3 ms·

> Beyond that California's politicians unlike Republican controlled states have no interest in preventing people from voting. It's not like democrats are not a

> Beyond that California's politicians unlike Republican controlled states have no interest in preventing people from voting. It's not like democrats are not above voter suppression. Did we forget what happened to sanders voters in brooklyn not too long ago? > For instance San Francisco recently began registering non-citizens to vote for the city's school board. I wouldn't hold SF as an example of good in anything - the wealth disparity, poor housing, it's dirty, corrupt, etc. And giving non-citizens voting rights is absurd. No sane entity would do such a thing. But SF is "special".

Gibbon1 8y ago
> It's not like democrats are not above voter suppression. You're attempting to deflect the debate here. So let me redirect it back. California handled redistricting via the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which is set up to create competitive districts. And further California's jungle primary also works against politicians having safe seat. California also makes it trivially easy to register to vote and has things like the motor voter program. And California also allows mail in ballots and provides generally adequate polling polices. So I think here your argument that Democrats are as corrupt and amoral as Republicans fails by example. > wealth disparity Most wealthy cities deal with poor people by driving them out via policing, taxes and zoning enforcement. How is that better than San Francisco's attempts to tolerate it? > And giving non-citizens voting rights is absurd You haven't made an argument here.
- liftbigweights 8y ago
  >You're attempting to deflect the debate here. So let me redirect it back. Providing a direct example debunking your claim isn't deflecting. You claimed republicans suppressed votes. I showed you that democrats do that same. Not to mention colluding with media but that's another story. > Most wealthy cities deal with poor people by driving them out via policing, taxes and zoning enforcement. How is that better than San Francisco's attempts to tolerate it? Poor people have been displaced already. Not just the poor, the middle class too. > You haven't made an argument here. Sure I did. It's an argument of definition. No sane entity allows non-citizens to vote. It defeats the purpose of voting. It defeats the purpose of citizenship. But you are free to believe whatever you want.
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    > No sane entity allows non-citizens to vote. You have provided no argument why letting resident aliens to vote on matters that effect them is bad. You just said it's bad. Saying something is bad without being able to say why is the mark of someone just parroting propaganda.

Gibbon1 8y ago

> It's not like democrats are not above voter suppression. You're attempting to deflect the debate here. So let me redirect it back. California handled redistricting via the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which is set up to create competitive districts. And further California's jungle primary also works against politicians having safe seat. California also makes it trivially easy to register to vote and has things like the motor voter program. And California also allows mail in ballots and provides generally adequate polling polices. So I think here your argument that Democrats are as corrupt and amoral as Republicans fails by example. > wealth disparity Most wealthy cities deal with poor people by driving them out via policing, taxes and zoning enforcement. How is that better than San Francisco's attempts to tolerate it? > And giving non-citizens voting rights is absurd You haven't made an argument here.

liftbigweights 8y ago
>You're attempting to deflect the debate here. So let me redirect it back. Providing a direct example debunking your claim isn't deflecting. You claimed republicans suppressed votes. I showed you that democrats do that same. Not to mention colluding with media but that's another story. > Most wealthy cities deal with poor people by driving them out via policing, taxes and zoning enforcement. How is that better than San Francisco's attempts to tolerate it? Poor people have been displaced already. Not just the poor, the middle class too. > You haven't made an argument here. Sure I did. It's an argument of definition. No sane entity allows non-citizens to vote. It defeats the purpose of voting. It defeats the purpose of citizenship. But you are free to believe whatever you want.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  > No sane entity allows non-citizens to vote. You have provided no argument why letting resident aliens to vote on matters that effect them is bad. You just said it's bad. Saying something is bad without being able to say why is the mark of someone just parroting propaganda.