What's new
By:
Filters

Voter Suppression and Why The Republicans Love It So Much?

Yes! If we can have a holiday for anything in the U.S. we should be able to have a holiday for voting. This should be a celebration! This should be a national event.
 
One Brow said:
Just ensuring proper categorization. No joking there.


Of course. We also need to avoid confusing disagreement with skeptical thinking.
Click to expand...
OK. I see your point.

You mistake skepticism for being an unfounded lack of a real point of view that differs from yours.

disbelief in authoritative views, sometimes shrouded in claims of "Science" is a difficult position to take. If I adduce facts or expose problems with the authoritative claims, who the hell am I to question authority. You disallow non-establishment information or knowledge claiming it has to be peer-reviewed by established peer authority or you need not consider the information.

When I first encountered this issue in the 1960s, there was a book entitled "The New Brahmins" which I immediately understood on the basis of immediate examples within my own experience.

Government funding has corrupted Science and made a new State Religion bassackwards as the medieval clergy/kings who threw actual scientists in prisons as heretics.

Your whole system of facts is just a stinking pile of poop.

There, is that point of view different enough to challenge your orthodoxy?

I shouldn't have to be the one to challenge it point by point. You have a brain. You can take a new look at things if you want.

No belief or idea can be any better than the supporting observations/information/results/conclusions it is based on. Not even mine.

I consider the appropriation of any normative belief system into a government system requiring compliance the essence of tyranny. If the information or belief is well-founded, nothing more than education is needed. The governance should be light enough to leave it there.

The founders of the US had emerged from/fled from intense deadly religious wars, and found it necessary to agree that their government should not be empowered to impose religious beliefs or any establishment of religion. They lacked imagination to see science coming to be the tool of oppression. We need to get the government out of the belief compliance business.

No more propaganda, period.

You should advocate to privatize all education and let parents make the choice regarding how to educate the rising generation.

You won't be out of work. You just won't be abusing the children you teach with mind-numbing political propaganda.

Agenda wonks of all kinds need to reconsider their objectives, and conclude that education is OK if it is education, if it respects human rights to belief and choice and opportunity. Whatever merits a political agenda may have can be no better than the merits of the underlying beliefs and ideas. Pushing an agenda on another level of discussion is not good enough. If the cause is good, the methods need to be as good.
 
One Brow said:
Fixed it for you.

There are people with whom I regularly disagree that I nonetheless see exhibiting solid skeptical thinking (often at the same time). Most recently @infection and @idestroyedthetoilet, but in earlier times @Stoked, @Gameface, @JazzSpazz, and so many others I can't remember them all.
Click to expand...
There are literally no people in here who won't/don't/can't provide solid examples of skepticism. It's the direction of that skepticism that I'd take issue with, most of the time.

Anyone who is skeptical about my points of view, perhaps. ha ha

Teenagers develop their brains to the point where they can easily refuse the intellectual offerings of parents. College students generally want to adopt the offerings of professors as a sort of justification for their innate rebellions. Pretty normal.

Assuming we are capable of bringing elements into a discussion that others might find informative is about the best I can do for this outfit.

My complaints about agenda wonks probably means I should not assume as much as I do.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Who makes people wait in line to vote? I'm wholly unaware of how polling places become organized. Is this something you or I could get involved in so we aren't making people wait in line for hours?
Click to expand...
Beats me.
I didn't have to wait in line cause I just put my ballot in an envelope and mailed it in. That's the way I prefer to vote

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
babe said:
There are literally no people in here who won't/don't/can't provide solid examples of skepticism. It's the direction of that skepticism that I'd take issue with, most of the time.
Click to expand...
Skepticism is not disagreement. It's main direction is the questioning of knowledge that is insufficiently founded.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Who makes people wait in line to vote? I'm wholly unaware of how polling places become organized. Is this something you or I could get involved in so we aren't making people wait in line for hours?
Click to expand...
www.npr.org

Why Do Nonwhite Georgia Voters Have To Wait In Line For Hours? Too Few Polling Places

The state's voter rolls have grown by nearly 2 million since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, but polling locations have been cut by almost 10%.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
 
After reading how these lines also happened in the primaries and the 2018 gubernatorial, there does seem to be some sheer incompetence or people not acting in good faith here.
 
Racist Democrats claiming us minorities don't have IDs and don't know how to use computers and therefore laws requiring us to show IDs to vote is voter suppression.
 
Jazz4ever said:
That is Candace Owens view as well.
Click to expand...
Photo ID historically has disproportionately hurt those who don’t use Driver’s licenses. So that would be primarily:
1. The elderly
2. The poor
3. POC

Facts matter.

And just because you claim that it doesn’t have a significant enough impact to swing an election doesn’t mean that it should be done. Just because you tried to disenfranchise people and failed because of Democrats stepping up registration efforts, doesn’t make your attempt to disenfranchise people right.


1. why not automatically register everyone?
2. Why don’t we have a National photo ID card? If you’re going to make photo ID required without adding an easier way to get photo ID, then you’re just begging for a net loss in voters.
3. You're still under the belief that these photo ID requirements are needed, why? Voter fraud was studied just a year or so ago and there were 30 cases of voter fraud in 1 billion votes over 15 years. While these photo ID laws are set to disenfranchise 20-30 million voters, so 10 percent of the electorate (disproportionately elderly, poorer, and POC).

Why?

Why is any of this necessary?

Especially when we already know from Republicans admitting that they’re trying to disenfranchise voters who tend to vote Democratic? so we know these increases in voter requirements aren’t good faith arguments.

I understand why Republican politicians don’t want to change their platform to be more popular. But I don’t understand why their voters don’t want to attract more people? Don’t they want to be in mainstream America? Or do they want to continue to lose step with the majority of the country both culturally and economically?
 
Jazz4ever said:
That is Candace Owens view as well.
Click to expand...
This wouldn’t be the same Candace Owens who defended Adolf Hitler, would it?

At a December event in London, Owens said:
“I actually don’t have any problems at all with the word ‘nationalism.' I think that the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don’t want, so when you think about whenever we say nationalism, the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler."

“He was a national socialist. But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine. The problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. To me, that’s not nationalism. In thinking about how we could go bad down the line, I don’t really have an issue with nationalism. I really don’t. I think that it’s okay.”
Click to expand...
I mean, anyone with a basic understanding of history and economics shouldn’t think that globalism Was bad. Nor would anyone with a just a small amount of knowledge about Hitler and Germany think that things were just “fine” in Germany until the outbreak of war in 1939. Hitler was imprisoning and killing people from the time he took power in 1933. Civil rights were shredded literally three months into being chancellor.

en.wikipedia.org

Adolf Hitler's rise to power - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Or the same Candace Owens destroyed by Dr Kevin Kruse for her inaccurate reporting/lying?





Man, she doesn’t know anything about history. Why do you care about what she thinks? Because she’s found a very profitable niche of being the angry black woman? Is that why? Or do you find her ridiculously ignorant takes enlightening?
 
Last edited:
magic said:
Racist Democrats claiming us minorities don't have IDs and don't know how to use computers and therefore laws requiring us to show IDs to vote is voter suppression.
Click to expand...
Proportionately, minorities have fewer IDs and fewer computers.
 
Jazz4ever said:
After reading how these lines also happened in the primaries and the 2018 gubernatorial, there does seem to be some sheer incompetence or people not acting in good faith here.
Click to expand...
That shouldn't have happened then either.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Jazz4ever said:
After reading how these lines also happened in the primaries and the 2018 gubernatorial, there does seem to be some sheer incompetence or people not acting in good faith here.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, do you not understand what we're talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top