So far you’ve dismissed about a dozen cites from multiple sources (far beyond Twitter and opinion pieces) that back up my argument with facts (quotes from Republican officials).
Thank you for making it clear that you’re not actually interested in discussion or opposing opinions. There’s no point in continuing when you’re so obviously going to dismiss any and every cite.
Which one of your links are you referencing, please.
I can see how you might’ve lost track in the 12 minutes since I first posted it, so let me refresh your memory.
Did Trump say the things he said in that video, or didn’t he?
I am not clicking on twitter. Sorry.
Ya’ll talk amongst yourselves, then. Where everyone agrees on a singular viewpoint. Sounds like fun!!!
Over and out.
The viewpoint that cites should be acknowledged?
Good.
I’ve been hearing that type of jazz from people like that for decades, as if land can vote, but people shouldn’t.
I’d love to force their hands and make them say the quiet part out loud, that they explicitly seek to disenfranchise any and all they do not like, though the teabagger movement and then Trump made them much much less bashful. In any case, if there were some sort of parallel universe, I’d like to hear their reactions to the inverse: “take away the red rural minority, and this state would be deep royal blue” or somesuch rhetoric. The conservatives would shit a brick.
The post is the cite. Do you want him to prove to you that he thinks that? Come on.
And have refused to provide a shred of evidence for, effectively demanding that we take your word for it.
No sale.
Okay, we know that the occasional sporadic illegal vote happens here and there. And we know that local elections are sometimes decided by just ± a few votes. So if @D_Anconia says a local election in his secret area was decided by a questionable vote, I’ll give him that.
The whole discussion, in this thread and in the wider public debate, totally overlooks the hippopotamus in the room, I think.
Here is the problem that is not mentioned enough: Every voter who legitimately should have been allowed to vote, and who wanted to vote, but who was unable to vote, is every bit as serious a voting violation as every unauthorized voter who did vote.
Every stupid little rule that is made (mostly by Republicans) on the ostensible theory of eliminating voter fraud tends to have the effect of disenfranchising far more voters than the number of illegal votes prevented. Every one of those wrongfully disenfranchised voters is every bit as much a fraud against democracy as every one of the illegal votes, and there are generally vastly more of them.
That is the whole idea of all these voter ID laws; having fewer polling places so that voters must travel farther to vote and wait in long lines; possibly not even getting in to vote before the polls close; eliminating drop boxes and drive-through voting; forbidding anyone from giving food or water to people waiting in long lines, etc.
Every one of those measures tends to obstruct wanna-be voters from voting, or at least makes it difficult and discourages them, which will be enough to stop a lot of voters. Everyone knows this. Nobody disputes this – the Republicans openly justify voter suppression by caterwauling about “voter fraud”. Hardly anybody ever responds by pointing out how many more legitimate votes are prevented. Hardly anybody argues that every suppressed legitimate vote is as serious a violation as every fraudulent vote, and there are so many more of them.
(I think some Supreme Court justices may have mentioned it occasionally, but that’s about it.)
Heard one of the commentators on the The View burst out with frustration that she had to “keep explaining and explaining and explaining” the term “defund the police”. My thought was: If you have to continually explain and re-explain then you need a new term/catchphrase 'cause this one ain’t communicating.
I get that there’s some friction with the perception that White people keep getting to define the terms and definitions and minorities have to spend time and energy on White perceptions. On the other hand, the current phrase ain’t working real well. So, OK, don’t have White people re-name/re-brand, have the affected minority(s) do that, but really, that phrase scares the pants off the suburban soccer moms (whether it should or shouldn’t) which is not a good move. I also think that it can play into vigilantism on the part of less savory folk who’d be happy to step into what they believe is a police vacuum and impose their version of “order”.
Are you OK with disenfranchising millions of legal voters to ensure that not a single illegal vote is cast? That’s what it sounds like to me.
I’m sorry, but I’ve been following along, and you aren’t making a very compelling case here. Twitter is a perfectly reasonable source for a person’s own words.
And the argument is that many Republicans have a certain opinion. All those cites show prominent Republicans expressing that opinion.
What, precisely, would convince you that this is a commonly held opinion among Republican officials?
I think the middle and lower socio-economic Republicans have been sold a myth that if they just work hard and support the oligarchs they, too, will someday enter into the promised land of wealth and riches. And it’s really important they work as hard as they can and support as hard as they can because those that don’t will wind up on the bottom of the pile. In reality, the oligarchs don’t want the little people being that successful because it would challenge their power, but they feed them enough scraps to keep them hoping.
That’s on the financial side. There social and religious aspects, too, where change is resisted and an ideal of a past golden age is held up that could be potentially returned to. Of course, the Golden Age of the Fifties was only that if you were White, Christian, and Straight (even more so if you were a Man) - for the rest of us it actually wasn’t so great. But for those that fit the mold it can seem attractive.
Of course, there are Republicans who are moderates, who are tolerant, who are responsible (both financially, towards their employees, and ecologically), and do not demonize non-Republicans, but they are not as loud these days as the extreme elements. As the Republican party gets more extreme the moderate end of the party is more likely to become either independent or even switch to Democrat.
No, it’s that they assume they’ll have the wealth to move someplace that isn’t turned into a hellscape. Sacrifice some of the landscape/nature for wealth, then live where you don’t have to look at the mess or drink the water or breathe the polluted air.
There’s an issue that the Trumpists (those who follow a cult of personality) have taken the labels “Republican” and “conservative” for themselves and try to define them around Trump rather than your on-point and well-thought points. They’re in false clothing.
Those who have voted Republican all their lives in accord with what you’ve laid out need to think hard and carefully about who they vote for in the present rather than doing so reflexively.
Actually, I prefer ALL people think hard and carefully about who they vote for, but I think it’s even more pressing for the current Republicans.
I don’t even think it’s fair to lay criticism at the feet of Soccer Moms. I live in a diverse, working class city of about 50,000. We generally don’t have a crime problem. But I am quite sure that’s in part because there’s a very visible police presence. I’m in favor of reallocating some resources towards mental health issues, but a couple of years ago I had a drunk banging on my door because he thought he was home. At first it was funny, but then he started getting belligerent. I was very glad when the firs cop showed up in less than 1 minute.
[and for the record, I was very pleased that they treated him with kindness, offering to take him home to sleep it off. And when he was unable (he was really drunk, like college drunk) to tell them where he lived they called an ambulance]
*I* have to explain the term “defund the police” frequently, even though it’s not a term that I would ever use myself.
Unfortunately, once a term has caught on, it can be hard to change. Offensive terms can be changed, because most civilized people don’t wish to casually offend people in normal conversation.
But general buzzwords and phrases (even misnomers), can be hard to shift.
Too many people have been allowed to believe “defunding” is the same as “eliminating”, which is just stupid.
Like five or six orders of magnitude more of them. That is, tens or hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters have been suppressed to eliminate ones of fraudulent voters (who all seem to be Republicans these days anyway).
#DeadLivesMatter