Page 6932 of 6932 FirstFirst ... 5932643268326882692269286929693069316932
Results 103,966 to 103,971 of 103971
  1. #103966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    And

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/u...ical-gain.html (includes PA}

    http://prospect.org/article/voter-su...ooking-forward

    And you ignore MI and FL and NC.

    So you are in the Roberts camp of nothing to see here and that was decades ago. Even though, as soon as he took the breaks off, these same states put forth the exact type of laws and efforts that the VRA was meant to stop.
    I guess as long as it helps your Party, what is the denial of a few voters rights?
    Pennsylvania is relevant as a swing state with a Democratic Governor. That combination suggests that Republicans would have a tougher time with shenanigans. The American Prospect article about Pennsylvania notes that activities documented in 2012 that could be said to suppress the vote were lessened in 2016.

    I didn't ignore Michigan, Florida and North Carolina. I posted an article from Vox suggesting that while it is possible Wisconsin was flipped due to Republican regulations due to the closeness of the result and the number of regulations, it is less likely for that to have happened in the other states.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ton-trump-2016

    Incidentally, the argument isn't that it is likely that the results were changed in Wisconsin, but that there's a better case than elsewhere.

    Keeping that in mind, let’s look at the swing states that had new voting restrictions in time for 2016: Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.

    In Ohio, lawmakers cut one week of early voting, keeping about four weeks of early voting in place. Clinton lost that state to Trump by 8.6 points — way more than one would expect a 0 to 1 percentage point decrease in turnout to cause.

    In North Carolina, lawmakers cut voting sites for early voting and Election Day, but they never managed to implement broader restrictions they passed (including voter ID and early voting cuts) after a court struck those measures down. Clinton lost the state by 3.8 points — again, more than a 0 to 1 percentage point decrease in voter turnout would likely cause.

    In Wisconsin, Clinton supporters again have the most compelling case. Clinton lost Wisconsin by 1 percentage point, which could definitely fall in the realm of reduced turnout from voting restrictions. But that’s only if you assume the maximum effect that voter suppression can have.
    Michigan and Florida did not have any new regulations between the 2012 and 2016 elections.

    As for Roberts, the Voting Rights act of 1965 determined that due to a history of abuse at that time, nine states would need federal approval in order to change their election laws. Things had changed by 2013, when contemporary information would be more important. There hadn't been an adequately articulated argument for why these nine states must be treated differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    Let's take a real objective look at this situation Mets: you keep trying to tell me what the "facts" tell us when I'm (repeatedly) telling you that we don't have all of the facts yet, so it's ridiculous to even have this argument.

    Stop trying to tell me what to think, Mets -- you're welcome to your opinion, but repeating it over and over again doesn't make it any more true than it was the first time around. Maybe you feel that it's okay to repeatedly belittle and dismiss out of hand a direct Russian attack on America's democracy -- as that serves the interests of your chosen party -- but I don't.

    A month or so ago we didn't even know about the extent of the Russian infiltration into the NRA and now we have an entirely new realm of corruption to explore within the Republican party.

    Should be fun to watch -- especially once the subpoenas hit and the trials start.



    It is a bit ironic to sit here debating this with someone who doesn't seem concerned with doing more than giving lip service to issue of civil rights -- why would you think someone is concerned with your political opinion when they don't even seem concerned with the fact that their party is openly using illegal means to suppress your vote as they know that's the only way that they can win?

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ession/565355/
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwb...-black-voters/

    Despite all of the rhetoric, the bottom line is that the Republican party will do whatever it can to suppress the minority vote including taking illegal action against said minority groups -- Mets seems to see this (and things like illegally separating kids from their parents) as just "politics" despite the fact that the civil rights of women, LGBT citizens and "minorities" of all different racial backgrounds are being openly attacked by the party in question.
    On the Russia thing, I'm not trying to tell you what to think. I'm relaying the facts, as I understand it. If there's a portion of my earlier statement you disagree with, what is it?

    Unless the Meuller investigation shows something like the hacking of election machinery, it is entirely likely that we're not going to get more evidence of the actual effects of Russian meddling. What we'll have to go on is what we have now (there were hacks, weird memes, and Russian bots.) Much of the investigation is about what people knew and when they knew it, rather than on the effects.
    I'm curious as to what facts could be uncovered that would you provide a better understanding of the effects of Russian interference?

    As for "politics," these decisions have pros and cons that can affect large numbers of people. If lawmakers make the wrong decision, some people will fail to reach their potential and/ or die. When lawmakers make the right decision, perhaps a smaller number of different people fail to reach their full potential and/ or die. In many controversies, there isn't a perfect answer; it's more about measuring different sets of consequences.

    With the separated children, I am concerned that more people will die if we reward parents for bringing their children on dangerous journeys across the border.

    On civil rights controversies, the wisdom of a decision depends on a particular case. But these do often come with harmful, unintended consequences.

    An example would be regulations that make it so employers can't search the criminal records of potential employees, something that was seen as harmful to African American job-seekers. One consequence is that employers are now less likely to hire anyone they suspect might have a criminal record.

    https://qz.com/1023279/an-economist-...-help-anybody/
    https://www.nber.org/papers/w22469
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  2. #103967
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    On the Russia thing, I'm not trying to tell you what to think. I'm relaying the facts, as I understand it. If there's a portion of my earlier statement you disagree with, what is it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Unless the Meuller investigation shows something like the hacking of election machinery, it is entirely likely that we're not going to get more evidence of the actual effects of Russian meddling. What we'll have to go on is what we have now (there were hacks, weird memes, and Russian bots.) Much of the investigation is about what people knew and when they knew it, rather than on the effects.
    I disagree -- you are trying to tell me what to think when you say "we'll have to go on what we have now".

    No, "we don't have to go on what we have now" -- as I've said at least four times already: we can wait for all the evidence to be presented in the upcoming hearings on Russian interference and then make a decision based on ALL of the evidence available.

    Well, I can at least -- you do what you want.

    With regards to disagreements in general -- you actively support a party that routinely engages in voter suppression against people who share the same skin color as me.

    What else needs to be said?
    Last edited by aja_christopher; Today at 02:33 PM.

  3. #103968
    Astonishing Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouroboros View Post
    Re "flaws": I don't think anyone in 2016 voted on the matter of perceived flaws, but in terms of self-interest, individual or group.
    Two words:
    voter turnout.

    Anecdotal evidence: My own (idiot) brother said a few days before the election that he didn't know if he could bring himself to vote for Hillary now that he heard that she had used the Clinton foundation to enrich herself. That was false news, of course, but it did depress voter turnout if my (idiot) brother is anything to go by.
    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

  4. #103969
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
    Any piece of baggage less would just have meant more space for another pizzagate, Seth Rich assassination, tearing babies from the womb, stealing from her own foundation, etc etc. It would not have mattered. They were never gonna let her win.

    And on the "baggage to successes" ratio, Sanders would have looked worse.
    Let us be frank here, if 'The Republicans Do Not Say Bad Things About Them' is the main criteria for Democratic candidates... how many would there be?

  5. #103970
    Astonishing Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trey Strain View Post
    He's running. And I bet Hillary and Bernie are running too. Can the Democrats not find anyone who is under, say, 72?

    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/were-midst...opstories.html
    Eric Holder is a spry 67 and you completely ignored the news about him "positioning himself."
    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

  6. #103971
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    Traitor McBonespurs questioning other people's patriotism only a few days after bowing down to Putin...

    -----
    [I]"NFL Anthem Protests: President Trump Wants Players “Out For Season/No Pay”

    https://deadline.com/2018/07/nfl-ant...ay-1202430760/
    One would almost think the man is far more concerned with the symbolism of Patriotism than the substance of what they are (politely) protesting.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •