this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
690 points (93.9% liked)

politics

19665 readers
4549 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"If the purges [of potential voters], challenges and ballot rejections were random, it wouldn’t matter. It’s anything but random. For example, an audit by the State of Washington found that a Black voter was 400% more likely than a white voter to have their mail-in ballot rejected. Rejection of Black in-person votes, according to a US Civil Rights Commission study in Florida, ran 14.3% or one in seven ballots cast."

"[...] Democracy can win* despite the 2.3% suppression headwind.

And that’s our job as Americans: to end the purges, the vigilante challenges, the ballot rejections and the attitude that this is all somehow OK."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FooBarrington 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If you really think that, I'll give you one last chance. I'll explain why your response to my serious points was wrong. You can explain properly why you disagree, without resorting to strawmans or insults or anything. Deal?

My position is: minorities will be disproportionately affected by voter ID laws, since it's on average objectively harder for a poor person to get an ID (due to transportation, scheduling due to possibly multiple jobs etc.), and minorities are disproportionately poor. You could mitigate this disproportionate effect by first ensuring easy and equal access to ID for all citizens. Even if you disagree on any of these points, you should at least be able to accept that you can get what you want if you give me what I want, and giving me what I want doesn't hurt you in any way.

So, why do you still ask me to make the first move? Why can't you see that you're blocking yourself from getting what you want here?

[–] nwilz -5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Here's my first issue. Earlier you said

No, I won't allow you to disadvantage minorities, no matter how often you ask.

I never believed that and you just admitted this was a lie.

since it's on average objectively harder for a poor person to get an ID (due to transportation, scheduling due to possibly multiple jobs etc.), and minorities are disproportionately poor.

You use minorities as a shield to call people you disagree with racist. Then you just say I'm not racist there for I'm right. Except not all minorities are poor and there's more poor white people.

You could mitigate this disproportionate effect by first ensuring easy and equal access to ID for all citizens.

How about this idea. You call or email the DMV or wherever you get an id, they give you a pass for whatever public transit to the DMV. Easy enough?

So, why do you still ask me to make the first move? Why can't you see that you're blocking yourself from getting what you want here?

I'm not blocking anything, we have voter ID where I live

[–] FooBarrington 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

No, that's not how this works. I explained my position in the comment you replied to. Reply to that position, not any snippy answers I've made before. You want to be serious? Take me seriously and reply to my actual points.

I didn't read further than you quoting my earlier statement, so feel free to take another shot if you're serious.

Edit: I made the mistake and read one line further.

I never believed that and you just admitted this was a lie.

No, I didn't admit anything to be a lie. We said no strawmans!

[–] nwilz -5 points 6 days ago

No, I didn't admit anything to be a lie. We said no strawmans!

I already went over this. If I wanted to suppress minorities why would I suppress a lot more white people. Why wouldn't I suppress all minorities? Why would I care how much money they have?