Its just mind boggling how people talk about the government overreaching in terms of surveillance and data mining, talking about how ubiquitous it all is...and then also livestream on their phones from their social media accounts while breaking into a government building.
We're in a really weird time where there are a shit-ton of stupid people that are 100% convinced they're the smart ones.
Usually when a government hides behind barbed wire and armed military it's because the government is an oppressive regime. But this time it's totally not. Weird times indeed. Thousands of people illegally pouring over our border, but if you say anything against it you're a racist. If you say anything against the left's agenda you're a racist. It gets fucking tiring. Look at the whole voter ID thing: The left thinks blacks are to stupid to obtain ID's so they can vote. Jesus Fucking Christ, that's more racist then KKK bullshit. Do they know any black people? Do they think they're some subhuman race that needs their woke white ass to take care of them? I have a lot of black friends and they all have ID and they vote. But still the left makes a fucking issue out of this shit like it's the second coming of Jim Crow bullshit. I'm sick of the race card that the left pulls about EVERYTHING. The only reason race is an issue about anything is because the left's leaders bring it up and want us to be outraged.
When did racism end? Was it when you voted for a guy who insisted a black guy with a funny sounding name wasn’t actually citizen? Was it when the same guy you voted for and all his white cronies tried to insist that votes in Detroit and Atlanta don’t actually count? Was it when they passed some laws with no real purpose other than either signaling that black peoples votes shouldn’t count or with the explicit purpose of making sure black people’s votes don’t count? Unfortunately for you, the political party you most align with loves to do a little racism to make sure they stay in office. Don’t complain about it when people call a spade a spade.
The reason race comes up is because these laws were designed using race as one of the proxies for "doesn't vote Republican." The court cases in North Carolina and Texas laid that pretty bare. This isn't about individuals, it's about populations. It's about eking out a few extra marginal votes that will tip an election. If you make it just a little harder for people without IDs to vote, and you know that the population without IDs skews black, then you can alter how much of the black population votes by just a smidge. In Republicans' mind, hopefully enough to turn an electoral loss into a victory. It's not because blacks are "to stupid", it's because you put up just a few more obstacles in their path than you did white folks, and as a result some of them decided it wasn't worth it to vote after all. Think if Democrats controlled the state legislature and they implemented the opposite: you need an Atlanta bus pass to vote. Would your objection be because rural white are too stupid to know how to get a bus pass? Or would it be because you recognize that there's a preexisting discrepancy in how much of each population already has a bus pass, and therefore a discrepancy in how much burden you have imposed on each group with the requirement.
Meh. Those rural white people would still need to maintain a bus pass to drive to a voting station. They would also need it buy restricted kinds of food, own a home, collect certain government benefits, open a bank account, and do almost anything. Given that, it wouldn’t be an unreasonable expectation to require one for voting. However, I just can’t imagine that the rate of people lying to go vote multiple times is very high. Sure, voter fraud potentially exists. But are the actual cases of it being due to a lack of voter ID? If a group of nefarious poll workers wanted to create a bunch of fake ballots, voter ID laws aren’t going to matter. The other problem I see with voter IDs is that legitimate ones get tossed out all the time at polling places. The criteria for acceptance are often inconsistent, arbitrary or just make zero sense. So, is there really a problem here with supporting data that outweighs the risk of creating additional problems by implementing the solution?
The problem is that voting exists at all. I’ve said it before, why don’t the best candidates just tell us who they are, and then get rid of their opponents some way, like imprisoning them, or something else more permanent? It would be a lot easier for people, and we wouldn’t argue about politics so much.
Racism never ended, and unfortunately it never will end. However, the left doesn't seem to be able to view anything without a racist slant. Didn't vote for Obama? You must be a racist. You're against illegal immigration? You must be a racist. Anything and everything the left doesn't like they immediately tie to race. It's like all they actually see is race, which in itself is racist. It just gets so tiring hearing it over and over and over again.
The argument here, at its core, is that everyone already has a driver's license, so what's the harm in requiring it to vote. When we go count however, we find a lot of voters who don't have one. The fact that this population of non-licensed voters exists is the entire reason for the provision.
Well, to clarify, I was responding directly to your analogy with. Government issued-IDs exist far beyond just a driver’s license. I’m more concerned with people not having any form of ID than I am about ID-verified voters.
I might be on board with something like Estonia, which has a mandatory national ID, with built-in crytopgraphy, that serves all manner of secure ID functions (no more random bank accounts popping up in your name because you gave a shady landlord your SSN ten years ago). In the United States however, the same people who are most strongly in favor of voter ID, are most strongly opposed to that sort of mandatory national ID (because that's how the illuminati gets you, or how they start grabbing guns, or something).
Either the law needs to be written to require the government to provide a universal ID, or the definition of an ID needs to be expanded. And we both know neither is likely to happen. I’ve known several people in my limited world without a “government “ ID (usually conservatives demand this include a photograph) who would be excluded from voting.
anyone else really following the Chauvin trial? I'm starting to think he's going to be found guilty of at least one or two charges. Testimony is pretty damning, and I expect we'll be hearing a lot more about felony murder. Namely, Chauvin being guilty of murder with the underlying felony being the assault.
He has his own fellow cops testifying against him. Use of force experts testifying against him. The chief will (I think) testify against him. These are things you NEVER see when a cop is on trial. He looks pretty dead in the water, a fixed jury seems to be his only way out. I think he’ll end up getting a cop’s murder sentence, which is ten years or less.
Given the tape and his charges starting to lean this way. Still haven’t watched any myself and am just going off cnn articles.
Well the police chief’s testimony that the neck restraint as it was used by chauvin wasn’t reasonable or within department policy, certainly blows a hole in my theory that he’d get off on the basis that the chokeholds were allowed. He’s as DOA with the jury as Floyd was to the hospital now.
I’ll still believe it when I see it. I have very little faith in this country to hold cops truly accountable for this kind of shit.
True. Not much has honestly changed since Rodney King, they still get off against impossible odds due to retard juries or bias judges.