Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

Welp, it's happening:

Trump on Clinton: "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks." Adds, "Though the second amendment folks, maybe there is..."

Yes, that's right, you haven't misread or anything.

EDIT: ninja'd

[Starver]

edit: Trump is a bleeping pile of lel

(Trump says...) "...  And I will not tell you to vote 15 times. I will not tell you to do that. ... "

As well as inciting foreign hackers, can he possibly be inciting his own supporters to commit voter fraud?

(Not sure how IDless voting happens your side of the pond, but in the UK your name is checked off at your polling station when you verbally identify yourself (you don't even need your polling card) and attempts by" the same person" to vote twice are picked up as soon as the second attempt happens and, while that vote is accepted, all dubious voting slips are extracted from the process for potential investigation in case the result is close enough for the numbers involved to actually to matter.  Or something like that...)

[Rolan7]

So to be fair, that 2nd amendment clip is a bit out of context.  He was already talking about the 2nd amendment.  He didn't bring that up out of the blue, which I think softens the implications a little.

It's still pretty damn close to incitement, and completely crazy (Basically saying "She wants to take your guns!  But maybe you can stop that with your guns.")  It's not quite "Shoot her for choosing liberal judges".  It's just... close.

[mainiac]

Not sure how IDless voting happens your side of the pond,

You and most americans, me included .  Every state has it's own rules and people tend to just go vote and hope for the best.

[Baffler]

But I thought voter ID laws were racist?

[NullForceOmega]

Less 'racist', more 'discriminatory'.  They have an equally negative effect on all the impoverished people of the U.S.

[mainiac]

Less 'racist', more 'discriminatory'.  They have an equally negative effect on all the impoverished people of the U.S.

The 4th circuit court disagrees with you

With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess...
Legislators also requested data as to the racial breakdown of early voting usage... After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting.

It's not a fucking accident or a coincidence that black people get fucked over with these laws.  Lawmakers specifically set out to do it.  And it's only when they dont even try to hide it they get stopped by the courts.  All this despite federal laws specifically banning this behavior and there being a supreme court case that specifically said racial discrimination is illegal in a voting access context.

[smjjames]

So to be fair, that 2nd amendment clip is a bit out of context.  He was already talking about the 2nd amendment.  He didn't bring that up out of the blue, which I think softens the implications a little.

It's still pretty damn close to incitement, and completely crazy (Basically saying "She wants to take your guns!  But maybe you can stop that with your guns.")  It's not quite "Shoot her for choosing liberal judges".  It's just... close.

It's really just that it's rather vague and he keeps being inflammatory, so, people are putting in meaning where it's murky and assuming it's inflammatory.

[NullForceOmega]

That's one example.  Got any that prove other bodies followed the same targeted exclusions, or are you making a broad generalization based on one data point?

Further: discrimination is discrimination.  It is wrong to subject any group to unfair treatment, black, poor, hispanic, whatever.

[mainiac]

It's really just that it's rather vague and he keeps being inflammatory, so, people are putting in meaning where it's murky and assuming it's inflammatory.

It's vague but there is only one thing it's referring to.  The right to bear arms aint about keeping trophies around and attending conventions.  It's about shooting bullets.

That's one example.  Got any that prove other bodies followed the same targeted exclusions, or are you making a broad generalization based on one data point?

You just said something that was factually incorrect and you are accusing me of being sloppy when I gave you the counter example.  I mean I'm pretty confident about my one data point seeing as you made a statement that was no less confident with jack shit to back it up.

[NullForceOmega]

A single example does not establish a pattern of behavior, only that it has occurred at all.

[mainiac]

 

Okay let's see what the 5th court of appeals has to say.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/20/486776853/u-s-appeals-court-finds-texas-voter-id-law-discriminates-against-minority-voters

Last summer, a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit 'ruled unanimously that the law does not equate to a "poll tax" but does discriminate against minority voters

God I fucking hate white people sometimes.

edit: here, have another

I find that 2013 Wis. Act 146, restricting hours for in-person absentee voting, intentionally discriminates on the basis of race.

http://media.jrn.com/documents/vote_ruling.pdf

edit again:

The public interest in protecting the most cherished right to vote for thousands of Native Americans who currently lack a qualifying ID and cannot obtain one, outweighs the purported interest and arguments of the State,

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/north-dakota-position.pdf

[NullForceOmega]

Now that you have more examples it starts looking like a pattern, but it still doesn't prove your assertion that the laws are entirely intended to be 'racist'.  I don't even debate that the laws are intentionally made to create a discriminatory situation against non-republican voters, primarily minorities.  But that only proves that the bias is against persons likely to vote against the Republican party, not that 'racism' is involved.  The same laws are likely to impact inner city whites as well, also a group that tends to vote against the GOP.

Also, back the hell off with the personal attacks, I don't need to provide evidence when correcting the language used, the laws are discriminatory, they might be racist.

Edit: And I hate every living being on Earth, your comments only make you look like a jerk.

[mainiac]

^^

The world would be a much better place if we decided that for the next three or four elections white men weren't allowed to vote in the US.  You are so careful not to overreact when it's other people that bear all the pain.

[NullForceOmega]

The world would be a better place if we cleansed it of all life.  Your point?