[Victoribus Spolia]

Let me guess......@SpecialOlympian thinks murderers, rapists, child-molesters, and thieves should be able to vote purely by the content of their character melanin and anyone who disagrees is a racist nazi?



Seriously though, if we eliminated victimless crimes, killed the serious degenerates back behind our sheds with a .44 magnum, and required theives to pay restitution...and replaced "democracy" (majority-tyranny) with an actual system of voluntary consent.....none of this would be an issue.

No one should vote and any prison is a waste of money as most crimes shouldn't be crimes and the rest require nothing but a single bullet or the offender's wallet.

This is a problem we have created and as the statists look to expand their democratically vested power they will inevitably search for the next "base" to enfranchise with the vote. At first, in an attempt to create a consensual system; only those who paid taxes were able to vote; however, as the statist crooks knew this would limit the amount of money and therefore the scope any government could have; they sought to add voters by enfranchising the unlanded, the women, and soon the convicted prisoners, children, and alien invaders.....hopefully their plundering debt-run on the "credit" of the working american's savings account will run out of money before we see such a society.....

Lets flip a coin and take some bets on it.

Clown-world.

[Pants-of-dog]

A Palm Beach Post report reveals what most of us knew all along: pre-election voter ID and other "anti-fraud" laws are not about preventing voter fraud, but about keeping likely Democratic voters aways from the polls:


"The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates," Greer told The Post. "It's done for one reason and one reason only. …

'We've got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,' " Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.

"They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue," Greer said. "It's all a marketing ploy."



Jim Greer -- the former chair of the Florida Republican party -- is currently under indictment for siphoning off money from the party's coffers and is seen by many as an unreliable source. But his claims about the intent of the GOP's voter laws were backed by other Republican leaders, including Florida's former GOP governor, Charlie Crist, and a pair of Republican strategists.

https://www.eriereader.com/article/flor ... uppression

[Victoribus Spolia]

A Palm Beach Post report reveals what most of us knew all along: pre-election voter ID and other "anti-fraud" laws are not about preventing voter fraud, but about keeping likely Democratic voters aways from the polls:

"The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates," Greer told The Post. "It's done for one reason and one reason only. …

'We've got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,' " Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.

"They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue," Greer said. "It's all a marketing ploy."



Jim Greer -- the former chair of the Florida Republican party -- is currently under indictment for siphoning off money from the party's coffers and is seen by many as an unreliable source. But his claims about the intent of the GOP's voter laws were backed by other Republican leaders, including Florida's former GOP governor, Charlie Crist, and a pair of Republican strategists.

I don't see how this evidence carries the burden as its about a particular politician's opinion.

One politician's opinion does not prove that ALL republicans favor ID laws in order to guarantee electoral success.

Such a claim requires more evidence.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since I never claimed that ALL Republicans believe in this sort of disenfranchisement, I will ignore that particular criticism.

[SpecialOlympian]

Let me guess......@SpecialOlympian thinks murderers, rapists, child-molesters, and thieves should be able to vote purely by the content of their character melanin and anyone who disagrees is a racist nazi?

I think they should be able to vote because they are more involved with our government than the average citizen and voting is one factor for rehabilitation. Not like our justice system is focused on rehabilitation, it is focused on being punitive.

Like these people are going to return to society at some point either through serving their time or going on probation. Why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? And the party that works hardest to prevent them from voting is most closely aligned with private prison interests.

In Florida you have to drive to the capital and make your case to have your voting rights reinstated you have to drive to the capital and meet some Republican douchebags. That is bullshit.

Seriously though, if we eliminated victimless crimes, killed the serious degenerates back behind our sheds with a .44 magnum, and required theives to pay restitution...and replaced "democracy" (majority-tyranny) with an actual system of voluntary consent.....none of this would be an issue.

No one should vote and any prison is a waste of money as most crimes shouldn't be crimes and the rest require nothing but a single bullet or the offender's wallet.

This is a problem we have created and as the statists look to expand their democratically vested power they will inevitably search for the next "base" to enfranchise with the vote. At first, in an attempt to create a consensual system; only those who paid taxes were able to vote; however, as the statist crooks knew this would limit the amount of money and therefore the scope any government could have; they sought to add voters by enfranchising the unlanded, the women, and soon the convicted prisoners, children, and alien invaders.....hopefully their plundering debt-run on the "credit" of the working american's savings account will run out of money before we see such a society.....

Lets flip a coin and take some bets on it.

Clown-world.

This is just weird, off-topic internet toughguy nonsense. Like, I read this post and I get the image that you buy knives from MilSurpFreedomWarrior dot net with Punisher skull logos on them.

There's a buffet's worth of libertarian nonsense to pick from here but on a fundamental level you do not seem to understand how sovereign debt works or what our national debt actually is.

[Verv]

No, I specifically asked for evidence over and over again.

The one evidence you did bring (i.e. the Kenyan runners article) I analysed critically and showed how it actually contradicts traditional notions of race.

You are remembering incorrectly.

... But it doesn't actually contradict any classical concepts of race as we have people in the 19th century talking about subracial groups, and I have even seen an author refer to things like "the Irish race," "the Greek race," etc.

It was just a series of silly semantics put forward with the hope of decontextualizing and dislodging everything from a framework through which it could be talked.

Why?

Because every effort had to be made to avoid actually confronting the hard, material evidence.

No. You dismissed or ignored several of your own arguments, including the claim that the races were distinct and that the races were a valid biological taxonomy.

But here's the thing: I am not attached at all to the arguments pertaining to valid biological taxonomy because I fully understand that the definitions of things can be freely shifted about.

At any cost?

We could prevent voter fraud by simply outlawing voting. This would be a logical way to ensure it never happens again.

And yet even this logical process would be unconstitutional.

... Yeah man, surely we would be protecting the rights of people to a free and fair election by abolishing elections.

Very logical counter-example.

If this was actually important to the USA governments, you guys would change a lot about voting practices. Not just voter ID laws.

But the purpose of these laws is not to prevent voter fraud or make things more legitimate and transparent.

The purpose is to stop blacks, Latinos, and poor people from voting.

Actually, if you would like to see something interesting... I fully endorse a national ID that woudl also double as the ID that is used for voting.

@AFAIK had brought this up earlier and I thought it was a stupendous suggestion.

What you are doing here is now saying that the absence of attention toward other topics within the greater issue is proof that I don't really care about this, but that isn't really the case at all.

I'd gladly fully overhaul a lot of stuff.

... But, *hint hint*, none of this would involve a scenario where people could more easily fraudulently cast ballots.

Well, it seems to support the claim that these policies are designed to prevent people from voting for the Democratic party.

... So you think that 20+ percent of Democrat voters previously just didn't have valid IDs?

[Hindsite]

... So you think that 20+ percent of Democrat voters previously just didn't have valid IDs?

That's it. Your a near genius at least, congratulations.
HalleluYah

[SpecialOlympian]

Verv unironically citing 19th century race science lmfao. Just pull out the calipers and tell us why criminals shouldn't be allowed to vote because of their skull shape, my dude.

Good thing all those smart cottage industry racists from the past dislodged things from context, so that they could avoid discussions like "Why the negro is unprepared for freedom" or "Here's why the Irish should be starved to death." They were not trying to avoid these discussions. In fact, you are the modern version of the gullible rube who subscribed to their race science journals because you are getting your info from Breitbart, a website that previously had a "Black Crime" section.

Just lmfao. Verv, pick up a fucking history book. Do you seriously think 19th century race science article writers were trying to avoid difficult discussions about race? They were explicitly doing their best with pre-germ theory ideas of medicine and biology to justify the status quo, which was keeping black people at the bottom of the Great Chain of Being and proving Irish people technically weren't white. Like god damn, dude. Pick up a fucking book. Read a thing that isn't Breitbart. As far as I can tell from your recent posts your knowledge of history extends to when you turned 5.

Seriously, pick up a book like From Savage to Negro. I can not adequately explain how dumbfounded I am by you citing 19th century race scientists as people who were somehow trying to avoid difficult racial conversations. They were inventing context and trying to lodge said context up America's ass for the purpose of justifying the material reality in which they lived.

Here's a hint for you: the people trying to have conversations about the ~material realities~ of race are racists desperately trying to cover for their racism. The same way that dumbfuck former Facebook employee wanted to have a ~serious discussion~ about the ~material reality~ of why he believes women are inferior at coding (and also prone to liberalism, because their vaginas make them care more).

[Pants-of-dog]

... But it doesn't actually contradict any classical concepts of race as we have people in the 19th century talking about subracial groups, and I have even seen an author refer to things like "the Irish race," "the Greek race," etc.

It was just a series of silly semantics put forward with the hope of decontextualizing and dislodging everything from a framework through which it could be talked.

Why?

Because every effort had to be made to avoid actually confronting the hard, material evidence.

No. I wanted to discuss hard evidence, and you did not.

But here's the thing: I am not attached at all to the arguments pertaining to valid biological taxonomy because I fully understand that the definitions of things can be freely shifted about.

If race is not a valid biological taxonomy and the definition can be freely shifted about, then race is a social construct.

... Yeah man, surely we would be protecting the rights of people to a free and fair election by abolishing elections.

Very logical counter-example.

So we agree that preventing voter fraud cannot come at any cost.

And disenfranchising large numbers of eligible voters is too high a cost for many.

Actually, if you would like to see something interesting... I fully endorse a national ID that woudl also double as the ID that is used for voting.

@AFAIK had brought this up earlier and I thought it was a stupendous suggestion.

What you are doing here is now saying that the absence of attention toward other topics within the greater issue is proof that I don't really care about this, but that isn't really the case at all.

I'd gladly fully overhaul a lot of stuff.

... But, *hint hint*, none of this would involve a scenario where people could more easily fraudulently cast ballots.

Sure, and you could also stop Republican practices like getting rid of early voting and getting rid of Sunday voting. Both of these things get restricted by Republicans because black churches often organise voter drives on the Sunday before voting day.

... So you think that 20+ percent of Democrat voters previously just didn't have valid IDs?

So you agree that these polices are meant to stop people from voting Democrat?

[Verv]

No. I wanted to discuss hard evidence, and you did not.



If race is not a valid biological taxonomy and the definition can be freely shifted about, then race is a social construct.

But this is the tricky part...

Obviously, we inherit genes from our parents, and they inherit from their parents, etc., forming a gene pool, right?

Some gene pools have hereditary diseases that are unique to them, and other such differences can exist. For instance, Ethiopian & Kenyan people tend to have a very abnormal skill for long distance running.

While this does not pan out universally among the "black race," it should perhaps be said that East Africans are traditionally considered distinct int heir own ways from West Africans, and, indeed, the differences between them can be very significant. Perhaps there would be reasons to debate classifying them as entirely separate, but yet, such a movement doesn't exist as far as I know. There probably is a significant amount of genetic overlap while gentic divergence does exist.

That's the thing: it's hard to say where A begins and B ends.

To some degree, it is a social construct because we are dealing with the classification of things.

So we agree that preventing voter fraud cannot come at any cost.

And disenfranchising large numbers of eligible voters is too high a cost for many.

But they are not disenfranchised in any meaningful sense: they can pursue getting a valid ID.

There aren't hurdles at all in terms of obtaining one -- and dare I say, if you are so incompetent as to be incapable of gaining a voter ID, and you cannot pass these bare minimum requirements of a valid form of identification or do not care to do so... why should your vote be counted?

Why would the assumption be that people who can't perform simple tasks in society need to be catered to democratically?

Sure, and you could also stop Republican practices like getting rid of early voting and getting rid of Sunday voting. Both of these things get restricted by Republicans because black churches often organise voter drives on the Sunday before voting day.

So you agree that these polices are meant to stop people from voting Democrat?

The Sunday voting law sounds like they don't want to force election officials to be open and to work on Sundays, as it is in violation of many people's religious beliefs or in conflict with their desire to spend time at Church and church related functions.

... And where have they abolished "early voting?" I see there are political activists saying that "early voting" has been abolished in a bunch of states (many of them Democrat, like New York, Rhode Island, and Connecticut), but this has to do with regulations concerning absentee ballots.

You are buying into conspiracy theories, POD.

[Pants-of-dog]

But this is the tricky part...

Obviously, we inherit genes from our parents, and they inherit from their parents, etc., forming a gene pool, right?

No, not quite. A gene pool is more like a snapshot of all the genetic information in a given population.

But this semantics and is also off topic.

Some gene pools have hereditary diseases that are unique to them, and other such differences can exist. For instance, Ethiopian & Kenyan people tend to have a very abnormal skill for long distance running.

Actually, the evidence you presented contradicts that claim about Ethiopian and Kenyan people.

And it is off topic.

While this does not pan out universally among the "black race," it should perhaps be said that East Africans are traditionally considered distinct int heir own ways from West Africans, and, indeed, the differences between them can be very significant. Perhaps there would be reasons to debate classifying them as entirely separate, but yet, such a movement doesn't exist as far as I know. There probably is a significant amount of genetic overlap while gentic divergence does exist.

The evidence says that this running prowess is found in one subtribe of one tribe out of several in Kenya. You incorrectly claim that this running prowess is common to "Ethiopian & Kenyan people" and now you stretch it even further to include all East Africans.

This is what I mean when I say that you do not wish to actually discuss the evidence. And this is off topic.

That's the thing: it's hard to say where A begins and B ends.

To some degree, it is a social construct because we are dealing with the classification of things.

Yes, the biology taxonomy that we were taught in high school (i.e. before we actually looked at actual genomes) also suffers from these issues.

And this is off topic.

But they are not disenfranchised in any meaningful sense: they can pursue getting a valid ID.

Yes, being barred from voting is meaningful.

There aren't hurdles at all in terms of obtaining one -- and dare I say, if you are so incompetent as to be incapable of gaining a voter ID, and you cannot pass these bare minimum requirements of a valid form of identification or do not care to do so... why should your vote be counted?

Why would the assumption be that people who can't perform simple tasks in society need to be catered to democratically?

Special Olympian already provided the evidence that there are significant hurdles for many people without ID.

Here:
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=176432&start=40#p15002564

And here is his post with evidence:

Hi Hindsite. Here's the results of 10 seconds of Googling that you could have done. From the Brennan Center of the NYU School of Law:

The 11 percent of eligible voters who lack the required photo ID must travel to a designated government office to obtain one. Yet many citizens will have trouble making this trip. In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws:

Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options.
More than 10 million eligible voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week.
1.2 million eligible black voters and 500,000 eligible Hispanic voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. People of color are more likely to be disenfranchised by these laws since they are less likely to have photo ID than the general population.
Many ID-issuing offices maintain limited business hours. For example, the office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month. But only four months in 2012 — February, May, August, and October — have five Wednesdays. In other states — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas — many part-time ID-issuing offices are in the rural regions with the highest concentrations of people of color and people in poverty.

Thank you as always for your meaningful contributions, Hindsite. If you ever grow tired of your incredibly boring troll gimmick then feel free to do a little research on your own.

The Sunday voting law sounds like they don't want to force election officials to be open and to work on Sundays, as it is in violation of many people's religious beliefs or in conflict with their desire to spend time at Church and church related functions.

... And where have they abolished "early voting?" I see there are political activists saying that "early voting" has been abolished in a bunch of states (many of them Democrat, like New York, Rhode Island, and Connecticut), but this has to do with regulations concerning absentee ballots.

You are buying into conspiracy theories, POD.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north ... -voter-id/

Claim
North Carolina admitted that a voter ID law was at least partly enacted in response to African-American voting tendencies that went against conservative interests.

Rating
True

Tweets by two academics in October 2018 shed light on legislative efforts in North Carolina to target non-white voters, as documented by court excerpts they shared which were distributed widely online.

On 15 October 2018, Sarah Damaske, an associate professor of labor and employment relations at Penn State University, shared a tweet from University of Chicago professor Harold Pollak linking to a federal court decision regarding the state’s “voter ID” law, known as House Bill 589 or SL 2013-381:



The law, which was passed in 2013, shortened the early voting period from 17 days to ten and eliminated both same-day voter registration and two Sunday voting dates which frequently saw African-American churches provide rides for parishioners to the polls.

While Pollak’s original tweet posted a day earlier, had been shared more than 9,000 times Damaske’s amplification of it had been retweeted nearly 23,000 times within a week after her posting of it.

“I think people picked it up, because there is a lot of concern about the many stories about voter suppression along racial lines in this election cycle (even though the story that Dr. Pollack tweeted about and that I re-tweeted was from an earlier voting cycle),” Damaske said of the re-circulated tweet.

The legal excerpt cited in the tweet was taken from a 29 July 2016 decision by the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit which struck down the voter ID law:

As “evidence of justifications” for the changes to early voting, the State offered purported inconsistencies in voting hours across counties, including the fact that only some counties had decided to offer Sunday voting. The State then elaborated on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”

The interesting part is that Republicans admit this is about taking away the voting power of blacks.

[Verv]

No, not quite. A gene pool is more like a snapshot of all the genetic information in a given population.

But this semantics and is also off topic.
...
Actually, the evidence you presented contradicts that claim about Ethiopian and Kenyan people.

And it is off topic.
...
The evidence says that this running prowess is found in one subtribe of one tribe out of several in Kenya. You incorrectly claim that this running prowess is common to "Ethiopian & Kenyan people" and now you stretch it even further to include all East Africans.

This is what I mean when I say that you do not wish to actually discuss the evidence. And this is off topic.

One of the "sub-tribes" in question contains 1.5 million people, and the other contains 5 million; yet they account for something like 70% of Kenyan/Ethiopian distance runners, who were accounting for an absolutely absurd amount of the Gold Medals.

You think this is smaller than it actually is.

And sure, it is off this topic, but I am just bringing up how you ran away from another thread. But it has been more than a week so I am just picking up again.

Yes, the biology taxonomy that we were taught in high school (i.e. before we actually looked at actual genomes) also suffers from these issues.

And this is off topic.

I forgot to cover this...

A gene pool can be a "snapshot" of what is there, sure, because surely not every single Kenyan or Ethiopian is going to have universally identical genes that result in the same polygenic trends.

However, it would be the case that the overwhelming majority (99.9%) of Somalis & Ethiopians would share some of their genes in common which we do not have at all as peopel who are not from E. Africa -- such as, black skin, brown eyes, nappy hair, etc.

Just as how some of their genes are nearly in common universally, some of the gene sets more present in their population will present themselves far more in their region than anywhere else -- hence their clear domination in long-distance running.

I am talking about a gene pool accurately, right?

Yes, being barred from voting is meaningful.

Why should serious criminals NOT be barred from voting?

Special Olympian already provided the evidence that there are significant hurdles for many people without ID.

Here:
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=176432&start=40#p15002564

And here is his post with evidence\

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north ... -voter-id/

Claim
North Carolina admitted that a voter ID law was at least partly enacted in response to African-American voting tendencies that went against conservative interests.

Rating
True

Tweets by two academics in October 2018 shed light on legislative efforts in North Carolina to target non-white voters, as documented by court excerpts they shared which were distributed widely online.

On 15 October 2018, Sarah Damaske, an associate professor of labor and employment relations at Penn State University, shared a tweet from University of Chicago professor Harold Pollak linking to a federal court decision regarding the state’s “voter ID” law, known as House Bill 589 or SL 2013-381:



The law, which was passed in 2013, shortened the early voting period from 17 days to ten and eliminated both same-day voter registration and two Sunday voting dates which frequently saw African-American churches provide rides for parishioners to the polls.

While Pollak’s original tweet posted a day earlier, had been shared more than 9,000 times Damaske’s amplification of it had been retweeted nearly 23,000 times within a week after her posting of it.

“I think people picked it up, because there is a lot of concern about the many stories about voter suppression along racial lines in this election cycle (even though the story that Dr. Pollack tweeted about and that I re-tweeted was from an earlier voting cycle),” Damaske said of the re-circulated tweet.

The legal excerpt cited in the tweet was taken from a 29 July 2016 decision by the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit which struck down the voter ID law:

As “evidence of justifications” for the changes to early voting, the State offered purported inconsistencies in voting hours across counties, including the fact that only some counties had decided to offer Sunday voting. The State then elaborated on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”

The interesting part is that Republicans admit this is about taking away the voting power of blacks.

(1) So the proof is a Tweet done by duh experts who fall onto the left on this issue...?

That is what the measure of Republican motives are?

(2) Would you hire someone at your company who was incapable of getting to it and had no form of ID?

What amount of black people, do you think, who you claim are targeted with disenfranchisement by requiring IDs, don't have IDs and are incapable of getting one?

[Pants-of-dog]

One of the "sub-tribes" in question contains 1.5 million people, and the other contains 5 million; yet they account for something like 70% of Kenyan/Ethiopian distance runners, who were accounting for an absolutely absurd amount of the Gold Medals.

You think this is smaller than it actually is.

And sure, it is off this topic, but I am just bringing up how you ran away from another thread. But it has been more than a week so I am just picking up again.

Your little insults are also off topic.

If you want to revisit this conversation, feel free to post in that thread and I will respond.

I forgot to cover this...

A gene pool can be a "snapshot" of what is there, sure, because surely not every single Kenyan or Ethiopian is going to have universally identical genes that result in the same polygenic trends.

However, it would be the case that the overwhelming majority (99.9%) of Somalis & Ethiopians would share some of their genes in common which we do not have at all as peopel who are not from E. Africa -- such as, black skin, brown eyes, nappy hair, etc.

Just as how some of their genes are nearly in common universally, some of the gene sets more present in their population will present themselves far more in their region than anywhere else -- hence their clear domination in long-distance running.

I am talking about a gene pool accurately, right?

No, not really, and your percentages of commonly shared traits within a race is spectacularly wrong.

Why should serious criminals NOT be barred from voting?

Because they are also governed by the government and citizens of a democracy. In a democracy, the government is accountable to the governed, and one way of holding the government accountable is through voting.

(1) So the proof is a Tweet done by duh experts who fall onto the left on this issue...?

That is what the measure of Republican motives are?

No, the Tweet was just how the information was disseminated.

The actual evidence of Republicans deliberately lying and trying to take away the vote from black people is in the Snopes article, and in the links provided with the tweet.

Do you support Republican efforts to take away the vote from eligible black voters?

(2) Would you hire someone at your company who was incapable of getting to it and had no form of ID?

This is irrelevant.

What amount of black people, do you think, who you claim are targeted with disenfranchisement by requiring IDs, don't have IDs and are incapable of getting one?

This question was already answered.

Please refer to the post by Special Olympian that covers this. The link to said post is in my previous post.

[SpecialOlympian]

By requiring IDs to vote, even if voter fraud isn't necessarily a problem now, it helps put barriers to voter fraud which could become a problem down the line. It helps keep people honest and it helps our electoral process by lending credence to the process.

We must address this non-problem immediately and I will not allow any facts to change my feelings (toward black people voting).

It is very important that we make elections more legitimate in the eyes of people who knowingly make bad faith arguments about the legitimacy of said elections. These are the people who care the most about our election process, because they are most threatened by enfranchisement.

Verv, have you ever considered that another way to legitimize elections is to make voting easy and accessible to as many people as possible? Lol j/k I know that's not an option for you because that would include nonwhites.

[Verv]

Your little insults are also off topic.

If you want to revisit this conversation, feel free to post in that thread and I will respond.

You abandoned that thread once before -- but sure. If I get some time, I will revisit it.

No, not really, and your percentages of commonly shared traits within a race is spectacularly wrong.

There's no information on anything like that -- this is a new field. I spoke about how one trait -- black skin, for instance -- is universally shared.

Because what makes someone an amazing distance runner is probably polygenic in nature, and there are also other environmental factors, of course not every Kenyan/Ethiopian will have these traits, nor would everyone in that group.

Because they are also governed by the government and citizens of a democracy. In a democracy, the government is accountable to the governed, and one way of holding the government accountable is through voting.

In other parts of the country, felons still cannot vote, because the consensus is that they have enacted a crime upon the society that is great enough for these rights to determine the future leaders of the country ought to be removed.

Are those places not democracies because of this law?

No, the Tweet was just how the information was disseminated.

The actual evidence of Republicans deliberately lying and trying to take away the vote from black people is in the Snopes article, and in the links provided with the tweet.

Do you support Republican efforts to take away the vote from eligible black voters?

Can you ever accurately guess the motive of someone?

Of course not -- so when their political opponents come to the conclusion of this motive that exponentially benefits their own position, how would that not look silly and contrived?

This is irrelevant.

But it is relevant: if someone is not competent enough to hold down a job at McDonald's, what makes us think that their vote is valuable..?

This question was already answered.

Please refer to the post by Special Olympian that covers this. The link to said post is in my previous post.

I actually do not generally read Special Olympian's posts, and will avoid doing so. He is a troll.

Of course, trolls can post good information sometimes -- but still, what is the information I should be looking for? I shouldn't have to subject myself to the inane ramblings of an obsessed & hateful person to make a response to you, POD.

[Pants-of-dog]

You abandoned that thread once before -- but sure. If I get some time, I will revisit it.

No.

Here is my last reply to you, and you have yet to respond.

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=176393&start=140#p15001687

In other parts of the country, felons still cannot vote, because the consensus is that they have enacted a crime upon the society that is great enough for these rights to determine the future leaders of the country ought to be removed.

Are those places not democracies because of this law?

These places are less democratic than those that allow convicts and ex-convicts to vote.

Can you ever accurately guess the motive of someone?

Of course not -- so when their political opponents come to the conclusion of this motive that exponentially benefits their own position, how would that not look silly and contrived?

Since the Republicans in question admitted that this was the cause, should we assume they are lying?

But it is relevant: if someone is not competent enough to hold down a job at McDonald's, what makes us think that their vote is valuable..?

Since the government also rules those who are unable to work at a fast food restaurant, the government should also be accountable to those people.

I earlier asked a question: Do you support Republican efforts to take away the vote from eligible black voters?

The answer seems to be yes, black people should be denied the vote if they cannot pass whatever test you devise.

Democracy and equality before the law should not come with a little test.

I actually do not generally read Special Olympian's posts, and will avoid doing so. He is a troll.

Of course, trolls can post good information sometimes -- but still, what is the information I should be looking for? I shouldn't have to subject myself to the inane ramblings of an obsessed & hateful person to make a response to you, POD.

Please follow the link.

[SpecialOlympian]

Please follow the link.

He can't even bear to look at my posts. They are filled with antifa energy.

Also Verv just wants to play dumb because his entire argument is inane and premised on the laughable idea that rightwingers act in good faith regarding elections.