Christianity Today Op Ed

[Sam]

Sam the jackass, always assume the worst and throw a fit when your opponents return the favor. Once a jackass, always a jackass, eh Sam?

Unfortunately, I'm not assuming anything.

I can honestly claim that I have, more than anyone on this forum, introduced the facts, figures, and data regarding the problem of voter suppression. I've brought in the studies, explained 'em (often numerous times) and debunked the myths and conspiracies that always crop up about the voter fraud that purportedly necessitates the suppression. You, me, MM, and several others have gone around on this many times over. I'm speaking from personal experience: I have never once known you to affirmatively advance non-partisan voting reforms to combat voter suppression.

One memory that left its mark: a number of us were discussing Strict Voter ID and you and others were advancing the false claim that anyone who wanted to vote could get the ID for free with little hassle. I and others disputed this, bringing in studies and news reports about people who could not do so, often because they lacked the necessary ID and the documents needed to get one. One user here -- unfortunately, I cannot remember his screen name (tabito, maybe?) -- gave his personal account of just such a problem: that he lacked the necessary documents, lacked the money and the time to obtain those documents, and would therefore be unable to vote because of Strict Voter ID. His account was disregarded and the talking point never changed.

I would like it very much if people on this forum all agreed that voter suppression from any party is wrong and intrinsically anti-democratic and all sincerely agreed to support non-partisan reforms like automatic registration and independent redistricting commissions.

I'm a less idealistic person than in my youth, admittedly, but I'm always willing to give hope a chance.

--Sam

[Sam]

Is no one gonna mention that contesting late ballots isn't voter suppression? It was terrible PR, but hardly voter suppression and that the example is like 20 years old?

Ironically, the Brooks Brothers Riot was voter suppression that likely led to Bush's victory over Gore but I'm guessing that wasn't the intended reference.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

I asked her multiple times to be clear. And then I said I would only come to the conclusion I was approaching regretfully. How is that trying to be uncharitable?

You drew the most uncharitable possible conclusion in your last post. And when you were told why, you ignored it.

Can you quote what she's said which indicates her answer is "yes" rather than "no" to my question?

Edit:

Here is her first response to me, after which she insisted she already answered the question

You just did.

How is that an answer to my question about whether she would join me in condemning the behavior?

That is deflection - and there's no reason for her to play that game. She never indicated that it would be okay for the Republicans and that isn't the issue at hand - so a better question is why do you insist on the tangential affirmation?

She gives no direct answer because the gist has already been answered. She isn't giving the Republicans a pass - read it again.

Your insistence that she answer serves only to pull the thread further off topic (which is what Jae and I were doing, yes, I know). I think it was MM who told you how this comes across - to Lil, you're insisting she answer a 'when did you stop beating your wife' type loaded question so not surprisingly, she doesn't directly answer.

I don't think you're intending to set up a gotcha, but I see why Lil does. She already indicated the behavior isn't okay - and you keep insisting on a further affirmation. Gotta admit, I'm not sure why you're stuck on that as it doesn't further the argument. You already conceded the point that it's bad when Democrats do it - you are fighting over a point of agreement - unless you really can't tell that Lil doesn't approve of similar Republican wrongdoing?

[DivineOb]

You drew the most uncharitable possible conclusion in your last post. And when you were told why, you ignored it.

This is a nonsense take.

That is deflection - and there's no reason for her to play that game. She never indicated that it would be okay for the Republicans and that isn't the issue at hand - so a better question is why do you insist on the tangential affirmation?

I like to look for points of agreement. If you asked me would I agree to condemn suppression by Democrats I'd give you a clear and unequivocal YES. And if you said you didn't hear me I'd shout YES until you did.

She gives no direct answer because the gist has already been answered. She isn't giving the Republicans a pass - read it again.

Where did I accuse her of any such thing? I don't know where any of you stand on that issue. I'd like to think we Americans can agree that one person one vote is an integral part of America. I'd like to think that members of the party which benefits more from suppression could start to demand more of their party leaders.

When California passed the redistricting reform I spent *one second* I asking myself "Won't this hurt the Democrats?" And then I said to myself "It's the right thing to do" and moved on. I rarely lead by example but I hope in this case you can take a little inspiration from reprobate me.

'when did you stop beating your wife'

If anyone asks you when you stopped beating your wife you say "I've never beat her." :mindblown:

She already indicated the behavior isn't okay - and you keep insisting on a further affirmation. Gotta admit, I'm not sure why you're stuck on that as it doesn't further the argument. You already conceded the point that it's bad when Democrats do it - you are fighting over a point of agreement - unless you really can't tell that Lil doesn't approve of similar Republican wrongdoing?

I just reread the last five pages to be sure I hadn't missed something and I don't see any clear example of her condemning voter suppression. At best she acknowledges "both sides" which could mean "both sides do it and it sucks" as well as "I won't stop until you stop first". Not to mention that accepting the comparison is simply letting the Republicans off the hook for taking suppression so far beyond "just politics" it should make any patriotic American sick.

This can be my last word on the matter since you think this is off topic.

[Jaecp]

You don't get to tell ANYONE else how to feel. Period.

You ASKED so I explained - I don't HAVE to prove anything here.

I drew a perfectly logical and utterly uncharitable inference - you had already been hurling insults WITH NO APOLOGY. I acknowledged I went too far and apologized - you don't deserve more than that.

Rogue wanted me to back it up - I did. KG and I tangle on similar things all the time. So no, that wasn't why I thought better of it. You have that honor with something you said.

Here's how I saw it - you called me a traitor by association and a racist by implication - and it really ticked me off because, as you'd said, we'd had a pleasant conversation to that point. I then drew the rational - and uncharitable - conclusion in retaliation. You then said something that made me regret it and I apologized. That wasn't good enough for you and you used my explanation - WHICH YOU ASKED FOR - as an excuse to browbeat me.

You just wanna hurt me more and I'm tired of playing. I don't retract my apology because you were owed it. But I'm putting you on ignore.

You did not back up squat. You referenced my, oh so shocking, support of legal abortion and spun it into racism which is silly nonsense

And, again, I did not insult you. I said that the people who erected those statues were racist fools.

They are racist fools.

Most of them died racist fools.

Most of them died racist fools before Martin Luther King got his doctorate.

Me calling a bunch of dead people racist fools is not an attack on you.

So, no, I'm not telling you how to feel and I haven't, in fact, insulted you one damn time.

Seriously, can anyone tell me how saying that people, all of whom are dead, are something is in any way an insult to Teal?

Madness and nonsense

[Jaecp]

Also,

Just so we're all clear

The Confederacy was a monstrous endeavor and the people who supported it's legacy from 1865 to 1965 are, also, wait for it...

Racist fools

[Jaecp]

Ironically, the Brooks Brothers Riot was voter suppression that likely led to Bush's victory over Gore but I'm guessing that wasn't the intended reference.

--Sam

No I don't believe it was, unfortunately, and that was astroturfing at it's 'finest'

[rogue06]

Ironically, the Brooks Brothers Riot was voter suppression that likely led to Bush's victory over Gore but I'm guessing that wasn't the intended reference.

--Sam

Please do tell how forcing the Democrats to do the recount publicly rather than in secret amounts to "voter suppression" especially since it took place long after the last vote was cast.

[Sparko]

So this actually is something that's right out of the fascist playbook. We saw, for example, how Texas disallows student ID for voting but allows gun registration, despite the studies showing the disenfranchising effect of such choices. We know plenty of studies now (and we've been over it before) showing how Strict Voter ID does not protect against in-person voter fraud but does disenfranchise a significant percentage of voters, mostly those who lean Democratic. We know that gerrymandering is inherently anti-democratic and can actually mathematically examine gerrymanders across the country. We know that the Fourth Circuit ruled that North Carolina's Republican gerrymander targeted black voters "with almost surgical precision".

And all that is disregarded over some vague (and incorrect) fear of "liberals in a few states" "taking every election". Real, measurable efforts to secure a minority party election over the democratic majority are ignored or defended by use of propaganda.

Now that's something that leans pretty heavily into fascist ideology and rhetoric and can be called such without constructing a contradiction.

--Sam

Dems don't have IDs? ROFL. I agree the Student ID thing is dumb, if that happened - but getting a gun requires more than just an ID. But anyone can get an ID easily nowadays. Many states will issue them for free if you can't afford it. You can't even buy booze without an ID. You can't get a bank account. Can't rent an apartment. Can't get medicine. Why is it OK to require ID for those mundane things but not voting? Something that affects our very government and laws? The canard that poor people can't afford IDs is stupid.

[Sparko]

Aye yai, yes a punch is a brief moment in time. You get that these things have been ongoing now for 3 years, right? It's not like there are 100% new people every time. It's very strange that an unknown guy did this and hasn't been seen since

As for where Farley is? No idea. There's a half dozen to a dozen local right-wing videographers that cover these things. I was at pioneer square when the event occured a few blocks away at Chapman square

You were indicating that Farley was close by as a witness. Why isn't he in the video? or any other video? Just asking. Was he there?

What I can tell you is that I haven't been able to find the guy who struck Andy that day and that, per farley, Ngo was not struck in the face by said guy

Yes he was.

I know you want to believe that Ngo set it up, but watching the video and him in the hospital it looks very unlikely. This isn't like Jussie Smolett who had it happen alone in the dark somewhere.

There are a number of details that don't add up and some questions I'd love to see answered. Anyone can put on a black bandana and hoodie, after all. More than one person tried to do that at Occupy Ice related events but quickly for caught. Maybe we'll get lucky and someone will sue the guy for fraud related to that 200k GoFundMe and we can get access to the medical records to see if there really was a brain bleed because that part is, as Farley said, very strange. It's my understanding that you're not supposed to fly with one because of the change in air pressure or something.

The whole thing is just really weird and has gotten less clear over time

Again, just toss out Ngo. You still have to deal with Antifa being violent and destructive all over the nation for the last several years. You still haven't dealt with the guy who tried to blow up the ICE detention center and had an AR-15 for instance.

[Mountain Man]

Things that require an ID:

• Applying for any kind of government assistance
• Boarding an airplane
• Driving a car
• Renting a car
• Checking into a hotel
• Being hired for a job (at least legally)
• Opening a bank account
• Buying alcohol
• Buying tobacco products
• Buying an M rated video game
• Picking up prescription medication
• Getting a marriage license
• Getting a fishing license
• Getting a hunting license
• Run for public office
• and many more...

Things that don't require an ID:

• Voting in an election

Something is wrong with this picture.

[Sam]

Please do tell how forcing the Democrats to do the recount publicly rather than in secret amounts to "voter suppression" especially since it took place long after the last vote was cast.

The Brooks Brothers Riot was orchestrated by Republican operatives, including Roger Stone, to halt the recount, since Bush was ahead. Through intimidation and outright violence, it worked.

Good luck with the ret-con, tho.

--Sam

[Sam]

Dems don't have IDs? ROFL. I agree the Student ID thing is dumb, if that happened - but getting a gun requires more than just an ID. But anyone can get an ID easily nowadays. Many states will issue them for free if you can't afford it. You can't even buy booze without an ID. You can't get a bank account. Can't rent an apartment. Can't get medicine. Why is it OK to require ID for those mundane things but not voting? Something that affects our very government and laws? The canard that poor people can't afford IDs is stupid.

QED, folks.

One memory that left its mark: a number of us were discussing Strict Voter ID and you and others were advancing the false claim that anyone who wanted to vote could get the ID for free with little hassle. I and others disputed this, bringing in studies and news reports about people who could not do so, often because they lacked the necessary ID and the documents needed to get one. One user here -- unfortunately, I cannot remember his screen name (tabito, maybe?) -- gave his personal account of just such a problem: that he lacked the necessary documents, lacked the money and the time to obtain those documents, and would therefore be unable to vote because of Strict Voter ID. His account was disregarded and the talking point never changed.

There are things that never do change.

--Sam

[Sam]

Now that I'm thinking about it, tabito had an avatar of a little boat and that's not the right person. Can't remember the name. Nice guy who was having a lot of medical problems.

[Sparko]

QED, folks.



There are things that never do change.

--Sam

Tabibito lives in Australia.

Lacking funds to get an ID is ridiculous. They cost like $5. They can't even get food stamps without one. Basically anyone without an ID would need to either depend on someone with an ID to completely support them their entire lives or be homeless. If someone can't get an ID because they lack the proper paperwork (birth certificate) then the fault is their parents. There are ways around such problems.
The idea that there are great swaths of poor blacks and hispanic citizens out there without IDs is a liberal racist myth.