What's new
By:

Voter Suppression and Why The Republicans Love It So Much?

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 by a moderator:
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?
 
The Thriller said:
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?
Click to expand...

There are studies that have went both ways on voter ID.
theconversation.com

Voter ID laws don’t seem to suppress minority votes – despite what many claim

States may have passed these laws with the aim of reducing turnout. But new evidence suggests that they have a minimal or nonexistent effect.
theconversation.com theconversation.com

We are getting far off base my original comment in this thread though, which is private entities (businesses) should not be intervening or trying to influence law making. If the laws are unconstitutional, they should be brought to the Supreme Court, that's why they exist. By playing government, the MLB has now cost minorities millions in revenue.
 
Jazz4ever said:
We are getting far off base my original comment in this thread though, which is private entities (businesses) should not be intervening or trying to influence law making. If the laws are unconstitutional, they should be brought to the Supreme Court, that's why they exist. By playing government, the MLB has now cost minorities millions in revenue.
Click to expand...
Look, I agree, corporations aren't people. But since the Supreme Court has decided they are, and further determined that $$ is speech, ergo they can spend as much as they want to say whatever they want, well, then I'd rather they be making moves to protest, say, voter suppression or discriminatory bathroom laws than trying to loosen environmental regulations and offshoring jobs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top