“Both sides do it!”
- Do both sides do it equally?
- It is “Kool-Aid”, not “Kool-Aide”
- And, if you are referring to Jonestown, they used “Flavor-Aid”
If the Republicans convince a sizable enough amount of people that we should divide, how would the military be split up?
“Flavor Aid”, no hyphen.
(I forget that all the time too.)
Well that’s all la-dee-da and loop-dee-fucking-doo, but the Republicans are the only ones actively supressing the vote. The only ones trying to stop people from voting. Let it sink in. Take your time.
Nuh uh! They’re not suppressing the vote! They are increasing security for the voting process to counter all of the rampant vote fraud there is no evidence for. So there! 
I know you’re kidding, but some people really need to let it sink in.
The idea that a political party is afraid to allow people to speak is astonishing. The fact that people willfully ignore that it is happening is infuriating.
Clearly.
Why no…in fact, I said as much. They do it in different ways, but for similar reasons. Really, the funny thing is that I can see both instances and deplore them…while, at a guess, no one responding to this can even see that there are two sides or that their side has done and continues to do exactly what I said. The only reason I’m not arguing the other way is, well, this board basically has no Republicans and very few ‘conservatives’ on it.
Yes…truly an excellent point.
An insightful distinction, to be sure. 
Let this sink in…the Democrats have been attempting to circumvent our very process for decades. Take your time…take it in. See, it’s all about which gore you are being oxed by wrt what riles your python. I think that attempts to suppress the vote, or manipulate the vote, or change the vote are all cutting to the very heart of our process (I think, from a historical perspective, it’s rich that Dems are up on their soap box on this one, but it’s a valid hit right now). I think that trying to circumvent an amendment to the Constitution because you can’t get the votes to use the PROCESS WE HAVE TO DO THIS also cuts to the heart of our process. I think that packing the court is well within what our process is designed for. Adding more supreme court justices because you lost an election and had bad luck…well, that’s kind of a gray area, as it has been done before, but not for a long time, and it’s basically the same thing. When you have the chance you use it…in our system.
I have noticed that most supposed fence-sitters tend to piss on just one side of the fence…just to be “fair”.
On THIS board? You are kidding, right? 
Basically, I guess I have the choice…I can go with the herd or actually have a discussion that isn’t part of the group mind. I choose to argue because it’s no fun the other way.
Democrats have engaged in partisan gerrymandering in the past on a local scales. The Republican Party has an overt effort to engage in radical partisan, racial, and socioeconomic gerrymandering on a national scale with the specific goal of making specific states completely unwinnable by opposition even if the GOP is in the minority. The GOP is also engaging in a concerted effort to undermine public confidence in the validity elections, and indeed the electoral system overall, without a shred of evidence to justify this belief. In many states, Republican-dominated legislatures are trying to restrict voting access and voting rights as much as legally possible (and in some cases, beyond legality), as well as “purging” voting roles of legitimate voters in the effort to assure that the people likely to not vote in their favor lack the ability to vote. There is no factual question that this is occurring, and Republican leaders have actually slipped up not infrequently to state that their goal is ensuring that voters who disagree with them are not able to vote.
This is not “in the eyes of the beholder” or “both sides do it”; this is one side engaging in the normal political chicanery (which should be called out for what it is), and the other digging furiously in a race to the bottom to undermine a fundamental basis for democracy, i.e. faith that the electoral process is legitimate.
When “go with the herd” means arguments with reference to actual facts rather than the “Both sides have equal merit” narrative that has to conveniently ignore that one side openly acts in an obstructive and undermining fashion, I’ll give “the herd” the benefit of at least having some truth in their political swill. The supposed virtue of sitting on a fence is lost when one side is actively ramming the fence to break it down.
Stranger
It’s kind of sad that you guys really can’t see it, but I have to accept that you can’t. That you won’t. C’est la vie. Well, step into the pit, dip yourself in shit wrt politics. I’ll leave you to your wonderful discussion about trying to split the country…all democratic, I’m sure.
No, seriously, you blew right past it. There is a political party, the Republicans, who don’t want the people to vote. Slow down, buddy, this is important. Think on it a while, it’s not like you have to run out in the morning and vote first thing, heh-heh. Take all the time you need, some people don’t get it right away. (It seems really fundamental to me, so I don’t understand that, but that’s how it is I guess.)
In what way are the Democrats trying to end or limit democracy?
Do you know what you don’t find on conservative forums? Supposed “fence-sitters” criticizing right wingers all the time just to be “fair”.
It’s extremely simple.
In a representative democracy one of the most important rights of its people is the right to vote. So you hinder that right only when needed. We do have measures in place to maintain vote integrity; registration, oversight, and so on. Those do add a layer of bureaucracy but they’re necessary.
Let’s say you want to add additional hurdles, such as requiring ID, or removing polling center locations or reducing times when polls are open, or you want to get in the way of methods that make voting easier, such as opposing absentee voting. You had better have a damn good reason. The reason given most often is that those are measures to prevent fraud. But if you don’t have fraud happening in large numbers then there is no justification. It’s not enough to say you suspect fraud, or worry that it’s possible, you need to prove that it is already happening, and to such a great degree that it threatens the results of those elections. Otherwise you are needlessly taking away rights and harming democracy, not protecting it.
The Republicans are the only ones doing this. There is no “both sides” on this one. One side is making it harder for people to vote with no justification and the other side is calling them out for it. This is pretty simple right and wrong.
Changing the structure of our elections to make them more representative doesn’t infringe on anyone’s democratic rights. And if the Second Amendment is overturned in the future by the constitutional process, well, that’s democracy, too.
This is some real both sides bullshit.
How, exactly??
Since the poster in question seems to have eschewed a response, I’ll take a stab at it. Ever since the Clinton presidency, Democrats at nearly all levels have moved heavily toward corporate funding and influence (in response, of course, to the massive amount of election funding going to Republicans from similar and often the very same sources). This has made them less representative of their actual constituents and more of powerful corporate business interests, and while it doesn’t undermine the mechanics of electoral process it does in essence mean that your vote is being influenced in a way that is favorable to corporate interests rather than those befitting the public as a whole, and in the case of all candidates being bolstered by corporate money it basically means that elections are often little more than kabuki, especially with the oft-reinforced notion that the US is a “two party system” and that any vote that isn’t for one of the approved lizards is “wasted”. This is a “both sides” problem, and indeed, a problem of treating corporations with vast financial resources, extensive public relations expertise, and influence as “persons” under the law accorded the same rights of political speech.
However, I’ll again note that only one party is making a concerted, nationwide effort to limit voting access, purge voting rolls of legitimate voters, engaging in racial and socioeconomic gerrymandering frequently found to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and undermining the public credibility of the electoral process without a shred of evidence, quite aside from the political chicanery of ordinary partisan gerrymandering and slandering opposing candidates. Only one presidential candidate in living memory has explicitly tried to pressure election officials into altering a recount by somehow “finding” extra votes in his favor, and that President’s party has consistently refused to censure or eject him, going to the other extreme by actually attacking and purging members who have suggested that such behavior is grossly inappropriate and undermines the foundations of democratic institutions.
“Both sides do it” is the political equivalent of a child trying to argue his way out of punishment by claiming “Everyone else is doing it, too!” Even if it were the case that politics has slid so far that both parties were engaging in such shenanigans it would still be just as wrong.
Stranger
I appreciate your response but I see a fundamental difference between influencing the way people vote (which both parties do) and blocking people from voting (which the Republicans are doing). The second is trying to end democracy while the first is not.