Perspectives #2

[silverscreenselect]

What's your solution? Would it not work the same way if the other party had the majority in the state legislature? Or would it only be OK if your party controlled everything? And would your party only choose totally unbiased people? By whose standards would they be judged unbiased? It goes on and on.

I believe the GA legislature has tried to address issues that have been raised, maybe fairly, maybe unfairly. They have made a law to investigate allegations of voting irregularities, and if there are irregularities found and documented, try and fix them in as best a way that can be done by politicians.

Flock, how naive are you?

Yes, this law would be just as bad if the Democrats controlled the state legislature and used it to take over local election boards. But they don't. And they haven't in states where they do control the legislature. This type of gamesmanship is only occurring in Republican states where they are concerned about losing power and have hopped on Trump's completely unsupported allegations of voter fraud as an excuse. This is a bogus "solution" in search of a nonexistent problem.

[silverscreenselect]

It's impossible as the Republicans know that if it's easier for minorities to vote they will lose.

I consider that a totally racist statement. It is untrue, inflammatory and irrelevant. I will ignore it and the person who posted it.

That's not racist. That's statistics. You like to ignore facts that don't support you while continuing to pump out unsupported allegations and treat Prager U opinions as gospel.

[flockofseagulls104]

While I agree that most of here on the Bored realize the difference, I think that including the word "University" in their name is a deliberate and cynical attempt to provide a veneer of academic credibility. Given how much misinformation is disseminated and, more importantly, believed on the internet, giving people the impression that this is an academic website is disingenuous at best.

Just to reiterate. Not attacking you, just would like some clarification. Please read through the statement you have questioned, comprehend it and apply it to this situation, if you would.

Being 'literal', when it is convenient, is another tactic used to obfuscate an issue. Most of us see through that and know that our intelligence is being insulted whenever that tactic is used. That is because we are assuming the person using the tactic is doing it deliberately. That is much more charitable than believing that person really believes what they are saying.

You are, I believe, trying to exempt yourself from the second assumption. But I am not so sure. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think what you are saying is that we now have to be literal in everything we say or do because there are so many stupid intellectually challenged people who won't understand anything else and we have a duty to protect them. Do we have to cater to the lowest common denominator at all times? Maybe he should rename it 'Pragers Web Site'? Or maybe 'Pragers Dangerous Right Wing Propaganda'? Would that be better? In that case it would have to be applied to everything. I don't think you'd support that..... There are LOTS AND LOTS of things that would definitely need to be renamed.

I am not saying that we have to literal in everything. However when words are used to be deceptive (as, I think, the use of the word "university" is in this case), there should be more openness about what is actually being said. I think there are some very intelligent people who (like Earendel), not knowing anything about Prager, will assume that it has its academic bona fides. This is deliberately deceptive because I think most people are willing to accept the name at facce value. Do we have to cater to the LCD all the time? I would say not, however, if something is misleading, as Prager's name is, It should be called out.

OK, CNN should change its name to Cable Opinion Network. Same thing with Fox News, to be fair. Jeez. He called it 'university' because he believes it's a website to go and learn things. It's not a scheme. How is it one? IMO anyone who goes to the site and looks at it will figure out in one second it's not a college. If they can't figure that out, they need to search for 'grade school', not 'university'. There are a lot more deliberately deceptive things on the internet than this!
I really consider this tangent a strawman and childish. What he chose as the name of his website is irrelevant to its content and as a reason why you should go there or not. But that is my opinion.

[Bob78164]

My perspective on this is that it is very dangerous to give the Federal government control over anything that the Constitution gave to the States.

Then it's too bad for your position that the Constitution gave control of federal elections to Congress, if Congress chooses to exercise that control. U.S. Const., art. I., sect. 4, cl. 1 ("The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.") (emphasis added). --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

What's your solution? Would it not work the same way if the other party had the majority in the state legislature? Or would it only be OK if your party controlled everything? And would your party only choose totally unbiased people? By whose standards would they be judged unbiased? It goes on and on.

I believe the GA legislature has tried to address issues that have been raised, maybe fairly, maybe unfairly. They have made a law to investigate allegations of voting irregularities, and if there are irregularities found and documented, try and fix them in as best a way that can be done by politicians.

Flock, how naive are you?

Yes, this law would be just as bad if the Democrats controlled the state legislature and used it to take over local election boards. But they don't. And they haven't in states where they do control the legislature. This type of gamesmanship is only occurring in Republican states where they are concerned about losing power and have hopped on Trump's completely unsupported allegations of voter fraud as an excuse. This is a bogus "solution" in search of a nonexistent problem.

I am not going to go there. I suggest you examine CA and a state I lived in, WA, before you throw stones at when Republicans control things. I will not pursue this topic with you further. I have tried to keep on topic. You are making it personal and bringing in your own personal bugaboos.

[Bob78164]

What's your solution? Would it not work the same way if the other party had the majority in the state legislature? Or would it only be OK if your party controlled everything? And would your party only choose totally unbiased people? By whose standards would they be judged unbiased? It goes on and on.

I believe the GA legislature has tried to address issues that have been raised, maybe fairly, maybe unfairly. They have made a law to investigate allegations of voting irregularities, and if there are irregularities found and documented, try and fix them in as best a way that can be done by politicians.

Flock, how naive are you?

Yes, this law would be just as bad if the Democrats controlled the state legislature and used it to take over local election boards. But they don't. And they haven't in states where they do control the legislature. This type of gamesmanship is only occurring in Republican states where they are concerned about losing power and have hopped on Trump's completely unsupported allegations of voter fraud as an excuse. This is a bogus "solution" in search of a nonexistent problem.

I am not going to go there. I suggest you examine CA and a state I lived in, WA, before you throw stones at when Republicans control things. I will not pursue this topic with you further. I have tried to keep on topic. You are making it personal and bringing in your own personal bugaboos.

With respect to California, WTF are you talking about? In California, elections are run by each county and the chief election officer (the Registrar-Recorder in Los Angeles County) is an elected position that the State has no power to interfere with. Not that (as far as I know) it's ever tried. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

It's impossible as the Republicans know that if it's easier for minorities to vote they will lose.

I consider that a totally racist statement. It is untrue, inflammatory and irrelevant. I will ignore it and the person who posted it.

That's not racist. That's statistics. You like to ignore facts that don't support you while continuing to pump out unsupported allegations and treat Prager U opinions as gospel.

It certainly is a racist statement, by the word's real definition, and I will call it out whenever I see it. To imply that an entire disparate group of people, ie: Republicans, believe that and are working towards making it harder for 'minorities' to vote is completely untrue and to state that (completely out of context with the discussion going on) is what I said it is.

I have made a specific point that I do not consider any of these videos as gospel. and that they may or may not fully agree with what I believe. They are merely a different perspective than you might have ever been exposed to. It seems that you are hostile about it, which indicates you are not ready or willing to listen to anyone who disagrees with YOUR perspective.

[flockofseagulls104]

Flock, how naive are you?

Yes, this law would be just as bad if the Democrats controlled the state legislature and used it to take over local election boards. But they don't. And they haven't in states where they do control the legislature. This type of gamesmanship is only occurring in Republican states where they are concerned about losing power and have hopped on Trump's completely unsupported allegations of voter fraud as an excuse. This is a bogus "solution" in search of a nonexistent problem.

I am not going to go there. I suggest you examine CA and a state I lived in, WA, before you throw stones at when Republicans control things. I will not pursue this topic with you further. I have tried to keep on topic. You are making it personal and bringing in your own personal bugaboos.

With respect to California, WTF are you talking about? In California, elections are run by each county and the chief election officer (the Registrar-Recorder in Los Angeles County) is an elected position that the State has no power to interfere with. Not that (as far as I know) it's ever tried. --Bob

Like I said, I am not going to go there. The topic is politics in sports>why MLB punished GA>GA's voting laws. I am not going to go into any more tangents that are brought in. I don't have time for that. The question that I addressed was the part of the law which addresses allegations of irregularities. I was called naive, and then other topics, totally unrelated to the discussion, were injected. I am willing to go with the current subject, but only if it keeps to the subject at hand. But I am not naive in believing that both parties, when they get power, do everything they can to ensure they stay in power. That is what we should call our representatives out on. They apparently don't think the things that will help them now will hurt them tomorrow and they should work for what is best for everybody. That's what I think. Believing that everything the other party does is evil does not help anybody. Perhaps I am naive in thinking that it can ever change, based on the responses I am getting to this thread.

[wbtravis007]

Well, the first one apparently hasn't gotten anybody to re-examine their opinions or tactics for discussing issues. Same old same old. But at least I didn't have to add anything to my signature.

Last year, I quit the BBBL fantasy league when MLB decided to pull the All Star Game out of Atlanta, revealing to the world that they are no longer a sports league, but a political subsidiary of the woke movement. And they aren't even close to being the worst. I loved the MLS until they sold themselves to the woke idiots. The NFL isn't much better.

I did not get much love, and didn't expect any, from the other BBBL 'owners'. But this video helps explain why I left and why I now avoid watching sports on TV and will NEVER buy a ticket to any sports league that openly supports one side of a political issue.

https://www.prageru.com/video/get-polit ... -of-sports

PS: The only sports I watched in 2021 was College Football (I spent money subscribing to FUBO to watch SEC games), a couple of Seattle Sounders MLS games when they came back, until I saw how they advertised and proclaimed their wokeness from every corner of the field and it made me nauseous, and some of the baseball playoff games that the Braves were in. Not one NFL or NBA game. And I did not miss it. Perhaps I'll see if I can get interested in the NHL. Are they woke? I hope not.

Missed out on some great games this weekend.

I'm sure that the powers that be in the various sports organizations would be inconsolable about your pledge not to buy tickets, etc., except that they probably know of your track record re: pledges and vows about Rush and this board and what not.

[tlynn78]

Just to reiterate. Not attacking you, just would like some clarification. Please read through the statement you have questioned, comprehend it and apply it to this situation, if you would.

Being 'literal', when it is convenient, is another tactic used to obfuscate an issue. Most of us see through that and know that our intelligence is being insulted whenever that tactic is used. That is because we are assuming the person using the tactic is doing it deliberately. That is much more charitable than believing that person really believes what they are saying.

You are, I believe, trying to exempt yourself from the second assumption. But I am not so sure. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think what you are saying is that we now have to be literal in everything we say or do because there are so many stupid intellectually challenged people who won't understand anything else and we have a duty to protect them. Do we have to cater to the lowest common denominator at all times? Maybe he should rename it 'Pragers Web Site'? Or maybe 'Pragers Dangerous Right Wing Propaganda'? Would that be better? In that case it would have to be applied to everything. I don't think you'd support that..... There are LOTS AND LOTS of things that would definitely need to be renamed.

I am not saying that we have to literal in everything. However when words are used to be deceptive (as, I think, the use of the word "university" is in this case), there should be more openness about what is actually being said. I think there are some very intelligent people who (like Earendel), not knowing anything about Prager, will assume that it has its academic bona fides. This is deliberately deceptive because I think most people are willing to accept the name at facce value. Do we have to cater to the LCD all the time? I would say not, however, if something is misleading, as Prager's name is, It should be called out.

OK, CNN should change its name to Cable Opinion Network. Same thing with Fox News, to be fair. Jeez. He called it 'university' because he believes it's a website to go and learn things. It's not a scheme. How is it one? IMO anyone who goes to the site and looks at it will figure out in one second it's not a college. If they can't figure that out, they need to search for 'grade school', not 'university'. There are a lot more deliberately deceptive things on the internet than this!
I really consider this tangent a strawman and childish. What he chose as the name of his website is irrelevant to its content and as a reason why you should go there or not. But that is my opinion.

\

Silly me, I thought we had to buy-in to whatever they identify as, or we're bigots. Or something.

[earendel]

But a putatively deliberative body such as the Senate, consisting of 100 individuals, should be able to come to a consensus on what would constitute suitable voter identification.

Right. How has that worked lately? It's supposed to be the body where the various States have their part of the balance of power, That's why it was set up that every state, regardless of size, has an equal vote. But throughout the years we have let it become another glorified House of Representatives where the members pretty much represent their party and themselves rather than their state. Look at how much crap Manchin is taking for representing his state rather than going along with his party.

We could argue as to whether Manchin is representing his state or not, but we don't want to get sidetracked. I agree that the Senate isn't what it used to be, and it isn't likely to take steps to regularize voting across the 50 states. States, however, aren't doing a very good job, either - just consider how many articles have been written about gerrymandering as a result of the 2020 census.

Is there a solution? I'm afraid not. The best that can be hoped for is to try and provide a semblance of equity. Some things that might be considered:
1. Make Election Day a national holiday so that people can take the time to vote.
2. Make voting a multi-day affair.
3. Move Election Day to the weekend rather than the second Tuesday in November.
4. Use indelible ink to mark the forefingers of voters (as is done in many other countries).
5. Automatically register every person to vote at birth (but unable to exercise the franchise until they come of age).
6. Create a national identification card solely for the purpose of voting and provide it free of charge to every citizen.

[flockofseagulls104]

But a putatively deliberative body such as the Senate, consisting of 100 individuals, should be able to come to a consensus on what would constitute suitable voter identification.

Right. How has that worked lately? It's supposed to be the body where the various States have their part of the balance of power, That's why it was set up that every state, regardless of size, has an equal vote. But throughout the years we have let it become another glorified House of Representatives where the members pretty much represent their party and themselves rather than their state. Look at how much crap Manchin is taking for representing his state rather than going along with his party.

We could argue as to whether Manchin is representing his state or not, but we don't want to get sidetracked. I agree that the Senate isn't what it used to be, and it isn't likely to take steps to regularize voting across the 50 states. States, however, aren't doing a very good job, either - just consider how many articles have been written about gerrymandering as a result of the 2020 census.

Is there a solution? I'm afraid not. The best that can be hoped for is to try and provide a semblance of equity. Some things that might be considered:
1. Make Election Day a national holiday so that people can take the time to vote.
2. Make voting a multi-day affair.
3. Move Election Day to the weekend rather than the second Tuesday in November.
4. Use indelible ink to mark the forefingers of voters (as is done in many other countries).
5. Automatically register every person to vote at birth (but unable to exercise the franchise until they come of age).
6. Create a national identification card solely for the purpose of voting and provide it free of charge to every citizen.

I could work with you on all these points. But only if it's on the State level. I would not give anything to the Federal Government that would even give them the possibility of mandating mail in voting, like they have on CA and WA, at least. I don't want it in my state. No way, no how.

[silverscreenselect]

I consider that a totally racist statement. It is untrue, inflammatory and irrelevant. I will ignore it and the person who posted it.

That's not racist. That's statistics. You like to ignore facts that don't support you while continuing to pump out unsupported allegations and treat Prager U opinions as gospel.

It certainly is a racist statement, by the word's real definition, and I will call it out whenever I see it. To imply that an entire disparate group of people, ie: Republicans, believe that and are working towards making it harder for 'minorities' to vote is completely untrue and to state that (completely out of context with the discussion going on) is what I said it is.

I have made a specific point that I do not consider any of these videos as gospel. and that they may or may not fully agree with what I believe. They are merely a different perspective than you might have ever been exposed to. It seems that you are hostile about it, which indicates you are not ready or willing to listen to anyone who disagrees with YOUR perspective.

Bob J's statement was:

It's impossible as the Republicans know that if it's easier for minorities to vote they will lose.

Considering that blacks vote 90% for Democratic candidates and Latinos vote 70%, the more minority voters, the easier it will be for Democrats to win. Those are statistics that are widely available. I know that, Bob knows that, Republican lawmakers know that, and I'm sure you know that. Whether or not Republicans "are working towards making it harder for 'minorities' to vote" may, for argument's sake, be a matter of conjecture (and still not a racist statement) but it's also not what Bob said.

And as I have said numerous times in these threads, the Prager videos are the exact same perspectives I've been exposed to from right wingers for years. They just say it in a less confrontational manner.

[silverscreenselect]

But I am not naive in believing that both parties, when they get power, do everything they can to ensure they stay in power. That is what we should call our representatives out on.

I believe the GA legislature has tried to address issues that have been raised, maybe fairly, maybe unfairly. They have made a law to investigate allegations of voting irregularities, and if there are irregularities found and documented, try and fix them in as best a way that can be done by politicians.

Yep, that sure is calling them out. By the way, these "issues" of irregularities were raised in dozens of lawsuits after the 2020 elections and rejected by judges and courts every time.

[Beebs52]

I am not saying that we have to literal in everything. However when words are used to be deceptive (as, I think, the use of the word "university" is in this case), there should be more openness about what is actually being said. I think there are some very intelligent people who (like Earendel), not knowing anything about Prager, will assume that it has its academic bona fides. This is deliberately deceptive because I think most people are willing to accept the name at facce value. Do we have to cater to the LCD all the time? I would say not, however, if something is misleading, as Prager's name is, It should be called out.

OK, CNN should change its name to Cable Opinion Network. Same thing with Fox News, to be fair. Jeez. He called it 'university' because he believes it's a website to go and learn things. It's not a scheme. How is it one? IMO anyone who goes to the site and looks at it will figure out in one second it's not a college. If they can't figure that out, they need to search for 'grade school', not 'university'. There are a lot more deliberately deceptive things on the internet than this!
I really consider this tangent a strawman and childish. What he chose as the name of his website is irrelevant to its content and as a reason why you should go there or not. But that is my opinion.

\

Silly me, I thought we had to buy-in to whatever they identify as, or we're bigots. Or something.

It's non binary extended learning.

[BackInTex]

OK, CNN should change its name to Cable Opinion Network. Same thing with Fox News, to be fair. Jeez. He called it 'university' because he believes it's a website to go and learn things. It's not a scheme. How is it one? IMO anyone who goes to the site and looks at it will figure out in one second it's not a college. If they can't figure that out, they need to search for 'grade school', not 'university'. There are a lot more deliberately deceptive things on the internet than this!
I really consider this tangent a strawman and childish. What he chose as the name of his website is irrelevant to its content and as a reason why you should go there or not. But that is my opinion.

\

Silly me, I thought we had to buy-in to whatever they identify as, or we're bigots. Or something.

It's non binary extended learning.

Hi! My name John Q Adams and I'm an astrophysicist. The world is round and revolves around the sun.

You are NOT John Q Adams and certainly are not an astrophysicist! What you are saying can't be correct so I will ignore it.

[Bob78164]

Considering that blacks vote 90% for Democratic candidates and Latinos vote 70%, the more minority voters, the easier it will be for Democrats to win. Those are statistics that are widely available. I know that, Bob knows that, Republican lawmakers know that, and I'm sure you know that. Whether or not Republicans "are working towards making it harder for 'minorities' to vote" may, for argument's sake, be a matter of conjecture . . . .

Except, of course, for the Fourth Circuit ruling that found (pretty much in so many words) that North Carolina did exactly that. And the Texas District Court ruling that found (pretty much in so many words) that Texas legislators had discriminatory intent when they enacted voting legislation a decade ago.

But yes, except for the court rulings that expressly so found, I guess you could say it's a matter of conjecture.

If you close your eyes tightly enough and squeeze your fingers really, really hard into your ears. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Considering that blacks vote 90% for Democratic candidates and Latinos vote 70%, the more minority voters, the easier it will be for Democrats to win. Those are statistics that are widely available. I know that, Bob knows that, Republican lawmakers know that, and I'm sure you know that. Whether or not Republicans "are working towards making it harder for 'minorities' to vote" may, for argument's sake, be a matter of conjecture . . . .

Except, of course, for the Fourth Circuit ruling that found (pretty much in so many words) that North Carolina did exactly that. And the Texas District Court ruling that found (pretty much in so many words) that Texas legislators had discriminatory intent when they enacted voting legislation a decade ago.

But yes, except for the court rulings that expressly so found, I guess you could say it's a matter of conjecture.

If you close your eyes tightly enough and squeeze your fingers really, really hard into your ears. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

\

Silly me, I thought we had to buy-in to whatever they identify as, or we're bigots. Or something.

It's non binary extended learning.

Hi! My name John Q Adams and I'm an astrophysicist. The world is round and revolves around the sun.

You are NOT John Q Adams and certainly are not an astrophysicist! What you are saying can't be correct so I will ignore it.

As far as I am concerned, this tangent is closed. Perhaps you can take it to salon.com and discuss it there while you get a pedicure.

[flockofseagulls104]

Considering that blacks vote 90% for Democratic candidates and Latinos vote 70%, the more minority voters, the easier it will be for Democrats to win. Those are statistics that are widely available. I know that, Bob knows that, Republican lawmakers know that, and I'm sure you know that. Whether or not Republicans "are working towards making it harder for 'minorities' to vote" may, for argument's sake, be a matter of conjecture . . . .

Except, of course, for the Fourth Circuit ruling that found (pretty much in so many words) that North Carolina did exactly that. And the Texas District Court ruling that found (pretty much in so many words) that Texas legislators had discriminatory intent when they enacted voting legislation a decade ago.

But yes, except for the court rulings that expressly so found, I guess you could say it's a matter of conjecture.

If you close your eyes tightly enough and squeeze your fingers really, really hard into your ears. --Bob

I told you, I don't want to go there. If we want to discuss the history of racism in this country, that is a whole nuther topic. It does not belong in this thread. I suggest we keep to the current topic to see if we can come to some kind of agreement on some things. If you want to go there, it should be in a different thread. And I suggest you research the history of your political party on your own before we do. You may decide you don't really want to go there either.

I have said, and I will say once again. These threads are to show there are different, valid perspectives on any particular topic. And I admit, as pointed out by someone else, I have injected myself into it more than I intended to. I'd like to keep the debate on topic as much as I can. And I am trying to do it without being hostile or calling anyone names. And I am trying to provide clarification for the 'alternate' perspectives as much as I can.

Trolling is another major reason I left in the first place. And they are crawling out again. Ad-hominem comments that add nothing to any constructive conversation that these people think are cute are in reality very tedious and childish. I would ask them to cut it out, but we all know that will just egg them on. I am asking those of you on the 'side' of which they think they are a champion to ask them to stop.

[Bob78164]

Trolling is another major reason I left in the first place. And they are crawling out again. Ad-hominem comments that add nothing to any constructive conversation that these people think are cute are in reality very tedious and childish. I would ask them to cut it out, but we all know that will just egg them on. I am asking those of you on the 'side' of which they think they are a champion to ask them to stop.

I don't know how to have a constructive conversation with someone who consistently gets their facts wrong (as I've pointed out above) and won't adjust their arguments when their factual errors are pointed out.

As for MLB, it moved the All-Star Game because many of its prominent players felt personally targeted by the Georgia law (for good reason, in my opinion) and wouldn't have played, and many of their teammates also would have boycotted the game in solidarity with them. Which was their right, since this is a free country. So MLB made the prudent business decision, as well as the correct moral decision, to move the game. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Trolling is another major reason I left in the first place. And they are crawling out again. Ad-hominem comments that add nothing to any constructive conversation that these people think are cute are in reality very tedious and childish. I would ask them to cut it out, but we all know that will just egg them on. I am asking those of you on the 'side' of which they think they are a champion to ask them to stop.

I don't know how to have a constructive conversation with someone who consistently gets their facts wrong (as I've pointed out above) and won't adjust their arguments when their factual errors are pointed out.

As for MLB, it moved the All-Star Game because many of its prominent players felt personally targeted by the Georgia law (for good reason, in my opinion) and wouldn't have played, and many of their teammates also would have boycotted the game in solidarity with them. Which was their right, since this is a free country. So MLB made the prudent business decision, as well as the correct moral decision, to move the game. --Bob

I am not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to understand the minutia of any legal document. But is this relevant?

https://www.courthousenews.com/fourth-c ... er-id-law/

My point is, rather than a state legislature pointing fingers at each other, figuring that whomever is the loudest wins, wouldn't it be better to decide that requiring that every vote is cast by the person who is supposed to be voting is the fairest thing for everyone, and that some kind of Identification to verify that, which is required for any other kind of transaction, is one way to do it? That being agreed upon, the only thing to figure out is what kinds of identification will be acceptable to all sides. Can we at least agree on that?

[Bob78164]

My point is, rather than a state legislature pointing fingers at each other, figuring that whomever is the loudest wins, wouldn't it be better to decide that requiring that every vote is cast by the person who is supposed to be voting is the fairest thing for everyone, and that some kind of Identification to verify that, which is required for any other kind of transaction, is one way to do it? That being agreed upon, the only thing to figure out is what kinds of identification will be acceptable to all sides. Can we at least agree on that?

There is quite a logical gap between (a) requiring voter ID "is one way to do it" and (b) the only thing left to decide is what sorts of identification should we require.

Every administrative requirement we add to voting has a cost in lost votes from people who have every right to vote. Every single one. So the real question is whether the cost in lost votes outweighs the improper votes these requirements are preventing.

Since literally every investigation into the topic demonstrates that the number of voter-impersonation cases throughout the country in any single given year appears to be in the single digits (out of hundreds of millions of votes cast), and that those voters don't appear to lean predominantly in either political direction (if anything, most of the cases from 2020 seem to be Republican voters trying to cast extra votes for Donny), it doesn't take much to conclude that there is no factual case to be made that the administrative cost far outweighs the benefit, and (particularly given the history of voting rights in this country) from there it's quite easy to conclude that the expressed rationales are mere pretexts for making it harder to vote in a way that will inevitably reduce Democratic turnout more than it will reduce Republican turnout. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

Except, of course, for the Fourth Circuit ruling that found (pretty much in so many words) that North Carolina did exactly that. And the Texas District Court ruling that found (pretty much in so many words) that Texas legislators had discriminatory intent when they enacted voting legislation a decade ago.

But yes, except for the court rulings that expressly so found, I guess you could say it's a matter of conjecture.

If you close your eyes tightly enough and squeeze your fingers really, really hard into your ears. --Bob

I told you, I don't want to go there. If we want to discuss the history of racism in this country, that is a whole nuther topic. It does not belong in this thread. I suggest we keep to the current topic to see if we can come to some kind of agreement on some things. If you want to go there, it should be in a different thread. And I suggest you research the history of your political party on your own before we do. You may decide you don't really want to go there either.

I have said, and I will say once again. These threads are to show there are different, valid perspectives on any particular topic. And I admit, as pointed out by someone else, I have injected myself into it more than I intended to. I'd like to keep the debate on topic as much as I can. And I am trying to do it without being hostile or calling anyone names. And I am trying to provide clarification for the 'alternate' perspectives as much as I can.

Trolling is another major reason I left in the first place. And they are crawling out again. Ad-hominem comments that add nothing to any constructive conversation that these people think are cute are in reality very tedious and childish. I would ask them to cut it out, but we all know that will just egg them on. I am asking those of you on the 'side' of which they think they are a champion to ask them to stop.

Unfortunately, you can't separate politics from racism. You're still using the photo of a racist movie character, so of course you don't want to discuss racism.

[flockofseagulls104]

I told you, I don't want to go there. If we want to discuss the history of racism in this country, that is a whole nuther topic. It does not belong in this thread. I suggest we keep to the current topic to see if we can come to some kind of agreement on some things. If you want to go there, it should be in a different thread. And I suggest you research the history of your political party on your own before we do. You may decide you don't really want to go there either.

I have said, and I will say once again. These threads are to show there are different, valid perspectives on any particular topic. And I admit, as pointed out by someone else, I have injected myself into it more than I intended to. I'd like to keep the debate on topic as much as I can. And I am trying to do it without being hostile or calling anyone names. And I am trying to provide clarification for the 'alternate' perspectives as much as I can.

Trolling is another major reason I left in the first place. And they are crawling out again. Ad-hominem comments that add nothing to any constructive conversation that these people think are cute are in reality very tedious and childish. I would ask them to cut it out, but we all know that will just egg them on. I am asking those of you on the 'side' of which they think they are a champion to ask them to stop.

Unfortunately, you can't separate politics from racism. You're still using the photo of a racist movie character, so of course you don't want to discuss racism.

Bob, that was given to me by one of the trolls. Blame him, not me.