***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Based Jesus]

 

Yes. That's precisely what my argument is and I think I made a pretty good comparison to prove my point.

Why even argue with these left wings?? This particular type of people will be the downfall of the AMERICA ONE DAY | I Give you props for putting up with this. I am done with these cats

Bye

 

[Nike Jordan]

You live in Los Angeles, iron knee.

 

[everysingletime]

It'll probably be something like the lgbt community can't adopt, and if you have already adopted, you'd need to give the kid up

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yes. That's precisely what my argument is and I think I made a pretty good comparison to prove my point.

Why even argue with these left wings anymore?? Trump already crushed their dreams of Trillary being president. This particular type of people will be the downfall of AMERICA ONE DAY! I Give you props for putting up with this cause I am done with these cats

 

[Belgium]

 Originally Posted by KRISPACINLA  


That and chase Pokemon all day in Belgium huh??? ahahhahaha!

Bye 

 

 

[Mark Antony]

Just because you can find differences doesn't mean that they aren't similar.


Look at the difference between protestants and lutherans. It's so damn negligible that it isn't worth debating. The only people that want to are those who have an agenda.


Point blank both administrations imposed temporary bans on refugees from certain countries. That is the only fact that needs to be said.


I'll let you guys bicker about the minute differences so you can make yourselves feel better about your blatant hypocrisy.

Instead of creating parallels why not just post links of the similarities or a comparison?

Reasonable request to move things forward objectively.


*crickets

 

[everysingletime]

Difference between Trump and Obama's ban:

1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.

2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.

READ MORE:

3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020 Why you need to read the 25th Amendment now
It’s Time for a New Kind of Resistance Nothing in our recent historical experience prepares us for this.
America’s New President Is Not a Rational Actor Whether by accident or design, Donald Trump is isolating himself and erratically unraveling the world order.
4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli. This is not just bad policymaking practice, it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.

5. Far stronger vetting today: Much has been made of Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration’s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.

*Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.



Bottom line: No immigration vetting system is perfect, no matter how “extreme.” President Obama often said that his highest priority was keeping Americans safe. In keeping with America’s tradition and ideals, he also worked to establish a vetting system that worked more fairly and efficiently, particularly for refugees who are, by definition, in harm’s way. President Trump should defend his approach on the merits, if he can. He should not compare it to his predecessor’s.

Whoever said that the list of 7 countries that are banned came from Obama was on so much ****

Thanks to this article for clearing it up

In before every conservative refuses to read this post and regurgitates the same misinformation in a few days

[Rico]The differences are minute doe[/rico]

 

[EddieDoyers]

They are still blaming Obama in 2017 doe

 

[oneilmatt]

 
It was literally acknowledged in the post you quoted.

Everyone with the slightest knowledge of US history knows how horribly the Irish were treated. You will find none denying that here, except maybe Ninja.

Doubt you can reciprocate that thought though. You mentioned equality earlier, and since you also mentioned that you want intelligent discussion, perhaps you can tell us more about your views on equality. Note that I have not insulted you in any way so there's no reason to back off from this debate. Unless of course you are scared of a debate 

1. Do you believe in the existence of systemic racism? Explain it in detail why yes or no.

This would encompass things like race based discrimination in the job market, housing, loan applications, racial disparities in the criminal justice system, ... These are all backed up by scientific studies and statistics from courts, FBI, ... in the case of criminal justice.

A common example of such studies is where researchers send 2 identical resumes to loads of employers. The only difference between the two is that one has a name associated with being white, the other one associated with being black. There is a significant disparity in the amount of callbacks the resumes received. The ones with the black name received far less callbacks than the white name resumes.

There are countless other similar studies that irrefutably prove systemic racism.

2. What are your thoughts on the recent court rulings that have struck down several GOP voter ID laws for being racially discriminatory. Do you believe the courts are correct or are they wrong and there is no way a voter ID law can have a discriminatory effect. Explain in detail.

In the case of North Carolina, an NC republican strategist/consultant admitted that the law's intent was to disenfranchise black voters because they heavily lean democratic. The state also collected data on black voting patterns prior to passing their voter ID law.

3. Do you support equal rights for the LGBT community? That means gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws that protect them from being discriminated against because of their sexuality.

3.1 The GOP is strongly against both, what are your thoughts on that? They would like to see gay marriage overturned and through the First Amendment Defense Act, wish to effectively legalize businesses discriminating against the LGBT community under the guise of religious freedom.

The 2016 GOP platform, when it was first published described LGBT anti-discrimination regulations as "government discrimination against businesses" and made many references to gays being against the law of god and therefore not worthy of equal rights.

Mike Pence is a prime example. He has supported torturing gay people "to turn them straight"; commonly referred to as conversion therapy. He is now the vice president of the US, as you know.

You asked for intelligent discussion, then prove you are also up to the task by providing an elaborate response to these questions based on your earlier comments about equality.

I will respond to you because you have made an effort to be civil.

First off, I am well aware that he acknowledged it. I was referring to past arguments I've had in here (several years ago) in which many and most downplayed Irish persecution.

Now to your questions:

1. I have a hunch then when I say this, I will be immediately lambasted and clowned on, but no. I do not believe that systematic racism exists in this day and age. Is it a part of our country's history? Absolutely. Are there individuals in the U.S., some of whom are in positions of power, that are racist? Absolutely. But to say that there is still systematic oppression and racism in 2016 is simply not true.

You mention the resume study. While that is not acceptable, it is entirely based on individual prejudice and opinion. If you survey 100 companies and 3 of them preferentially hire whites, is that really systematic racism? I would say no. Diversity hiring, Affirmative Action, and similar practices are almost compulsory in modern corporate culture. Most companies today intentionally hire non-white employees over whites in order to increase diversity and comply with diversity quotas.

This is easily the touchiest topic on this website. A huge percentage of members are black. I am in the tiny minority here. I am not going to get into a racial debate. There is literally no way that anything constructive can come from that. So I will stick with that reply.

2. I am in favor of voter ID laws. I just fail to see how the idea that U.S. voters should have to present state ID in order to vote is in any way racist. Mexico, a country rife with poverty, poor education, and corruption, has a comprehensive voter ID system to combat fraud. All Mexican citizens must present tamper-proof ID in order to vote at all, and it works. There is a similar law in India and it, too, works.

The biggest argument I hear in opposition to voter ID laws involves this idea that poor black and other minority voters "don't know how" or simply can't get state ID. If third world countries with MASSIVE poor and uneducated populations have laws like this, how can anyone truly say that people in the U.S. can''t figure it out? That argument is also quite racist when you think about it. Democrats assume that minorities are too uneducated or "dumb" to get ID. If Republicans were to make similar statements about minorities, we all know how that would go.

Thirdly, it goes without saying that incidences of voter fraud almost always end up in votes being cast for democrats. Although I don't agree with Trump's estimates of millions of illegals voting in California, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that with such a huge illegal population, there were a decent amount of fraudulent votes. It is in Democrats' best interests to keep laws lax and non-existent.

3. I have no issue with the gay community at all. They can do whatever it is they want. I'm not against gay marriage. Free country. However, I take issue with business being forced to violate their beliefs and serve gay weddings (IE: Colorado bakery). 

3.1 In recent years, I have shifted away from a lot of the traditional Republicans' stances on social issues. I am not a classical religious Conservative. For example, although I find abortion to be morally wrong, I do not necessarily believe it should be made illegal or legislated away. I do not base my votes on issues like that. I do not believe that gays should be discriminated against. I do not that believe "conversion therapy" works or should be legal. So I guess you could say I disagree with many Republicans on that.

If you would like elaboration on anything, let me know.

 

[oneilmatt]

They are still blaming Obama in 2017 doe

People are still blaming Bush in 2017 doe 

 

[Nike Jordan]

Real conservatives don't watch soccer.

 

[EddieDoyers]

No one has blamed Bush for the immigration ban
Nice try at the bait

 

[RustyShackleford]

Dude's comments just read like 4Chan right wing fan fiction.

No way dude as ever taken any social science classes. Ignorant deflection, after ignorant deflection.

 

[EddieDoyers]

Dude's comments just read like 4Chan right wing fan fiction.

No way dude as ever taken any social science classes.

4chan white supremacists have done better arguments or trolling

 

[wavycrocket]

oneilmatt when did systemic/institutional racism "stop"? Serious question.

Like when did it cease to exist in America from your point of view?

 

[deleted]

If you deny systemic racism in the US you are at best woefully ignorant and at worst a vile racist

 

[RustyShackleford]

Trump always tried to use Obama to justify the Bannon promotion to the Security Council.

And the fact checkers ran them a fade.

This administration are liars and god damb incompetent as ****.

 

[flyknit]

 

[EddieDoyers]

Trump always tried to use Obama to justify the Bannon promotion to the Security Council.

And the fact checkers ran them a fade.

This administration are liars and god damb incompetent as ****.

Which forced Trump to reinstate the CIA director back on the security council
Media needs to keep adding pressure to this administration

 

[Mark Antony]

Trump is a pawn for chaos.

 

[Belgium]

 
I will respond to you because you have made an effort to be civil.

First off, I am well aware that he acknowledged it. I was referring to past arguments I've had in here (several years ago) in which many and most downplayed Irish persecution.

Now to your questions:

1. I have a hunch then when I say this, I will be immediately lambasted and clowned on, but no. I do not believe that systematic racism exists in this day and age. Is it a part of our country's history? Absolutely. Are there individuals in the U.S., some of whom are in positions of power, that are racist? Absolutely. But to say that there is still systematic oppression and racism in 2016 is simply not true.

You mention the resume study. While that is not acceptable, it is entirely based on individual prejudice and opinion. If you survey 100 companies and 3 of them preferentially hire whites, is that really systematic racism? I would say no. Diversity hiring, Affirmative Action, and similar practices are almost compulsory in modern corporate culture. Most companies today intentionally hire non-white employees over whites in order to increase diversity and comply with diversity quotas.

This is easily the touchiest topic on this website. A huge percentage of members are black. I am in the tiny minority here. I am not going to get into a racial debate. There is literally no way that anything constructive can come from that. So I will stick with that reply.

2. I am in favor of voter ID laws. I just fail to see how the idea that U.S. voters should have to present state ID in order to vote is in any way racist. Mexico, a country rife with poverty, poor education, and corruption, has a comprehensive voter ID system to combat fraud. All Mexican citizens must present tamper-proof ID in order to vote at all, and it works. There is a similar law in India and it, too, works.

The biggest argument I hear in opposition to voter ID laws involves this idea that poor black and other minority voters "don't know how" or simply can't get state ID. If third world countries with MASSIVE poor and uneducated populations have laws like this, how can anyone truly say that people in the U.S. can''t figure it out? That argument is also quite racist when you think about it. Democrats assume that minorities are too uneducated or "dumb" to get ID. If Republicans were to make similar statements about minorities, we all know how that would go.

Thirdly, it goes without saying that incidences of voter fraud almost always end up in votes being cast for democrats. Although I don't agree with Trump's estimates of millions of illegals voting in California, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that with such a huge illegal population, there were a decent amount of fraudulent votes. It is in Democrats' best interests to keep laws lax and non-existent.

3. I have no issue with the gay community at all. They can do whatever it is they want. I'm not against gay marriage. Free country. However, I take issue with business being forced to violate their beliefs and serve gay weddings (IE: Colorado bakery). 

3.1 In recent years, I have shifted away from a lot of the traditional Republicans' stances on social issues. I am not a classical religious Conservative. For example, although I find abortion to be morally wrong, I do not necessarily believe it should be made illegal or legislated away. I do not base my votes on issues like that. I do not believe that gays should be discriminated against. I do not that believe "conversion therapy" works or should be legal. So I guess you could say I disagree with many Republicans on that.

If you would like elaboration on anything, let me know.

I mentioned the study as an example of such studies, in reality there's much more. As for being in the minority here, I am also white.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fsd0512.pdf

Blacks recieve 20% longer sentences on average than whites charged with the exact same charges.

Blacks consume drugs at roughly the same rates as whites but are 3x more likely to be arrested

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickconfig.do?34481-0001_all

Black juveniles are far more likely to be tried as an adult than their white counterparts

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/05/when-to-punish-a-young-offender-and-when-to-rehabilitate/the-race-factor-in-trying-juveniles-asadults

Black former convicts receive far less callbacks than their white convict counterparts

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc232i.pdf

From NYPD 2012 statistics:

• The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped.  The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.

• The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped.  The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.

Compare that to NYPD statistics on the stops &frisks. As you can see, blacks and latinos generally make up between over 80% of the stops whereas whites only average 10% of stops. Yet they are equally or more likely to carry weapons or contraband

 

• In 2004, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 313,523 times.
  278,933 were totally innocent (89 percent).
  155,033 were black (55 percent).
  89,937 were Latino (32 percent).
  28,913 were white (10 percent).
  152,196 were aged 14-24 (52 percent).
• In 2005, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 398,191 times.
  352,348 were totally innocent (89 percent).
  196,570 were black (54 percent).
  115,088 were Latino (32 percent).
  40,713 were white (11 percent).
  189,854 were aged 14-24 (51 percent).
• In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times.
  457,163 were totally innocent (90 percent).
  267,468 were black (53 percent).
  147,862 were Latino (29 percent).
  53,500 were white (11 percent).
  247,691 were aged 14-24 (50 percent).
• In 2007, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 472,096 times.
  410,936 were totally innocent (87 percent).
  243,766 were black (54 percent).
  141,868 were Latino (31 percent).
  52,887 were white (12 percent).
  223,783 were aged 14-24 (48 percent).
• In 2008, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 540,302 times.
  474,387 were totally innocent (88 percent).
  275,588 were black (53 percent).
  168,475 were Latino (32 percent).
  57,650 were white (11 percent).
  263,408 were aged 14-24 (49 percent).
• In 2009, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 581,168 times.
  510,742 were totally innocent (88 percent).
  310,611 were black (55 percent).
  180,055 were Latino (32 percent).
  53,601 were white (10 percent).
  289,602 were aged 14-24 (50 percent).
• In 2010, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 601,285 times.
  518,849 were totally innocent (86 percent).
  315,083 were black (54 percent).
  189,326 were Latino (33 percent).
  54,810 were white (9 percent).
  295,902 were aged 14-24 (49 percent).
• In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
  605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
  350,743 were black (53 percent).
  223,740 were Latino (34 percent).
  61,805 were white (9 percent).
  341,581 were aged 14-24 (51 percent).
• In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times
  473,644 were totally innocent (89 percent).
  284,229 were black (55 percent).
  165,140 were Latino (32 percent).
  50,366 were white (10 percent).

As for point #2. I suggest you take a lot at the court cases, they contain a lot of information on how voter ID laws can have a discriminatory intent. Longtime North Carolina republican strategist Carter Wrenn literally admitted that the law's intent is to disenfranchize black voters because they're a democratic voting bloc.

 
In North Carolina, notably, the federal appeals court directly took on the underlying issue in voting rights today. The decision should be required reading for all state legislatures that are targeting black and Hispanic voters with onerous restrictions because of minority voters’ well-known propensity to vote for Democrats. Their goal is to protect their own political power, but the legislators’ method is racial discrimination.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in its decision last week, held that the North Carolina state legislature acted to entrench itself and “it did so by targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party. Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted racial discrimination.”

The court called this strategy what it is: racist. The panel wrote that “using race as a proxy for party may be an effective way to win an election. But intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose. This is so even absent any evidence of race-based hatred and despite the obvious political dynamics.”

But outside of the courts, the public discussion around these laws has focused on politics, not race. After all, the partisan motive of the recent wave of voter restrictions is a poorly kept secret. Several legislators, such as Pennsylvania House Speaker Mike Turzai  and Rep. Glenn Grothman (Wis.), have slipped from the usual Republican line that voter ID laws are about preventing voter fraud and acknowledged that the goal is to give the GOP an edge on Election Day. But given the demographic patterns of who votes for which party, the easiest way for them to gain that edge is by putting bureaucratic hurdles in place that make it harder for poor and elderly minority voters to cast ballots. Thus, race and politics are necessarily intertwined.

This racial strategy is just barely below the surface of many of these laws — they pick and choose voting restrictions that benefit whites while harming blacks and other minorities.

In North Carolina, the legislature requested racial data on the use of electoral mechanisms, then restricted all those disproportionately used by blacks, such as early voting, same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting. Absentee ballots, disproportionately used by white voters, were exempted from the voter ID requirement. The legislative record actually justified the elimination of one of the two days of Sunday voting because “counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”

The documents acceptable for proving voters’ identity in North Carolina were the ones disproportionately held by whites, such as driver’s licenses, U.S. passports, and veteran and military IDs, and the ones that were left out were the ones often held by poor minority voters, such as student IDs, government employee IDs and public assistance IDs. The Texas voter ID law was designed the same way: There, officials accepted concealed-weapon licenses but not student or state employee IDs. The Texas legislature was repeatedly advised  of the likely effect on minority voters but rebuffed nearly all amendments that would have eased its harsh impact.

Because of the strong link between race and party, some defenders of the laws have argued that the restrictions are nothing but “politics as usual” — that they’re not motivated by racial animus and are therefore lawful. For example, 5th Circuit Judge Edith Jones, dissenting in the Texas voter ID decision, wrote, “The law reflects party politics, not racism, and the majority of this court — in their hearts — know this.”

On the same day as the North Carolina decision, a Wisconsin federal court echoed this exact point. The court struck down restrictions on in-person absentee voting hours that were aimed specifically at limiting voting access in Milwaukee because of its large black population. The court wrote: “Republicans sought to maintain control of the state government. But the methods that the legislature chose to achieve that result involved suppressing the votes of Milwaukee’s residents, who are disproportionately African American and Latino. . . . That, too, constitutes race discrimination.”

 
MARTIN: Now, the photo ID requirement is one that gets a lot of attention, but could you tell us more about what made the voting law in North Carolina so noxious to voting rights advocates?

HASEN: Every piece of this law had appeared somewhere else. But nowhere else but North Carolina did we see all of these rules meant to roll back voting and registration embodied in a single law. In the past, states and localities with a history of racial discrimination had to get approval. The Supreme Court in the Shelby County case in 2013 said, no, you don't need it anymore because racial discrimination is kind of a thing of the past, and so you have to take each case case by case. North Carolina comes in, passes this omnibus bill that makes it harder to register and vote. And that's what the 4th Circuit struck down in the opinion issued last week.

MARTIN: What drove the federal appeals court decision? Was it the manner in which the legislature crafted the vote? I note that you noted the timing, but I also make note of the fact that the court ruling talked about the fact that the legislature had requested the data on the use - by race - of a number of voting practices. What if they hadn't compiled this data and only used data on how Democrats voted, for example? Do you think they would've been the same result?

HASEN: That's a great question. And what's really hard about these cases is that the claim is, well, we weren't discriminating against anyone. We certainly weren't discriminating on the basis of race. But at worst, we were discriminating against Democrats. These are all laws that are passed by Republican legislatures against the views of Democrats.

And so how do you decide whether discrimination against Democrats is the same thing as discrimination against, say, African-Americans or Latinos? And that's something that the 4th Circuit, in its opinion, struggled with and said, look, if you target a party knowing that this is the party that is favored by minority voters, that's race discrimination even if it's not driven by racial hatred or racial animus.

MARTIN: Now, of course, the Republicans say that the challenge to these laws is politically motivated, motivated and intended to boost Democratic voters showing up at the polls. And the lead attorney on these cases does work for the Hillary Clinton campaign. So can you separate out the political motivation on either side?

HASEN: Well, I certainly think that it's true that Democrats and Republicans have the same view that if you make it easier to register and vote, that's going to help poor and minority voters, who tend to vote for Democrats. But I tend to look at these cases differently and take it from the point of view of the voter and ask the question, does the state have a good reason to burden voters, to make it harder to register and vote?

And if the state has a good reason for that, then maybe its law is OK. But if the state's reasons are made up or pretextual, then that's not a reason to make it harder to register and vote. And in this case, the court said that the laws were not really justified by preventing fraud. They didn't really act to prevent fraud. They seem to be motivated instead to drive down turnout of groups that tend to vote for the minority party.

MARTIN: So what does this mean for this year's presidential election? Does this mean that the rules that were in place before these laws were put into effect now have to prevail? Can we say?

HASEN: It depends on the place. So in Texas, the voter ID law is still going to be in effect there. It does mean as a whole that more people who are eligible to vote who want to register and vote will actually be able to vote in November, assuming that these rulings stand the way they are right now.

MARTIN: That was Richard Hasen. He's a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine. He specializes in election law, and he was kind enough to join us via Skype from his home office in Los Angeles. Professor Hasen, thank you so much for joining us.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...isenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

 
First, let's call it what it is. The burgeoning battles over state redistricting and voter ID laws -- and the larger fight over a key part of the Voting Rights Act itself -- are all cynical expressions of the concerns many conservatives (of both parties) have about the future of the American electorate. The Republican lawmakers who are leading the fight for the restrictive legislation say they are doing so in the name of stopping election fraud -- and, really, who's in favor  of election fraud? But the larger purpose and effect of the laws is to disenfranchise Hispanic voters, other minorities, and the poor -- most of whom, let's also be clear, vote for Democrats.

Jonathan Chait, in a smart recent New York  magazine piece titled "2012 or Never," offered some numbers supporting the theory. "Every year," Chait wrote, "the nonwhite proportion of the electorate grows by about half a percentage point -- meaning that in every presidential election, the minority share of the vote increases by 2 percent, a huge amount in a closely divided country." This explains, for example, why Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona are turning purple instead of staying red. "By 2020," Chait writes, "nonwhite voters should rise from a quarter of the 2008 electorate to one third. In 30 years, "nonwhites will outnumber whites."

Which is why "whites," and especially white men, seem so determined this election cycle to make it harder for nonwhites to exercise their right to vote. The news from the front this week is telling. On Wednesday, in Pennsylvania, GOP Governor Tom Corbett  raced  to sign a bill that requires photo identification of voters. The day before, in Texas, GOP Attorney General Greg Abbott  amended the Lone Star State's complaint  against the federal government to seek to strike down the pre-clearance section of the Voting Rights Act, which had in turn been used by the Justice Department to block Texas' recent efforts at a stringent new voter-ID law.

In Wisconsin, meanwhile, a state court judge on Monday blocked  the state's new voter ID law, ruling that it unconstitutionally created a new (and lower) class of citizen-voter. Even the Human Rights Council of the United Nations has been dragged into  the controversy, by the NAACP, to the great consternation of conservative bloggers and conspiracy theorists. It's all happening because lawmakers are dissatisfied with less onerous identification requirements -- like those just enacted  in Virginia -- which allow registered voters to produce a wide range of documentation to establish that they are who they say they are.

Even though the Justice Department acted first in December  in blocking a South Carolina voter-ID law, election law experts seem to agree  that the Texas case is going to be the tip of the spear. Here's how the Justice Department responded when it reviewed Texas' new voter-ID law. Federal lawyers wrote:

[W]e conclude that the total number of registered voters who lack a driver's license or personal identification card issued by DPS could range from 603,892 to 795,955. The disparity between the percentages of Hispanics and non-Hispanics who lack these forms of identification ranges from 46.5 to 120.0 percent. That is, according to the state's own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification. Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver's license or a personal identification card issued by DPS, and that disparity is statistically significant.

There's more. As Brentin Mock wrote earlier this week  at Colorlines, the practical reality of life in Texas makes it difficult, if not impossible, for people who want to comply with the new ID law to do so. Mock wrote:

Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends.

Here's how Governor Rick Perry responded:

Texas has a responsibility to ensure elections are fair, beyond reproach, and accurately reflect the will of voters. The DOJ has no valid reason for rejecting this important law, which requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane. Their denial is yet another example of the Obama Administration's continuing and pervasive federal overreach.

Continuing and pervasive federal overreach. We've heard that refrain before, as constantly as a chorus in fact, since President Obama took office in 2009. Opponents of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, for example, have asserted that Congress overreached its authority under the Commerce Clause when it enacted. Now many of those same people say that the Justice Department is overreaching with its interpretation of the Voting Rights Act by seeking to void these state ID laws -- and that the federal law itself is a statutory overreach that violates the 10th Amendment right of states to determine their own election rules.

Which brings us to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who alone among his colleagues has expressed interest in striking down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In 2009, in a case styled Northwest Austin v. Holder,  Justice Thomas memorably proclaimed  "victory" in the federal war against state laws designed to disenfranchise black voters. "The constitutionality of section 5 has always depended," he wrote, "on the proven existence of intentional discrimination so extensive that elimination of it through case-by-case enforcement would be impossible ... 'There can be no remedy without a wrong.'" (citations omitted by me)

And then Justice Thomas wrote this:

The lack of sufficient evidence that the covered jurisdictions currently engage in the type of discrimination that underlay the enactment of §5 undermines any basis for retaining it. Punishment for long past sins is not a legitimate basis for imposing a forward-looking preventative measure that has already served its purpose. Admitting that a prophylactic law as broad as §5 is no longer constitutionally justified based on current evidence of discrimination is not a sign of defeat. It is an acknowledgment of victory.

So if section 5 doesn't apply to "long past sins" against black voters, what about current sins against Hispanic voters? If the Voting Rights Act was originally designed to protect the rights of black Americans to vote, do we now need a new Voting Rights Act that would protect the rights of Hispanic Americans to vote? If so, why aren't federal lawmakers tripping over themselves to get on the good side of a voting bloc that is going to increase in power over the next generation? Oh, that's right. As Chait reminds us, we are not quite yet at the point at which the benefit of shilling for Hispanic votes outweighs the burden of angering white voters.

It's unlikely new legislation is needed -- we can still use the old reliable 1965 statute and apply it to new circumstances like the ones presented now. But does the discriminatory effect of state ID laws have to be so bad -- "violence, terror and subterfuge" is how Justice Thomas put it -- before the federal government may step in against a state? Or is it enough to establish that there is a national effort by conservative groups  to press for these types of laws? (Ironic, isn't it, in a dispute conservatives argue is states' rights, that so many of these state voter ID laws would be conceived within the Beltway.)

Several commentators over the past week or so have called the current generation of voter ID laws "a solution in search of a problem." But that doesn't give enough respect to the argument that we should as a nation strive to be as accurate as possible with our voting. If voting fraud is the third oldest profession, and if it is somehow rampant in all these states that have Republican leaders at their helm, then there should be reasonable ways to combat it. No responsible lawmaker ought to be against that. But no one seems able to find good evidence that a crisis is at hand. All Texas Attorney General Abbott could muster this week was this:

Since 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted more than 100 defendants for election fraud. During the same period, election fraud investigations by the Texas Attorney General's Office have resulted in 50 convictions. Those cases include a woman who submitted her dead mother's ballot, a paid operative who cast two elderly voters' ballots after transporting them to the polling place, a city council member who unlawfully registered ineligible foreign nationals to vote in an election that was decided by a 19-vote margin, a Starr County defendant who voted twice on Election Day, a Harris County man who used his deceased father's voter registration card to vote in an election, a worker who pled guilty after attempting to vote for two of her family members, and a Brooks County man who presented another voter's registration card and illegally cast that voter's ballot on Election Day.

In 10 years, just 100 federal prosecutions and 50 state convictions -- in a colossal state with a population of more than 25 million people. You can do the math. You can be stupid and vote in America. You can be drunk and vote in America. You can be mentally insane and vote in America. You could vote in America for Snooki or Rod Blagojevich. Or, like tens of millions of your fellow citizens, you can choose not to vote at all. But if you don't have the means to get a driver's license, or if you cannot afford the time and money it takes to get certain other forms of government ID, you are out of luck? What a great country this is.

I have provided you with studies and statistics. If systemic racism is indeed non-existant, than you must refute all of the above and explain why blacks receive longer sentences on average than whites for the exact same crime, why they are 3x more likely to be arrested for drugs when whites carry/use drugs at roughly the same rate and the black population is far smaller than the white population.

Also, I can give you several links to Trump supporters arrested for voter fraud in this election, how many arrest reports can you link for democrats arrested for voter fraud in this election?

To claim only democrats commit voter fraud is a baseless argument.

 

[getback]

This was great

 

[RustyShackleford]

-Voter ID laws were only made possible after an important Civil Right Era piece of legislation was weaken by the SCOTUS.

-Local GOP officials openly bragged about this will hurt Obama in 2012 because it will disproportionately hurt African Americans

-State governments not only required ID, they also restricted alternate forms of ID that minorities or young people may have. And cut down on access to the DMV is minorities neighborhoods, to make is harder for minorities to acquire the right ID.

They then restricted early voting, cut down on polling places in minority neighborhoods (making people wait hours to have to vote), purge minorities off voter rolls so some didn't even know they had to re-register, block straight ticket voting because black people use it disproportionately, and cut don on Sunday voting because of black churches like to do "souls to the polls". They also restrict former felons from getting their voting rights back because disproportionately..........well you know.

The GOP also gerrymandered states like crazy after 2010, they did this allow them to win less votes yet win more seats. Most of the this was done along racial lines.

And you know why all this info is right. Because states have been losing lawsuits constantly over gerrymandering and voter ID laws being discriminatory in the pass couple years. North Carolina is a famous example, they have to redraw their districts before their municipal election this year. And guess what, conservatives are fighting it.

Just like stop-n-frisk. The mere action of requiring an ID is not discriminatory. It is how is implemented.

Maybe delusional conservatives should pay attention to the news so they can educate themselves about the realities of racial discrimination. Not go on 4Chan to feel comfortable in a white supremacist echo chamber.

 

[Nike Jordan]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

5:46am · 31 Aug 2013

 

[MVP]

Systematic racism doesn't exist...looks at timeline, slavery for 265 years, Reconstruction/segregation/Jim crow/ for 99 including separate but equal. Makes it 53 years since 1964...not even 2 full generations. I too would like to know when it ended.