For those who defend Trump

[Socrates]

On 11/25/2016 at 11:43 PM, Peace said:

I meant that they are the same in principle, not degree. 

I woud say that the Republican resistance to public health insurance is in the direction of allowing people to freeze. 

Sorry, but that's a steaming load of utter and complete horse manure.

While no one's claiming that everything was perfect, there was no epidemic of people being allowed to freeze to death in the years prior to the ironically-titled "affordable care act," which is actually making healthcare much less affordable for the bulk of people.  Nor is Obamacare's implementation actually saving people from freezing or death from neglect.

At the very least, if you were honest, you'd have to admit that there is a very legitimate and serious debate over the economics and effects of socialized medicine, rather than it simply being the result of a bunch of Evil Greedy Conservatives wanting to let the poor die in the streets.

To equivocate opposition to socialized medicine at all with the direct support of deliberately killing unborn babies is obscenely dishonest and/or idiotic.

 

Quote

As for racism, you can read the Wikipedia article "Southern Strategy" to start.

If racism is indeed such a huge part of modern conservatism or the GOP, then it shouldn't be so hard to find some real, actual concrete racist policy they implemented or endorsed.  Or perhaps you can give real concrete examples of how persons of color are so much better off under Obama or the Democrats. (I'm talking real, actual policies, with real effects on people, not "dog whistle" bullcr@p.  And no, supporting stronger borders and immigration policy is not racist. https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/pissed-off-dad-of-jamiel-shaw-jr-explains-how-liberal-immigration-lies-harm-black-americans.)

Quote

That's all the time I have for you today.

Peace

That's very generous of you.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Socrates
formatting

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Sorry, but that's a steaming load of utter and complete horse manure.

While no one's claiming that everything was perfect, there was no epidemic of people being allowed to freeze to death in the years prior to the ironically-titled "affordable care act," which is actually making healthcare much less affordable for the bulk of people.  Nor is Obamacare's implementation actually saving people from freezing or death from neglect.

At the very least, if you were honest, you'd have to admit that there is a very legitimate and serious debate over the economics and effects of socialized medicine, rather than it simply being the result of a bunch of Evil Greedy Conservatives wanting to let the poor die in the streets.

To equivocate opposition to socialized medicine at all with the direct support of deliberately killing unborn babies is obscenely dishonest and/or idiotic.

I honestly didn't think you were so obtuse  as to read "freezing to death" literally. I will try to keep that in mind when conversing with you in the future.

Quote

 

If racism is indeed such a huge part of modern conservatism or the GOP, then it shouldn't be so hard to find some real, actual concrete racist policy they implemented or endorsed.  Or perhaps you can give real concrete examples of how persons of color are so much better off under Obama or the Democrats. (I'm talking real, actual policies, with real effects on people, not "dog whistle" bullcr@p.  And no, supporting stronger borders and immigration policy is not racist. https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/pissed-off-dad-of-jamiel-shaw-jr-explains-how-liberal-immigration-lies-harm-black-americans.)

Here ya go. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/courts-are-finally-pointing-out-the-racism-behind-voter-id-laws/?0p19G=c

Edited November 30, 2016 by Peace

[Peace]

I should really start charging you a fee.

[Socrates]

22 minutes ago, Peace said:

I honestly didn't think you were so obtuse  as to read "freezing to death" literally. I will try to keep that in mind when conversing with you in the future.

But I did mean "deliberately killing unborn babies" very literally.  Because that's what abortion is, literally.  Again, there's no comparison. 

Quote

Here ya go. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/courts-are-finally-pointing-out-the-racism-behind-voter-id-laws/?0p19G=c

 

Oh please.  Voter ID laws are racist?  Jim Crow?

Please.  Give.  Me.  A.  Flooping.  Break.

Please tell me you're joking.  But the Washington Compost has spoken.  Makers of the world's most expensive toilet paper.

 

So how exactly are laws requiring all voters (regardless of race) to display ID racist, or preventing blacks from voting?  Cause this here dumb white boy can't connect the dots.  If I recall, North Carolina actually issued the ID cards for free, at state expense, so you can't really use the "poll tax" argument, weak as it was.  Was there any actual evidence that blacks or other racial minorities were being denied IDs?  

Having a photo ID is required to drive a motor vehicle, buy a case of beer, or pack of cigarettes, as well as do countless more serious things.  Yet you don't hear much whining from the bleeding hearts about driver's licenses or carding for booze being racist.

And if you're really insinuating that minorities are somehow mentally incapable of obtaining IDs, that, my good sir, I find offensive and racist.

The obvious point of voter ID (for those not smoking illicit substances, or otherwise inclined to believe ridiculous conspiracy theories) is that they make it harder for a person to commit voter fraud by claiming to be someone he or she is not and voting under another person's.  It helps prevent things like non-citizens and dead persons voting (though I realize that's discriminatory, as both these groups lean heavily Democrat.)  I could care less what sinister motives leftist idiots (sorry, that was a redundant phrase) writing op-eds at the Compost, or leftist courts assign.  The left has an interest in making voting fraud easy.

24 minutes ago, Peace said:

I should really start charging you a fee.

For what?  Common sense?

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Please tell me you're joking.  But the Washington Compost has spoken.  Makers of the world's most expensive toilet paper.

@Jack4 would that be ad hominem or genetic fallacy?

Socrates, I suppose that the courts that threw these laws out as discriminatory are packed with "liberal justices"? 

You amuse me. Please keep up the good work.

Quote

So how exactly are laws requiring all voters (regardless of race) to display ID racist, or preventing blacks from voting?  Cause this here dumb white boy can't connect the dots.  If I recall, North Carolina actually issued the ID cards for free, at state expense, so you can't really use the "poll tax" argument, weak as it was.  Was there any actual evidence that blacks or other racial minorities were being denied IDs?  

Having a photo ID is required to drive a motor vehicle, buy a case of beer, or pack of cigarettes, as well as do countless more serious things.  Yet you don't hear much whining from the bleeding hearts about driver's licenses or carding for booze being racist.

And if you're really insinuating that minorities are somehow mentally incapable of obtaining IDs, that, my good sir, I find offensive and racist.

The obvious point of voter ID (for those not smoking illicit substances, or otherwise inclined to believe ridiculous conspiracy theories) is that they make it harder for a person to commit voter fraud by claiming to be someone he or she is not and voting under another person's.  It helps prevent things like non-citizens and dead persons voting (though I realize that's discriminatory, as both these groups lean heavily Democrat.)  I could care less what sinister motives leftist idiots (sorry, that was a redundant phrase) writing op-eds at the Compost, or leftist courts assign.  The left has an interest in making voting fraud easy.

It may benefit you to read or think before writing. That would save both of us time.

If you conduct a study to discern racial voting patterns and then enact laws with the aim of reducing voting turnout among specific ethic groups, that would be racism.

Are you really so naive to believe that the GOP are pushing these laws out of fairness to all rather than for their own political advantage?

Quote

For what?  Common sense?

Precisely.

[Socrates]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

@Jack4 would that be ad hominem or genetic fallacy?

Socrates, I suppose that the courts that threw these laws out as discriminatory are packed with "liberal justices"? 

Highly probable.  Certainly not unbiased, or sane.

Quote

You amuse me. Please keep up the good work.

Thanks.  I will.

Quote

 

It may benefit you to read or think before writing. That would save both of us time.

 

Or maybe you should think before linking to incredibly stupid op-eds to try to make your case.

 

Quote

If you conduct a study to discern racial voting patterns and then enact laws with the aim of reducing voting turnout among specific ethic groups, that would be racism.

So how exactly do laws requiring all voters to bring ID to prove they are who they claim to be prevent blacks from voting?

??? . . .

Please spell it out for me, 'cause I'm obtuse, remember.

Were blacks being turned down IDs?  Are driver's licenses with photos racist?

 

 

Quote

Are you really so naive to believe that the GOP are pushing these laws out of fairness to all rather than for their own political advantage?

Unless I'm missing something, these laws required exactly the same of white voters as black voters (or voters of any race), and didn't treat anyone differently.

But are you really so naive as to think that every judge is a purely fair and unbiased purveyor of justice, interested in nothing but upholding the law?  Or that those who write for the WP are nothing but unbiased seekers of truth?

If you buy that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

Quote

Precisely.

Methinks perhaps you should instead be paying me for providing this commodity.

[ardillacid]

[Peace]

52 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Highly probable.  Certainly not unbiased, or sane.

Thanks.  I will.

Or maybe you should think before linking to incredibly stupid op-eds to try to make your case.

 

So how exactly do laws requiring all voters to bring ID to prove they are who they claim to be prevent blacks from voting?

??? . . .

Please spell it out for me, 'cause I'm obtuse, remember.

Were blacks being turned down IDs?  Are driver's licenses with photos racist?

 

 

Unless I'm missing something, these laws required exactly the same of white voters as black voters (or voters of any race), and didn't treat anyone differently.

But are you really so naive as to think that every judge is a purely fair and unbiased purveyor of justice, interested in nothing but upholding the law?  Or that those who write for the WP are nothing but unbiased seekers of truth?

If you buy that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

Methinks perhaps you should instead be paying me for providing this commodity.

How about the actual court opinion? I will admit that the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is not nearly as unbaised a source as the conservative review, but you will have to forgive me just this one time.

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa6a0001

As you will note by reading said opinion, the laws involved more than simple photo identification. Certain forms of voting, such as early voting, were restricted only after the legislature requested and obtained data that indicated that African Americans were more likely to make use of early voting. Other forms of voting were retained because the data indicated that white voters were more likely to make use of them. 

The same holds true for various forms of identification that were prohibited and allowed. It appears that the law was specifically designed to make it more difficult for certain ethnic groups to vote.

[Papist]

12 hours ago, Peace said:

I honestly didn't think you were so obtuse  as to read "freezing to death" literally. I will try to keep that in mind when conversing with you in the future.

Here ya go. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/courts-are-finally-pointing-out-the-racism-behind-voter-id-laws/?0p19G=c

What the rest of the world calls anti-fraud measures, US leftists call racist.

[Peace]

43 minutes ago, Papist said:

What the rest of the world calls anti-fraud measures, US leftists call racist.

Since when do you speak for the rest of the world? I hadn't heard that Papist was named Press Secretary to the planet.

Besides, it isn't as simple as you suggest. It only appears simple to those who are ignorant of the facts and issues involved. 

For the record, I have no problem with voter ID as a general principle. I have a problem when voting laws are specifically designed with the intent to reduce voting among particular ethnic groups, and where nearly non-existent voter fraud is used as a pretense to attempt to make it more difficult for them to vote. There is strong evidence to suggest that is what happened here.

[Anomaly]

1 hour ago, Papist said:

What the rest of the world calls anti-fraud measures, US leftists call racist.

Papist, 

Is it possible that the voter ID laws, while sounding reasonable on one hand (providing security to process), could also be about voting demographics?   Certain demographics find it difficult to also obtain additional identification documents or vote in a small window of time?

Although not intentionally racist (who cares who votes for you as long as they aren't voting for the other guy), but effectively racist?   For example, gerrymandering done by both parties?  It's political gamesmanship.  The obvious fact is that minority's tend to vote Democratic.   Any effort to reduce potential Democrat votes can be seen as racist in effect, if not intent.  

Intention is hard to defend against another's perception of observed effect.   Most people are not really open minded, and it's very hard to give the "enemy" the benefit of the doubt in their intention. 

[As an aside, I strongly support voter ID laws "if" combined with extended voting periods, like two weeks.   I am dubious of mail-in or future on-line voting.  We have to confidence in accessible and secure voting.]

[Papist]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Since when do you speak for the rest of the world? I hadn't heard that Papist was named Press Secretary to the planet.

Besides, it isn't as simple as you suggest. It only appears simple to those who are ignorant of the facts and issues involved. 

For the record, I have no problem with voter ID as a general principle. I have a problem when voting laws are specifically designed with the intent to reduce voting among particular ethnic groups, and where nearly non-existent voter fraud is used as a pretense to attempt to make it more difficult for them to vote. There is strong evidence to suggest that is what happened here.

   Funny how libs only use the laws of other countries when it agrees with their ideology, and dismiss ones that are not.

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Papist, 

Is it possible that the voter ID laws, while sounding reasonable on one hand (providing security to process), could also be about voting demographics?   Certain demographics find it difficult to also obtain additional identification documents or vote in a small window of time?

Although not intentionally racist (who cares who votes for you as long as they aren't voting for the other guy), but effectively racist?   For example, gerrymandering done by both parties?  It's political gamesmanship.  The obvious fact is that minority's tend to vote Democratic.   Any effort to reduce potential Democrat votes can be seen as racist in effect, if not intent.  

Intention is hard to defend against another's perception of observed effect.   Most people are not really open minded, and it's very hard to give the "enemy" the benefit of the doubt in their intention. 

[As an aside, I strongly support voter ID laws "if" combined with extended voting periods, like two weeks.   I am dubious of mail-in or future on-line voting.  We have to confidence in accessible and secure voting.]

It would only be racist if photo ID was required ONLY for a specific race.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Papist

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Papist said:

Funny how libs only use the laws of other countries when it agrees with their ideology, and dismiss ones that are not.

These are the type of statements that people resort to when they have nothing of substance to contribute.

[Papist]

58 minutes ago, Peace said:

These are the type of statements that people resort to when they have nothing of substance to contribute.

What you expect.  I am, how you say, ignorant of the facts and issues involved. 

[Socrates]

Unless the voting laws in question made different requirements of persons of different races, or unless blacks or other minorities were being denied IDs or access to voting booths, I still call BS on the "racism" or "discrimination" charges.

Again, I fail to see anything intrinsic to being black, or any other race, that would prevent one from either obtaining IDs or voting on voting day.  If there is, please enlighten me.

And if this is the best example the bleeding hearts can come up with illustrating the supposedly horrific racism supposedly endemic to the Republican Party and conservatives (which is apparently the main reason we're all supposed to vote Dem, along with, of course, "a woman's right to choose"), their case is pathetic indeed.