd imho. Everyone wins when the basic human is comfortable, satisfied and secure. That is what we seek. That is what we want our government to provide. We are at peak productivity when our rights are respected, we have a perception of freedom and liberty and we feel that we can succeed based on hard work, skill and cooperation. That is best for the individual, best for our "overlords" and best for corporate revenue.

That is the system a one world government would employ.

Oppression is trash. It is non-optimal. No one wins.

 

[babe]

It’s weird to claim that the United States wasn’t a country but A union of states when one of the major reasons why the articles of confederation were scrapped in favor of our constitution were because we were acting as different states. It made trade challenging, interstate commerce using different currencies challenging, and taxing to pay off war debts impossible. If the constitution didn’t unite the country as a nation then what was the point of scrapping the articles of confederation?

Al must go to Babe university for history. It’s just a weird brand of history that isn’t actually rooted in historical fact.

It’s weird to claim that the United States wasn’t a country but A union of states when one of the major reasons why the articles of confederation were scrapped in favor of our constitution were because we were acting as different states. It made trade challenging, interstate commerce using different currencies challenging, and taxing to pay off war debts impossible. If the constitution didn’t unite the country as a nation then what was the point of scrapping the articles of confederation?

Al must go to Babe university for history. It’s just a weird brand of history that isn’t actually rooted in historical fact.

I support globalism.

I wish we had a single world government.

I'd be happy to settle for individual nations which operate under a global body that prevents military conflict, abritrates trade disputes, insures basic rights for all humans in all places, etc..

This fear that a global authority would only exist to oppress is absurd imho. Everyone wins when the basic human is comfortable, satisfied and secure. That is what we seek. That is what we want our government to provide. We are at peak productivity when our rights are respected, we have a perception of freedom and liberty and we feel that we can succeed based on hard work, skill and cooperation. That is best for the individual, best for our "overlords" and best for corporate revenue.

That is the system a one world government would employ.

Oppression is trash. It is non-optimal. No one wins.

I see a common thread in these two comments.

The issues between the American states in 1787 are like the issues between nations today. Lots of parallels.

Most Christians believe in "Globalism", when Jesus jcomes. "Come Lord Jesus". Because they assume or believe Jesus to be just and compassionate, principled and caring.

Most Commies believe in "Globalism" without unjust and selfish local thugs running everything.

The problem, universally, is human corruptiblility, and various other human flaws.


Some people want to legislate sin away, some want to preach sin awayh.

But the pragmatic founders of this country tried to set up a system that would protect our raights and limit the damage a government can do against us.

I'd support a global government that had principles like that, and people who would live by good principles.

It's just not an easy thing to do.

Meanwhile, we have to check our leaders and hold their feet to the fire of public scrutiny and just make damn sure nobody is above the law. And root out leaders who don't respect us.


the genius of a federal system is that it claims some of the advantages that a central government can do for us while not eliminating the advantages more local governments can provide us. And it makes it hard for one thug to take all the marbles and ruin us.

And a federal system that eliminates incentives, gains, or privileges for a corrupt elite to claim is a system we can all support. errr..... right?????

 

[Gameface]

I see a common thread in these two comments.

The issues between the American states in 1787 are like the issues between nations today. Lots of parallels.

Most Christians believe in "Globalism", when Jesus jcomes. "Come Lord Jesus". Because they assume or believe Jesus to be just and compassionate, principled and caring.

Most Commies believe in "Globalism" without unjust and selfish local thugs running everything.

The problem, universally, is human corruptiblility, and various other human flaws.


Some people want to legislate sin away, some want to preach sin awayh.

But the pragmatic founders of this country tried to set up a system that would protect our raights and limit the damage a government can do against us.

I'd support a global government that had principles like that, and people who would live by good principles.

It's just not an easy thing to do.

Meanwhile, we have to check our leaders and hold their feet to the fire of public scrutiny and just make damn sure nobody is above the law. And root out leaders who don't respect us.


the genius of a federal system is that it claims some of the advantages that a central government can do for us while not eliminating the advantages more local governments can provide us. And it makes it hard for one thug to take all the marbles and ruin us.

And a federal system that eliminates incentives, gains, or privileges for a corrupt elite to claim is a system we can all support. errr..... right?????

I think I made a point in my post that has been completely disregarded in this reply. So until the point I made is addressed I don't have a response.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

It’s just a weird brand of history that isn’t actually rooted in historical fact.

I always find the reaction to the Lincoln quote in the Letter to Horace Greeley to be amazing. We have a written quote from the leader who made the decision to take the nation to war about why he chose to do the war. The reaction is like this every time. Even after people run to the internet to verify the letter and quote are real, they still pretend it isn’t historical fact. I have no idea why but I know that not a single person who read that quote from Lincoln will admit the Union went to war in 1861 for a reason other than to abolish slavery if they didn’t already know before reading it. I don’t know if it is because they are afraid of being called racist or they don’t believe their teachers could have ever given them incorrect information. I honestly have no idea but it is like this every time.

I don’t mean to single you out Thriller. I know you see it while I also know you are one of the most laser focused advocates around. For you, every topic is an opportunity to champion something we can all see you are passionate about. Someone could bring up Antonio Brown quitting during the middle of game and the thread would read:

Al-O-Meter: The guy just peeled his shirt off and quit!

The Thriller: That is why we need to pass Build Back Better!

One Brow: LOL! It is ridiculous how wrong Al is because obviously that isn’t a shirt.

Babe: Shirts are like the pants of the torso.

The Thriller: Pants already cover the torso and that is why it is life and death for democracy that the Democrats hold on to the House in 2022

 

[fishonjazz]

I know this is gonna sound crazy but guys there have been times in my life where i have made a decision to do something based on more than one factor.

Again, this might be crazy but i think its totally possible that lincoln wanted to go to war to stop the south from seceding AND to aboloish slavery.




Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Al-O-Meter]

i think its totally possible that lincoln wanted to go to war to stop the south from seceding AND to aboloish slavery.

Because that is what you mean when you say "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."

The language could not be more plain and this happens every time.

 

[One Brow]

One Brow: LOL! It is ridiculous how wrong Al is because obviously that isn’t a shirt.

Perhaps if you would stop saying that jackets are shirts...

To be clear, I agree that Lincoln's earliest primary objective was to keep the rebellious states in the Union. This does not change the fact that the Civil War was primarily about slavery. The entire reason those states tried to leave the US was slavery, and in particular, the Republican positions against slavery in the territories and their refusal to support the Fugitive Slave Law.

 

[babe]

I think I made a point in my post that has been completely disregarded in this reply. So until the point I made is addressed I don't have a response.

I think I addressed it indirectly.

You believe a one d world government would achieve things otherwise impossible. I said, indirectly, that even a one world government would fail of those ideals unless human character was somehow got around.

You ideally wish everyody worldwide to have certain rights and opportunities which in your view are essential, you believe disparate nations fail in many cases.

Well, until some magic form of universal principle evolves us into better people, or until Jesus comes..... or the twelvfth Imam or Krishna or the age of Aquarius comes around again, whatever, a system of laws or constitutional established principlles, backed by judges that thi nk they are paramout and written by legislatorrs who have that aim, and signed by a chief executive who intends to enforce them, and a bureaucracy that doesn't think they have privileges beyond the ordinary, it's just not the reality.

Whether it's a tribe of twenty who disrepects the rights or principles, or a nation like China, we have no recourse to change stuff we humans do to one another, unless we will figure out a way that won't let anyone get "above the law">

Maybe I'm still missing your jpoint. Who knows?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

the Civil War was primarily about slavery. The entire reason those states tried to leave the US was slavery

That argument is sleight of hand. I’m not saying that you are arguing in bad faith because you are repeating the same revisionist line that has been made since the Trent Affair. A state electing to secede is not the same thing as soldiers in the field shooting at each other. The soldiers were in the field shooting at each other because Lincoln ordered them there to keep the union intact. That is why they were fighting. That is why there was war.

Making the Civil War about slavery relies on several degrees of separation where slavery caused the states to secede which caused Lincoln to order the military into the field, and couples that with the false idea that northerners were willing to fight and die to end slavery. In reality the north was really racist too and Lincoln himself was not an abolitionist but rather a free soiler.

The reason we can pretend the Civil War was to end slavery, and possibly even that the slaves were freed when they were, was because the public attitude in England in 1861 was closer to the way we wish we were. Lincoln pretended to be that to keep England out of the war, and in the end we became what we pretended to be. I’m not sad about that but find it strange that we’ve become so invested into that piece of pretend that now even when shown evidence of what really happened most willfully refuse to see what is in front of them.

 

[One Brow]

That argument is sleight of hand. I’m not saying that you are arguing in bad faith because you are repeating the same revisionist line that has been made since the Trent Affair.

It's the same "revisionist line" the four Confederate States that created declarations used. It's the same "revisionist line" the the Vice President of the Confederacy used in the Cornerstone Speech in March 1861. It's the same "revisionist line" that was believed by Crittenden when he proposed his compromise in December 1860, by the Committee of Thirty-Three in their presentation in January 1861, and by the Peace Conference in February 1861. If you don't believe that states that were seceding, nor the new leaders of the attempted secession, nor the opinions of the people who were trying to stop secession, can you at least explain how the Trent Affair (occurring in November, 1861) influenced all these event more than six months prior?

No? If not, will you have the decency to acknowledge why the Confederate states seceded?

A state electing to secede is not the same thing as soldiers in the field shooting at each other. The soldiers were in the field shooting at each other because Lincoln ordered them there to keep the union intact. That is why they were fighting. That is why there was war.

The Confederate soldiers were order into the field by Lincoln to keep the union intact? Hmmmm...

I am sure you are intelligent enough to be aware that it takes two sides to fight a war. The Confederate soldiers were in the field because their governments wanted to protect slavery; if there is no such desire, there is no secession to protect.

Making the Civil War about slavery relies on several degrees of separation where slavery caused the states to secede which caused Lincoln to order the military into the field, and couples that with the false idea that northerners were willing to fight and die to end slavery. In reality the north was really racist too and Lincoln himself was not an abolitionist but rather a free soiler.

Without slavery, there is no secession, and hence no Civil War. Having degrees of separation does not prevent it from being the primary cause.

The reason we can pretend the Civil War was to end slavery, ...

I don't recall making such a claim about the first two years of the war. Can you point out where I did?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

will you have the decency to acknowledge why the Confederate states seceded?

I have many, many times even here in this thread. There were other factors as well which is why the slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and most of Virginia fought on the side of the Union, but the ones that left mostly claimed it was to protect slavery. The "Lost Cause" is revisionist garbage. There was nothing noble about the south seceding.

The Confederate soldiers were order into the field by Lincoln to keep the union intact?

Sorta, yes. The Confederate soldiers were in the field in the first part of the Civil War to repel the invasion of the Union troops. If Lincoln had not ordered Union troops into the Confederate states there is no indication the Confederate soldiers would have invaded the North, so yes the Confederate soldiers were in the field because of Lincoln's order to keep the union intact.