***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Imagine Modern voting rights advocates spending the last decade fighting the GOP tooth and nail on access to the ballot.

Many have dedicated their lives to the fight

The tons of people have volunteered the time

The others that have donated money supporting getting people registered, to the polls, and voting for folk that would protect access to the ballot

People that have worked countless hours get people to the polls to mainly get Democrats elected, in hopes of protecting multiracial democracy

But then getting ****ing lectured about having to respect and cater to a delusional racist and refuses to do the right thing by even his own party

When Joe Manchin finds out a way to giving me back my time and tens of thousands of dollars I spent, then I'll consider giving him an ounce of respect.

Or you know what, even better, he can just do the right ****ing thing by those people and this country

And until he does the right thing.

**** :emoji_clap: THAT 👏MAN👏
 
Last edited:
lol you know what I mean man...a democrat who can beat current political polarization and win elections.
Oh, so as a black man you respect a delusional racist defending white supremacy and dooming multiracial democracy as long as they were able to beat a 23 point partisan lean?
 
Last edited:
This is shoddy lawyering (at best) on your behalf. They struck it down on standing and punted making an actual decision on whether it could stand without the individual mandate. You’re either trolling, not attempting to make any good analysis, or just being yourself which is usually all of the above.

How is me asking if this will change the rhetoric surrounding SCOTUS appointments negating anything you’ve said?

During the confirmation hearings it was suggested that the Trump-appointed justices would strike down the ACA with this case that was pending.

It did not happen.

Why it didn’t happen doesn’t change that fact.
 


Reading this, first I was like...
tenor.gif


Then I realized what it meant, so then I was like...
Michael_Jordan_crying.jpg


We ****ed brah :smh:
 
How is me asking if this will change the rhetoric surrounding SCOTUS appointments negating anything you’ve said?

During the confirmation hearings it was suggested that the Trump-appointed justices would strike down the ACA with this case that was pending.

It did not happen.

Why it didn’t happen doesn’t change that fact.
If you’re drunk watching a woman get sexually assaulted how trustworthy are you as a person? If a person is banned from going to the mall because he can’t be trusted around minors, how much do you support him?
 
Also, are voter ID laws now okay, in here, based on Stacey Abrams’s endorsement?

In the past, it seemed that voter id laws were always considered wrong in here. And any argument of intent vs. impact was swiftly dismissed.
 
Also, are voter ID laws now okay, in here, based on Stacey Abrams’s endorsement?

In the past, it seemed that voter id laws were always considered wrong in here. And any argument of intent vs. impact was swiftly dismissed.
Methodical Management Methodical Management please ban this troll

Because after multiple warning he has shown he is still committed to low effort antagonistic trolling

Was it just Voter ID laws by themselves of how they were used to try to disenfranchise black people. Did you even listen to what Abrams said, her detailed objections to the restrictive types of voter ID the GOP used?

I think people also brought up the GOP making it harder to obtain IDs by restricting DMV hours in black counties, limiting what can be used (something that especially hurts students), and using info entered to obtain IDs as excuses to purge people from voters rolls. Abrams brought up an example of how the South Dakota GOP disenfranchised tons of Native Americans because they refused to issue them IDs.

Instead of understanding the nuance of the situation, and people-specific objections, you think you have a way to antagonize posters in here so after months of hiding you are all of a certain have this eagerness to engage with people. Because you think you can make them look like hypocrites.

Pathetic low-effort trolling from you as usual.
 
Methodical Management Methodical Management please ban this troll

Because after multiple warning he has shown he is still committed to low effort antagonistic trolling

Was it just Voter ID laws by themselves of how they were used to try to disenfranchise black people. Did you even listen to what Abrams said, her detailed objections to the restrictive types of voter ID the GOP used?

I think people also brought up the GOP making it harder to obtain IDs by restricting DMV hours in black counties, limiting what can be used (something that especially hurts students), and using info entered to obtain IDs as excuses to purge people from voters rolls. Abrams brought up an example of how the South Dakota GOP disenfranchised tons of Native Americans because they refused to issue them IDs.

Instead of understanding the nuance of the situation, and people-specific objections, you think you have a way to antagonize posters in here so after months of hiding you are all of a certain have this eagerness to engage with people. Because you think you can make them look like hypocrites.

Pathetic low-effort trolling from you as usual.

Yes, I did listen to her. She said something very similar to what I said about Voter ID laws in the past, in here, but I was antagonized.

So, no, this isn’t trolling. And my question remains. Are intent and impact relevant considerations in Voter ID laws?

Or are you deemed a racist/supporter of white supremacy if you state—in here—that Voter ID laws are not inherently wrong.
 
Yes, I did listen to her. She said something very similar to what I said about Voter ID laws in the past, in here, but I was antagonized.

So, no, this isn’t trolling. And my question remains. Are intent and impact relevant considerations in Voter ID laws?

Or are you deemed a racist/supporter of white supremacy if you state—in here—that Voter ID laws are not inherently wrong.
Oh please, spare me the victim act

Stacey Abrams and you are nothing alike on this issue.

While she was fighting the GOP to get people to access to the ballot, you were voting for the GOP.
 
Yes, I did listen to her. She said something very similar to what I said about Voter ID laws in the past, in here, but I was antagonized.

So, no, this isn’t trolling. And my question remains. Are intent and impact relevant considerations in Voter ID laws?

Or are you deemed a racist/supporter of white supremacy if you state—in here—that Voter ID laws are not inherently wrong.
Only thing you and Stacy differ on is your tried and true pedo support. Anything else I missed?
 
Oh, so as a black man you respect a delusional racist defending white supremacy and dooming multiracial democracy as long as they were able to beat a 23 point partisan lean?

Yup, beating a 23 point partisan lean is worth it Imo

Joe Manchin is pursuedable, a replacement level West Virginia Republican is not.
 
Yup, beating a 23 point partisan lean is worth it Imo

Joe Manchin is pursuedable, a replacement level West Virginia Republican is not.
Yeah, because you don't have to live in this ****

You just get to lecture people about their manners toward an unreasonable racist from the comfort of a system that protects your rights. Then when people don't see it your way, claim they are being unreasonable.

You will claim that you don't do that but your arguments are based on conflating everyone, regular people, with the Democratic Party leadership. So that is what you do.

Like when people suggesting Manchin be primaried or Biden go scorched earth I told them that was crazy because Manchin holds too much power at the time. Those plans will backfire.

But your arguments just seem a bit ridiculous to me. You talk like people should take it a step further like people are being unreasonable when they get upset and or voice this their displeasure at his clear ****ery just because he won in West Virginia. Like him being a unicorn should give him cover with people far beyond elected Democrats.

That just seems like unreasonable nonsense to me.

I can appreciate someone's unique political ability without giving them a free pass on everything
 
Last edited:
Also, are voter ID laws now okay, in here, based on Stacey Abrams’s endorsement?

In the past, it seemed that voter id laws were always considered wrong in here. And any argument of intent vs. impact was swiftly dismissed.
If you were actually interested in understanding what people in here think about voter ID laws, you could provide some direct quotes and maybe ask those users specific questions.

Instead, you would rather frame everything as dishonestly as possible.
 
How is me asking if this will change the rhetoric surrounding SCOTUS appointments negating anything you’ve said?

During the confirmation hearings it was suggested that the Trump-appointed justices would strike down the ACA with this case that was pending.

It did not happen.

Why it didn’t happen doesn’t change that fact.
They punted this on STANDING. Their legal position on the issue remains to be seen. This is a bad faith engagement at best. Typical behavior to be expected from you.
 
They punted this on STANDING. Their legal position on the issue remains to be seen. This is a bad faith engagement at best. Typical behavior to be expected from you.

The discussion surrounding the confirmation hearings was not that they’d punt on standing. The discussion was that they’d use this pending case to strike down the ACA.

It simply didn’t happen. The court’s reasoning doesn’t change that. And the fact that you are acting like it does is disingenuous, at best.
 
Back
Top Bottom