Yes, they are.
I support some basic election security measures. I, like the vast majority of Americans, don’t believe asking for an ID amounts to disenfranchisement.
You’ve said this twice now, and I have no idea what you’re talking about or why you interjected it here (again).
Wrong.
And this is really the snappiest debate response since “No YOU’RE the puppet!” Good work, man.
Over in another thread, you posted this not very long ago:
Do you realize that that’s the same point I have been making here, the one you just called “wrong”?
ETA: and it’s worth mentioning that “wrong” is right up there with “yes, they are” and “no, they aren’t” in quality of responses. Welcome to the club, pal.
That isn’t voter disenfranchisement. You’re clearly adopting Trump’s tactic of making words mean nothing, just like how “fake news” used to be lies spread by Russian bots, and now Republicans use it to refer to unfavorable but truthful news coverage.
Nobody here is going to buy your attempts to misdirect this debate through sloppy use of the English language.
Also, nobody is falling for your “you have to provide cites to prove I’m wrong” schtick. We see though your little games: you post something and refuse to back it up, either out of laziness or trying to make the other side do more work to rebut your nonsense.
Trying to kick one of the major party’s candidates off the ballot isn’t disenfranchisement? ‘you can vote for anyone you want as president, as long as it’s a Democrat’.
Your argument here is absurd. Of course that would disenfranchise Republicans voters.
Holy shit I swear this thread was about something before it became the HurricaneDitka show.
Last year, a Virginia congressional candidate was removed from the ballot due to fraud in gathering signatures. You are with a straight face asserting that Virginia voters were disenfranched because of this?
In the same way that Republican governors in certain states have made an effort to keep minority voters from ever entering polling places?
Based on this exchange, I’m beginning to change my mind on the topic of the OP: Republicans might not change that much after Trump is gone. They will still equate nonsensical things with the racism espoused by certain portions of their party leadership in order to make themselves out as the real victims.
The critical difference there is obviously the “due to fraud” part. I’m fairly confident you already knew that.
Like, just to name the obvious example…
Tucker Carlson.
Tucker is young, at least somewhat charismatic, and while (as one might expect given his position as a right-wing shock jock) has absolutely said some pretty fucking heinous things, there’s nowhere near the stain that Trump has.
But he is pushing the same white identity politics as Trump. He’s exceedingly popular among Trump’s base. He’s got the same sort of pseudo-support for the working class that Trump likes to milk. If you’re a Trump fan, there’s a lot to like there. And if you’re a Trump fan, you’re statistically 9/10 republicans, so you know that he stands a good chance in the primary.
After Trump, why would the GOP back away from identity politics and outright graft? It worked so well for them! Even if Trump ends up losing, that’s not because his politics were super unpopular (I mean, they are, but people don’t seem to care about that), it’s because he was personally the most dishonest, scandal-ridden president ever. And Tucker Carlson is like Trump without half the bad baggage. He’ll be even closer to Fox News, which will probably work even better to coordinate their propaganda. And that’s the direction the right is being pulled - what could possibly prompt a return to the relative sanity of Bush and Cheney? (Wow, that’s a sentence that is physically painful to write. We’re so far-gone that the Bush administration now seems sane and rational by comparison. I need a drink.)
You’re asserting that “kept off the ballot” is equal to “voters losing the right to vote.”
In other words, you have just another contentless, word-mincing argument.
So you’re asserting that Republicans are tax cheats.
I’m asserting that they’re related, and similar enough that I’m comfortable labeling both of them as “disenfranchisement”.
It’s an old Communist gimmick to hold elections where only one party is allowed on the ballot. Most people are able to see that for what it is.
Freedom House attempts to rank countries based on their freedom. One of the factors in their methodology is:
How do you think a blue state would score in that category if it effectively prevented Republican voters from voting for their preferred candidate for president?
Now, if you want to mince words, and don’t think “disenfranchise” is a precise enough label for depriving voters of the realistic opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate, I’m open to hearing suggestions on what we ought to call this action instead.
That’s not even remotely close to what I’m asserting. Try harder.
So now you’re saying Democrats are like Eastern Bloc communists. Nothing has changed with Republican character attacks in 70 years, I guess.
Requiring tax information in know way prevents any specific party from getting on the ballot. You are saying that this requirement would specifically disenfranchise republicans. Why, if not for being tax cheats.
They certainly appear to share a liking for this particular tactic.
You really are telling us that tax fraud is a Republican thing, aren’t you? :rolleyes:
Do you recognize the possibility that someone might have other motives for not wanting to publicize their tax returns besides them containing evidence of cheating (which the IRS apparently missed)?
Give us a few examples.
Sure. Why does this specifically concern republicans.