Voter Suppression and Why The Republicans Love It So Much?

[One Brow]

In fascist Italy, the labor unions were a component of the government and had governmental power. They weren't under the control of the government. They were the government. Mussolini and the Italian syndicalists were 'workers of the world unite' true believers, and were not taking direction from big business although business owners did have a voice. It functioned like closed shop unionized industry does but expanded to every part of the economy.

Restaurant workers got to vote on regulating restaurants, but they had no say on the automotive industry. Auto workers had a voice on the automotive industry but had no say in enacting regulations for restaurants. Each syndicate/economic group of employers and workers was self-contained with the central government responsible for the services that enable these independent structures to function as a nation such as the courts and the military.

Fascism isn’t centralized top-down control like in Marxist societies, but a nation made up of independent economic structures in which workers don’t own the means of production but they do have a voice in how those means of production are operated. The namesake Italian word “fascio” means “a bundle”, and that is how the fascist economic system works. Self-contained pieces are each their own thing in a cohesive nation.

You're looking at the intermediate steps in Italian fascism, and ignoring the centralization of power that occurred in the later 1920s. This seemed to have been a deliberate choice on the part of the Italian Fascists to gradually remove the power from the workers over time.

The author of your piece has it backwards. Richard Spencer’s thoughts on the economy, even while he was supporting Trump, were always in line with Bernie Sanders and he’s been very open about that. In an interview from 2017, roughly 100 days after Trump’s inauguration Richard Spencer talks about:

• @3:25 – Support for environmentalism and anger at climate change denial
• @3:45 – Wants massive expansion of public transportation
• @4:25 – Wants total student loan forgiveness
• @5:05 – Wants Medicare-4-All

Interesting.

 

[Deleted member 365]

How does this protect elections?
How does this encourage turnout?
How does this maintain faith in our democracy?

Texas voting bills: What to know about the latest legislation

Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 3 will be the starting points for the Legislature's efforts to tighten Texas voting laws. Here's what the bills would do.

www.texastribune.org

• Bans drive-thru and 24-hour voting options

Gee, who do you think is most hurt by this? White salaried employees or rural voters or black working class hourly living in urban areas?

• Prohibits local election officials from proactively distributing applications to request mail-in ballots.

How is this helpful?

• Texas already has some of the strictest laws regarding absentee voting. The new legislation would further restrict the state’s voting-by-mail rules, including new ID requirements for absentee voters.

Why is this necessary?

All of this is necessary after Donald's own administration admitted that this was the most secure election in history?

How can you read legislation that gives state legislatures the ability to overturn the popular vote and not be alarmed? This is authoritarianism and absolutely will be used in 2024. https://tucson.com/news/state-and-r...cle_c2a70681-59c0-512f-ba86-2bf23128f9ee.html

A Republican lawmaker wants to allow the Arizona Legislature to overturn the results of a presidential election, even after the count is formally certified by the governor and secretary of state — and even after Congress counts the state’s electors.
The proposal by Rep. Shawnna Bolick of Phoenix contains a series of provisions designed to make it easier for those unhappy with elections to go to court.
Included would be allowing challengers to demand a jury trial and, more to the point, barring a trial judge or an appellate court from throwing out the case, even for lack of evidence, before the jurors get to rule.
That would affect the rules of court procedures that are set up and overseen by the Arizona Supreme Court, on which her husband, Clint Bolick, serves.

But the most sweeping provision would say that, regardless of any other law, the Legislature retains ultimate authority in deciding who the state’s presidential electors are.

And it would spell out that lawmakers, by a simple majority, could revoke the formal certification of the election results and substitute their own decision at any time right up to the day a new president is inaugurated.

 

[Deleted member 365]

You're looking at the intermediate steps in Italian fascism, and ignoring the centralization of power that occurred in the later 1920s. This seemed to have been a deliberate choice on the part of the Italian Fascists to gradually remove the power from the workers over time.


Interesting.

It should be noted that Fascists throwing distractors to moderates and working class isn't anything new. Hitler very early on also threw out 25 Nazi points that made them appear less radical and far more liberal than they ever actually were. Once they got into power, they didn't act on the more "liberal" points and made quick work in arresting and executing what would have been socialist allies had they actually been serious about passing socialist legislation. What they cared far more about was the racial question, similar to what American fascists do as well. I suspect Spencer was doing the same, pretending to care about student loans but actually caring about muslim bans, walls, and segregation.

Although things are different in the American right, where there are multiple leaders and Spencer is just one of many, it should be noted that when in power, Republicans didn't act on any of their "liberal" agenda between 2017-2019.

• Remember how Trump was going repeal and replace Obamacare but instead acted to pass tax cuts for the richest?
• Why didn't he ever do anything about opioids?
• Remember "Infrastructure week" that ended in a government shutdown?

 

[Deleted member 365]

I ventured into the absurd to prove a point. I don’t want to speak for The Thriller, but I think he probably sees the wisdom of one person, one vote. The question isn’t only the in value of making voting easy, but in how to strike a proper balance between ease of voting and security to ensure a fair election. Both are important and both need to be taken into consideration.

There's a lot of room between the voter suppression and election overruling legislation being passed by Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Arizona vs the accusations you made. You reacted with nonsensical hyperbole with many inferences of Trump's unfounded "Big Lie." Whether intentional or not, it was a very unserious post that bordered on satire and trolling.

If you really want to continue this discussion, then your next post needs to be far more serious and factually based. Otherwise, onto the block list you go. I don’t have time for trolls.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

There's a lot of room between the voter suppression and election overruling legislation being passed by Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Arizona vs the accusations you made. You reacted with nonsensical hyperbole with many inferences of Trump's unfounded "Big Lie." Whether intentional or not, it was a very unserious post that bordered on satire and trolling.

You are 100% correct that there is a lot of room between an ideal and what is done in practice. Can we do away with voter registration? Maybe. Can secure polling be done online? Absolutely yes. We have the technology to verify that you are you on your smartphone and can track your submission to make sure you only vote once. We could even make it so you could change your mind and switch your already submitted vote if you were so inclined right up until the voting cut-off.

We can do all of these things but the discussion can’t be divorced from how to secure whatever it is we’re trying to do. It wasn’t my intention to troll but only to answer a question you directed at me that looked at one side of the balance only. That side of the balance is important. I never said it wasn’t. My intention was to offer a hypothetical-containing response that demonstrated why I believe that particular subject can’t focus solely on the one side but needs to be had in the context of it being a balance. What compromises of ease and access are we willing to tolerate to ensure security of the election? What compromises of securing the process are willing to tolerate to ensure adequate ease and access? It is a worthwhile and interesting discussion.

 

[Deleted member 365]

You are 100% correct that there is a lot of room between an ideal and what is done in practice. Can we do away with voter registration? Maybe. Can secure polling be done online? Absolutely yes. We have the technology to verify that you are you on your smartphone and can track your submission to make sure you only vote once. We could even make it so you could change your mind and switch your already submitted vote if you were so inclined right up until the voting cut-off.

We can do all of these things but the discussion can’t be divorced from how to secure whatever it is we’re trying to do. It wasn’t my intention to troll but only to answer a question you directed at me that looked at one side of the balance only. That side of the balance is important. I never said it wasn’t. My intention was to offer a hypothetical-containing response that demonstrated why I believe that particular subject can’t focus solely on the one side but needs to be had in the context of it being a balance. What compromises of ease and access are we willing to tolerate to ensure security of the election? What compromises of securing the process are willing to tolerate to ensure adequate ease and access? It is a worthwhile and interesting discussion.

Why make hyperbole when there are already tangible ideas being proposed to make voting easier while maintaining security? If you want to encourage discussion, then it helps to start with what's actually being proposed rather than pulling the most extremist stuff from your ***.

Fighting Voter Suppression | American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

www.aclu.org

Voter Suppression

Through research, lawsuits, and advocacy, the Brennan Center is fighting voter suppression on every front.

www.brennancenter.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/12/7-points-biden-needs-make-about-voting-rights/

The Real Steal Is Coming

Who will prevent the next attempt to overturn the will of the voters?

thebulwark.com

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/what-would-the-john-lewis-voting-rights-act-actually-do.html

These are some excellent resources so we can discuss within reality instead of speculate on hypotheticals. I suggest you read up so we can discuss reality and not make baseless “hypotheticals.”

 

[Deleted member 365]

Interesting. Here we are passing all of these voter suppression laws in response to 2020 and…

The Republican Party’s top lawyer warned in November against continuing to push false claims that the presidential election was stolen, calling efforts by some of the former president’s lawyers a “joke” that could mislead millions of people, according to an email obtained by The Washington Post.

Justin Riemer, the Republican National Committee’s chief counsel, sought to discourage a Republican Party staffer from posting claims about ballot fraud on RNC accounts, the email shows, as attempts by Trump and his associates to challenge results in a number of states, such as Arizona and Pennsylvania, intensified.

“What Rudy and Jenna are doing is a joke and they are getting laughed out of court,” Riemer, a longtime Republican lawyer, wrote to Liz Harrington, a former party spokeswoman on Nov. 28, referring to Trump attorneys Rudolph W. Giuliani and Jenna Ellis. “They are misleading millions of people who have wishful thinking that the president is going to somehow win this thing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rnc-trump-stop-the-steal/2021/07/12/79e58a02-e320-11eb-934f-7e6c1927f261_story.html

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You're looking at the intermediate steps...

Brother, I think you just described every Socialist revolution. Sorelianism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, and on, and on all start with noble ideals that you’d have to be some sort of callous monster to not support. Then comes what occurs later.

 

[One Brow]

Brother, I think you just described every Socialist revolution. Sorelianism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, and on, and on all start with noble ideals that you’d have to be some sort of callous monster to not support. Then comes what occurs later.

I am not aware that there has ever been a democratic socialist revolution. I agree regarding national socialist and communist socialist revolutions.

You understand these are three very different forms of socialism, so that what applies to two of them need not apply to the third, right?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I am not aware that there has ever been a democratic socialist revolution. I agree regarding national socialist and communist socialist revolutions.

You understand these are three very different forms of socialism, so that what applies to two of them need not apply to the third, right?

Maybe Democratic Socialism will be different.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Weird. Is this necessary to make elections more secure? What did Democrats of color do to deserve this?

In Georgia, Republicans are removing Democrats of color from local boards. In Arkansas, they have stripped election control from county authorities.

How Republican States Are Expanding Their Power Over Elections (Published 2021)

In Georgia, Republicans are removing Democrats of color from local boards. In Arkansas, they have stripped election control from county authorities. And they are expanding their election power in many other states.

www.nytimes.com

Why was this warranted? What did she do wrong?

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Nevada’s Republican Party voted to censure the secretary of state, accusing her of failing to fully investigate allegations of fraud in the 2020 election. She says there was no widespread fraud and that her own party is attacking her for refusing to “put my thumb on the scale of democracy.”

Barbara Cegavske, the only Republican statewide office holder in Nevada, said members of her party are disappointed with the election results and believe fraud occurred “despite a complete lack of evidence to support that belief.”

Nevada GOP censures elections official who defended results

Nevada’s Republican Party voted to censure the secretary of state, accusing her of failing to fully investigate allegations of fraud in the 2020 election.

apnews.com

Why did Georgia make this change? It couldn’t be to punish the man who stood up to Trump, right? Georgia isn’t trying to make it easier to overturn election results for the future, right? The GOP wouldn’t ever ever do that. After all, they’re the party of law and order and election security and stuff, right???

“I report to the voters, and so if the voters don’t like what I do, then I pay for that at the polls,” Raffensperger said. “Now, you’re going to have an unelected board that are unaccountable to the voters, and so if something goes wrong, then who do you really hold accountable?

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger objects to being removed as chairman of State Elections Board

While Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger did make the rounds this week to promote Georgia's new election reform law, there was one part of the law that he objected to.

www.gwinnettdailypost.com

Why is Arizona doing the same thing? Did their Secretary of State do something wrong last year?

Arizona Republicans Strip Some Election Power From Democratic Secretary Of State

Arizona Republicans have stripped the secretary of state's office — currently held by a Democrat — of the right to defend the state's election laws in court, or choose not to.

www.npr.org

Are we listening to the experts? @Red did you see this?

The greatest threat to American democracy today is not a repeat of January 6, but the possibility of a stolen presidential election. Contemporary democracies that die meet their end at the ballot box, through measures that are nominally constitutional. The looming danger is not that the mob will return; it’s that mainstream Republicans will “legally” overturn an election.

Elections require forbearance. For elections to be democratic, all adult citizens must be equally able to cast a ballot and have that vote count. Using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of this principle is strikingly easy. Election officials can legally throw out large numbers of ballots on the basis of the most minor technicalities (e.g., the oval on the ballot is not entirely penciled in, or the mail-in ballot form contains a typo or spelling mistake). Large-scale ballot disqualification accords with the letter of the law, but it is inherently antidemocratic, for it denies suffrage to many voters. Crucially, if hardball criteria are applied unevenly, such that many ballots are disqualified in one party’s stronghold but not in other areas, they can turn an election.

Republican officials across the country are laying the legal infrastructure to do just that. Since January, according to Protect Democracy, Law Forward, and the States United Democracy Center, Republicans have introduced 216 bills (in 41 states) aimed at facilitating hardball electoral tactics. As of June, 24 of these bills had passed, including in the battleground states of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Texas.

The Biggest Threat to Democracy Is the GOP Stealing the Next Election

Unless and until the Republican Party recommits itself to playing by democratic rules of the game, American democracy will remain at risk.

www.theatlantic.com

Our democracy is being killed off by Republicans as we speak.

 

[Red]

Are we listening to the experts? @Red did you see this?

Yes, I posted that article earlier in this thread. Just a couple of pages ago. In fact, I was going to call your attention to it again, when you posted it again. I think it is one of the most succinct descriptions of what the Republican Party is trying to accomplish. Relatively short and to the point and spot on, IMHO…..