3 ms·

Will never happen. The Republican Party has almost made it its official platform to make it very hard for voters to vote. They are opposed to a holiday for elec

Will never happen. The Republican Party has almost made it its official platform to make it very hard for voters to vote. They are opposed to a holiday for elections; they come up with all sorts of excuses to take people off electoral rolls; they raise the bogey of "voter fraud" each and every election, when there's not much evidence of any.

talmand 11y ago
Okay, I'm in. The Democrat Party has almost made it its official platform to make it very easy for non-citizens to vote; since they're most likely to vote Democrat. They support a holiday for elections; only because it would make it easier for a part of their base to vote, not because of any benefit to voters in general. They come up with all sorts of excuses to keep people on electoral rolls; whether they should be or not. They raise the bogey (boogeyman?) of Republicans raising the bogey of "voter fraud" each and every election; even though there has been voter fraud throughout the country's history and used to be part of the platform of Progressives of the past. Edit: meaning Progressives of the past were fighting voter fraud, which many Progressives of today claim doesn't exist. Give us some more. It's easy to provide the cynical but plausible reverse when demonizing people according to group identity/accusations thrown out there for polarizing political drama. And before anyone jumps the gun, as often happens in these cases because people can be silly, these comments may or may not reflect my personal political views. EDIT: you forgot the Social Security scare the Democrats accuse the Republicans from time-to-time to get old people to vote Democrat. Or is that one played out?
- scarmig 11y ago
  There's the teensiest difference between cynically encouraging people to vote, because nonvoters tend to be more Democratic than voters, and cynically trying to prevent black people from voting, because black voters tend to be more Democratic than nonblacks.
  - talmand 11y ago
    Sure there is. But are we really going to say that it is the official stance of the entire Republican party to actively prevent black people from voting? Despite the fact that one of the leading Republican candidates right now is a black man? That is absolutely ridiculous and can only be the product of a childish and overactive imagination of a conspiracy theorist partisan nutjob that produces nothing of value whatsoever in a modern society. Maybe, just maybe, the problem you describe exists mostly on the local level and it's completely unfair to paint half the country as racists or bigots because of political differences? Are there people who actively scheme to prevent people from voting and/or get their candidate to win in nefarious ways? Sure. Are some of them Republicans? Yep. But some of them are Democrats too, they just target different people in different ways. All in all, this is the voter fraud of the modern age; using laws to give your candidate the advantage.
    - scarmig 11y ago
      There's not a single policy or position that could be described as "the official stance of the entire Republican party," so you're demanding an unrealistic bar be met. The voter suppression schemes are transparent, and they are officially endorsed in the most recent Republican platform. If you want to deny their intent--decreasing Democratic votes--and effect--disproportionately removing black people's ability to vote--you might as well go back and claim that Southern literacy tests were a wholly benign attempt at improving good government. I'm not even sure how much we disagree, aside from equivocation about Republicans taking that position to increase odds of winning and Democrats taking the opposite to increase their odds. But the USA has a long and storied history of screwing over black people and their civil rights, so we should be especially sensitive about policies that target them to undermine their civil and political rights.
      - talmand 11y ago
        >> There's not a single policy or position... That's exactly my point. I'm not the one suggesting it, I'm responding to it. >> The voter suppression schemes are transparent... Yes, I even stated that. My point is that I'm not willing to label half the country as to be a part of it. In fact, I'm willing to blame people among the Democrat party of doing much the same. I just don't say it's official Democrat policy so that I'm not blaming the entire group. >> literacy tests Which tests? Those run by Republican or Democrat members? >> I'm not even sure how much we disagree... On the face of it, I don't think we do. >> But the USA has a long and storied history of screwing over black people and their civil rights... Which I said, US history is rife with voter fraud or disenfranchisement, whichever term you prefer. I'm not sure where you're going with all this, since it seems you are agreeing with me. Am I misunderstanding?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The Democrat Party No such party exists.
  - talmand 11y ago
    Wow, I had no idea that some people viewed that term as negative. I had to look it up. I guess I picked it up while reading history from when the term wasn't considered negative. I always thought Democrat Party and the Democratic Party went together depending on usage plus the preference of the person speaking. I mean, after all, they are called Democrats so it would seem to me that Democrat Party would be used. Methinks people are just complaining to be complaining. Interesting. Today, I learned something. Anyway, I don't think I'll shall stop using the term. Thanks for the input.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Anyway, I don't think I'll shall stop using the term. Given the pervasive way Republicans have aggressively and consistently used the term for longer than most people have been alive, I can understand its use in ignorance by people whose information sources have skewed to a Republican bias. But, if after your ignorance is cured, you are knowingly and deliberately using a term for a party that has been pretty much exclusively used as a hostile epithet by political opponents of that party for more than half a century, that's kind of telling.
      - talmand 11y ago
        Think what you want. I learned the term from a non-negative source and have used it in a non-negative meaning. It's not my responsibility to bear the burden of you taking offense to my innocent usage of the term. You are the one refusing to even attempt to see the context of my statement. I refuse to apologize for you taking offense when I did not give it. Just because some people use an innocent term as a slur doesn't mean that everyone on Earth is suddenly required to avoid using the term. Most people are not out to personally hurt your feelings just because they use perfectly fine words in a correct context, words that you happen to not like. Get over yourself. As for your perceived insult, I'll let it slide since you are clearly going by emotions instead of thinking. Besides, it's not an insult really since you have no idea what my political leanings are. Despite your supposed insight.

talmand 11y ago

Okay, I'm in. The Democrat Party has almost made it its official platform to make it very easy for non-citizens to vote; since they're most likely to vote Democrat. They support a holiday for elections; only because it would make it easier for a part of their base to vote, not because of any benefit to voters in general. They come up with all sorts of excuses to keep people on electoral rolls; whether they should be or not. They raise the bogey (boogeyman?) of Republicans raising the bogey of "voter fraud" each and every election; even though there has been voter fraud throughout the country's history and used to be part of the platform of Progressives of the past. Edit: meaning Progressives of the past were fighting voter fraud, which many Progressives of today claim doesn't exist. Give us some more. It's easy to provide the cynical but plausible reverse when demonizing people according to group identity/accusations thrown out there for polarizing political drama. And before anyone jumps the gun, as often happens in these cases because people can be silly, these comments may or may not reflect my personal political views. EDIT: you forgot the Social Security scare the Democrats accuse the Republicans from time-to-time to get old people to vote Democrat. Or is that one played out?

scarmig 11y ago
There's the teensiest difference between cynically encouraging people to vote, because nonvoters tend to be more Democratic than voters, and cynically trying to prevent black people from voting, because black voters tend to be more Democratic than nonblacks.
- talmand 11y ago
  Sure there is. But are we really going to say that it is the official stance of the entire Republican party to actively prevent black people from voting? Despite the fact that one of the leading Republican candidates right now is a black man? That is absolutely ridiculous and can only be the product of a childish and overactive imagination of a conspiracy theorist partisan nutjob that produces nothing of value whatsoever in a modern society. Maybe, just maybe, the problem you describe exists mostly on the local level and it's completely unfair to paint half the country as racists or bigots because of political differences? Are there people who actively scheme to prevent people from voting and/or get their candidate to win in nefarious ways? Sure. Are some of them Republicans? Yep. But some of them are Democrats too, they just target different people in different ways. All in all, this is the voter fraud of the modern age; using laws to give your candidate the advantage.
  - scarmig 11y ago
    There's not a single policy or position that could be described as "the official stance of the entire Republican party," so you're demanding an unrealistic bar be met. The voter suppression schemes are transparent, and they are officially endorsed in the most recent Republican platform. If you want to deny their intent--decreasing Democratic votes--and effect--disproportionately removing black people's ability to vote--you might as well go back and claim that Southern literacy tests were a wholly benign attempt at improving good government. I'm not even sure how much we disagree, aside from equivocation about Republicans taking that position to increase odds of winning and Democrats taking the opposite to increase their odds. But the USA has a long and storied history of screwing over black people and their civil rights, so we should be especially sensitive about policies that target them to undermine their civil and political rights.
    - talmand 11y ago
      >> There's not a single policy or position... That's exactly my point. I'm not the one suggesting it, I'm responding to it. >> The voter suppression schemes are transparent... Yes, I even stated that. My point is that I'm not willing to label half the country as to be a part of it. In fact, I'm willing to blame people among the Democrat party of doing much the same. I just don't say it's official Democrat policy so that I'm not blaming the entire group. >> literacy tests Which tests? Those run by Republican or Democrat members? >> I'm not even sure how much we disagree... On the face of it, I don't think we do. >> But the USA has a long and storied history of screwing over black people and their civil rights... Which I said, US history is rife with voter fraud or disenfranchisement, whichever term you prefer. I'm not sure where you're going with all this, since it seems you are agreeing with me. Am I misunderstanding?
dragonwriter 11y ago
> The Democrat Party No such party exists.
- talmand 11y ago
  Wow, I had no idea that some people viewed that term as negative. I had to look it up. I guess I picked it up while reading history from when the term wasn't considered negative. I always thought Democrat Party and the Democratic Party went together depending on usage plus the preference of the person speaking. I mean, after all, they are called Democrats so it would seem to me that Democrat Party would be used. Methinks people are just complaining to be complaining. Interesting. Today, I learned something. Anyway, I don't think I'll shall stop using the term. Thanks for the input.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Anyway, I don't think I'll shall stop using the term. Given the pervasive way Republicans have aggressively and consistently used the term for longer than most people have been alive, I can understand its use in ignorance by people whose information sources have skewed to a Republican bias. But, if after your ignorance is cured, you are knowingly and deliberately using a term for a party that has been pretty much exclusively used as a hostile epithet by political opponents of that party for more than half a century, that's kind of telling.
    - talmand 11y ago
      Think what you want. I learned the term from a non-negative source and have used it in a non-negative meaning. It's not my responsibility to bear the burden of you taking offense to my innocent usage of the term. You are the one refusing to even attempt to see the context of my statement. I refuse to apologize for you taking offense when I did not give it. Just because some people use an innocent term as a slur doesn't mean that everyone on Earth is suddenly required to avoid using the term. Most people are not out to personally hurt your feelings just because they use perfectly fine words in a correct context, words that you happen to not like. Get over yourself. As for your perceived insult, I'll let it slide since you are clearly going by emotions instead of thinking. Besides, it's not an insult really since you have no idea what my political leanings are. Despite your supposed insight.