Voter Suppression and Why The Republicans Love It So Much?
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I love how they’re not even hiding it anymore.
Those at the start of this thread who defended the voter suppression laws must feel pretty stupid.
Those at the start of this thread who defended the voter suppression laws must feel pretty stupid.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
The rabbit hole of Fascism is deep and there is no agreed upon 14 characteristics of Fascism. Some of the things on that 14 characteristic list are ahistorical wishful thinking. The most obvious example is labor power being suppressed. The exact opposite is true. We get the word “fascist” from the Partito Nazionale Fascista (PNF) of Italy. One of the defining characteristics of the governance of the PNF was that union membership was compulsory and all jobs were union jobs. There was no such thing as a non-union job in fascist Italy.
The PNF divided the economy into trades, and each trade was regulated by its respective trade union. The only form of government that gives more power to labor unions than fascists did in Italy is Syndicalism, which happens to be exactly where fascism came from. The founders of the PNF, including Benito Mussolini, were all Syndicalists.
Fascist syndicalism - Wikipedia
The dirty secret of fascism is that it is a form of socialism. It is NOT Marxism, but is instead Sorelianism based on the works of Georges Sorel. Fascists and Marxists/Communists hate each other in the same way Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims hate each other. A good example of what fascism really looks like is Bernie Sanders. It is not by accident that Richard Spencer and his followers are all Bernie Bros.
Beyond the 14 characteristics being part of an effort to rebrand fascism, I also think your YouTuber is reaching into the ridiculous. I wouldn’t call someone who attacks Gold Star Families, threatens to cancel the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, trashes the Bush’s for the wars they started, and publicly belittles Generals by proclaiming that he knows more than they do as “making the military supreme, the most important thing bar none”.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Because judges looked at what they were saying and said "You're right. This is illegal."? This happened not once, but 12 times. You are saying that people who believed a thing and just had a series of people with law degrees and judicial experience, and who deeply examined these issues agree, and that should make them feel stupid. Do I have correct what you are trying to say?
Last edited:
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
That doesn't make it okay.
Much of this change can be attributed to the gutting of the VRA in Shelby County v Holder in 2013. Prior to this, changes made to voting in states had to be cleared by the DOJ to ensure that they weren't discriminatory against minorities. Gutting the VRA has now placed the burden on the DOJ to sue against discriminatory changes to voting in states, which completely changes the ballgame. They're now always chasing after the laws that have been passed. Often, these cases aren't even heard until after elections have taken place; after the train wreck has occurred.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Saw the Future When It Came to Voting Rights
Here's how we can take up the fight and honor her legacy
This has made it almost impossible to prevent discrimination since the Supreme Court in just 2019 punted on ruling against gerrymandering, claiming that it's a "legislative branch" issue.
It's essentially a catch 22:
1. The DOJ once acted as a gatekeeper to prevent states from passing discriminatory and racist voting laws.
2. Because the SC has gutted the VRA, the DOJ doesn't act as a gatekeeper anymore. Now they're constantly having to chase after states who pass discriminatory and racist voting laws.
3. Even if the DOJ successfully shows that the laws are discriminatory and racist, the Supreme Court believes that they shouldn't be the ones who change these laws, but the Legislative Branch.
4. The Legislative Branch has zero incentive to change these laws, doing so might put their own (Republican) control in Jeopardy.
5. Voters cannot change their Legislative Branch successfully, because the voting laws make it much harder/impossible to vote and they passed gerrymandered them out of existence.
What's to be done?
Ginsburg's dissent was a prophecy that we've seen fulfilled:
What was holding back a lot of these discriminatory and racist voting laws was the pre-clearance of the VRA. Once that's been gutted? The levee has broken and now Republican state legislatures are working in concert to cement their power with an ever diminishing base.
- Answer me this, why not make voting as easy and accessible as possible? Make it a holiday, offer tax deductions for voting, no-excuse absentee voting? I personally love mail-in voting. I can do research for a few days and vote for the best candidates and proposals possible rather than having to guess on the computer at some school or library?
- Why not encourage as much voter turnout as possible and let the best ideas and candidates win?
Do you agree with Weyrich?
@fishonjazz @Red @colton @Gameface @One Brow have you seen this clip by Weyrich before?
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
If we’re making voting as easy and accessible as possible, then we should do away with voter registration. Everyone should be simply allowed to vote. Naturally it is easier to not verify identification than it is to verify identification, so if we’re making things as easy as possible then just let people vote and count the vote. For the vast majority it would be the most easy and accessible if you could cast your vote via a website on your computer or smartphone where no identification is checked and everyone is allowed to vote. If we are making voting as easy and accessible as possible then we have to do everything possible. It may have the side effect of allowing anyone anywhere in the world to cast a vote, or for machines to submit millions of votes per second but at least we’ll know that we made voting as easy and accessible as possible.
Is that democracy? Is it okay for racks of computers to be able to cast votes in the billions if it means one person would have an easier time casting their one vote? Making voting as easy and accessible as possible would make free and fair elections impossible. It would immediately destroy any faith in the election. If you are willing to entertain the idea that we should probably have some system of checks to ensure the vote is limited to eligible US citizens and those citizens are only able to cast one ballot then we can talk about where to draw the line.
Were these empowered unions who represented the interests of the workers, or or state- and corporate-controlled unions that were designed to control them (hint: the unions were put under the control of the government)? The best way to suppress labor power is to take control of it and refuse to allow it to be exercised.
Nor was it primarily based on Sanders economic policies:
Once Ardent Trump Supporters, White Nationalists Splinter Ahead of Presidential Vote
While some white nationalists remain among Trump’s staunchest loyalists, others are disappointed with the president’s record on immigration and other issues
www.voanews.com
I think I was pretty clear that I didn't consider Trump a full-on fascist. However, this is also a guy that wanted to use the military against American civilians, conduct military parades, etc. I agree that for Trump, it was about making Trump supreme, but he did treat the military as being very important.
I've seen it.
It's hard to tell if you are deliberately mischaracterizing what The Thriller meant by "as possible", or if you really misunderstood him that badly.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
In fascist Italy, the labor unions were a component of the government and had governmental power. They weren't under the control of the government. They were the government. Mussolini and the Italian syndicalists were 'workers of the world unite' true believers, and were not taking direction from big business although business owners did have a voice. It functioned like closed shop unionized industry does but expanded to every part of the economy.
Restaurant workers got to vote on regulating restaurants, but they had no say on the automotive industry. Auto workers had a voice on the automotive industry but had no say in enacting regulations for restaurants. Each syndicate/economic group of employers and workers was self-contained with the central government responsible for the services that enable these independent structures to function as a nation such as the courts and the military.
Fascism isn’t centralized top-down control like in Marxist societies, but a nation made up of independent economic structures in which workers don’t own the means of production but they do have a voice in how those means of production are operated. The namesake Italian word “fascio” means “a bundle”, and that is how the fascist economic system works. Self-contained pieces are each their own thing in a cohesive nation.
The author of your piece has it backwards. Richard Spencer’s thoughts on the economy, even while he was supporting Trump, were always in line with Bernie Sanders and he’s been very open about that. In an interview from 2017, roughly 100 days after Trump’s inauguration Richard Spencer talks about:
- @3:25 – Support for environmentalism and anger at climate change denial
- @3:45 – Wants massive expansion of public transportation
- @4:25 – Wants total student loan forgiveness
- @5:05 – Wants Medicare-4-All
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I ventured into the absurd to prove a point. I don’t want to speak for The Thriller, but I think he probably sees the wisdom of one person, one vote. The question isn’t only the in value of making voting easy, but in how to strike a proper balance between ease of voting and security to ensure a fair election. Both are important and both need to be taken into consideration.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
You make a lot of unfounded accusations in this post. You remind me a lot of @babe and you make me wonder if you're just an alternative account for him. You next post is going to be very crucial if you want to ever have a political discussion with me again because life is too short to waste on trolls.
I was thinking more along the lines of making it easier to register and vote. Why not make registration available at local schools and libraries? Why not permit same-day registration? For example, in Texas one must register at least 30 days prior to election day. How does that make any sense? Here in Utah, we allow same day registration. Utah also permits no excuse mail-in balloting. Has voting fraud been rampant here?
In 2015 or 2016 I remember I had some issues to where I couldn't meet Texas's 30 day threshold. I was grateful that I could register to vote on election day.
Have you ever read about how other countries conduct their voting? Is fraud rampant in Denmark or Norway? Many European and South American countries have automatic voter registration. I wasn't considering that an option, but why shouldn't it?
Voter registration - Wikipedia
And regarding phone or computer voting, I again, wasn't suggesting that. I like early voting and mail-in voting. I believe these should be two key focuses. I also foresee more of a logical problem with each county designing an app or website
.
But let's indulge in your fears of online voting, do you have evidence that online voting would lead to increased voter fraud? Are there countries who have tried this and have seen failures? Why can Brazil conduct an online election but we can't? Are they just smarter?
Electronic voting by country - Wikipedia
Politicians and parties picking their voters isn't a representative democracy. I'm for representative democracy.
This is hyperbole and you're indulging in "The Big Lie." Overall, voting was as easy as it has been in years in 2020. Turnout was the highest it has been in almost a century. And Trump's own administration said that it was the, "cleanest election in years" and "most secure in history." If people like you feel less faithful in American elections because of this, then you're clearly not letting evidence drive your opinions.
Trump’s own officials say 2020 was America’s most secure election in history
Homeland Security put out a statement with state and local officials that countered the president’s fraud claims.
www.vox.com
You know what actually kills elections? Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and current legislation being passed by red states allowing state legislatures to overturn elections.
You're looking at the intermediate steps in Italian fascism, and ignoring the centralization of power that occurred in the later 1920s. This seemed to have been a deliberate choice on the part of the Italian Fascists to gradually remove the power from the workers over time.
Interesting.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
How does this protect elections?
How does this encourage turnout?
How does this maintain faith in our democracy?
:watermark(cdn.texastribune.org/media/watermarks/2021.png,-0,30,0)/static.texastribune.org/media/files/c9f0102e3f3b0c44078ccfe316ff029a/Texas%20Right%20to%20Vote%20SP%20TT%2019.jpg)
www.texastribune.org
All of this is necessary after Donald's own administration admitted that this was the most secure election in history?
How can you read legislation that gives state legislatures the ability to overturn the popular vote and not be alarmed? This is authoritarianism and absolutely will be used in 2024. https://tucson.com/news/state-and-r...cle_c2a70681-59c0-512f-ba86-2bf23128f9ee.html
How does this encourage turnout?
How does this maintain faith in our democracy?
What's in the new voting restriction legislation introduced in the Texas House and Senate
Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 3 will be the starting points for the Legislature's efforts to tighten Texas voting laws. Here's what the bills would do.
www.texastribune.org
- Bans drive-thru and 24-hour voting options
- Prohibits local election officials from proactively distributing applications to request mail-in ballots.
- Texas already has some of the strictest laws regarding absentee voting. The new legislation would further restrict the state’s voting-by-mail rules, including new ID requirements for absentee voters.
All of this is necessary after Donald's own administration admitted that this was the most secure election in history?
How can you read legislation that gives state legislatures the ability to overturn the popular vote and not be alarmed? This is authoritarianism and absolutely will be used in 2024. https://tucson.com/news/state-and-r...cle_c2a70681-59c0-512f-ba86-2bf23128f9ee.html
Last edited:
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
It should be noted that Fascists throwing distractors to moderates and working class isn't anything new. Hitler very early on also threw out 25 Nazi points that made them appear less radical and far more liberal than they ever actually were. Once they got into power, they didn't act on the more "liberal" points and made quick work in arresting and executing what would have been socialist allies had they actually been serious about passing socialist legislation. What they cared far more about was the racial question, similar to what American fascists do as well. I suspect Spencer was doing the same, pretending to care about student loans but actually caring about muslim bans, walls, and segregation.
Although things are different in the American right, where there are multiple leaders and Spencer is just one of many, it should be noted that when in power, Republicans didn't act on any of their "liberal" agenda between 2017-2019.
- Remember how Trump was going repeal and replace Obamacare but instead acted to pass tax cuts for the richest?
- Why didn't he ever do anything about opioids?
- Remember "Infrastructure week" that ended in a government shutdown?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
There's a lot of room between the voter suppression and election overruling legislation being passed by Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Arizona vs the accusations you made. You reacted with nonsensical hyperbole with many inferences of Trump's unfounded "Big Lie." Whether intentional or not, it was a very unserious post that bordered on satire and trolling.
If you really want to continue this discussion, then your next post needs to be far more serious and factually based. Otherwise, onto the block list you go. I don’t have time for trolls.
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
You are 100% correct that there is a lot of room between an ideal and what is done in practice. Can we do away with voter registration? Maybe. Can secure polling be done online? Absolutely yes. We have the technology to verify that you are you on your smartphone and can track your submission to make sure you only vote once. We could even make it so you could change your mind and switch your already submitted vote if you were so inclined right up until the voting cut-off.
We can do all of these things but the discussion can’t be divorced from how to secure whatever it is we’re trying to do. It wasn’t my intention to troll but only to answer a question you directed at me that looked at one side of the balance only. That side of the balance is important. I never said it wasn’t. My intention was to offer a hypothetical-containing response that demonstrated why I believe that particular subject can’t focus solely on the one side but needs to be had in the context of it being a balance. What compromises of ease and access are we willing to tolerate to ensure security of the election? What compromises of securing the process are willing to tolerate to ensure adequate ease and access? It is a worthwhile and interesting discussion.
Last edited:
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Why make hyperbole when there are already tangible ideas being proposed to make voting easier while maintaining security? If you want to encourage discussion, then it helps to start with what's actually being proposed rather than pulling the most extremist stuff from your ***.
Fighting Voter Suppression | American Civil Liberties Union
The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
www.aclu.org
Vote Suppression
Vote suppression has a long and ugly history in the United States, and over the last two decades, it has resurfaced with a vengeance. Through research, lawsuits, and advocacy, the Brennan Center is fighting vote suppression on every front.
The Real Steal Is Coming - The Bulwark
Who will prevent the next attempt to overturn the will of the voters?
thebulwark.com
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/what-would-the-john-lewis-voting-rights-act-actually-do.html
These are some excellent resources so we can discuss within reality instead of speculate on hypotheticals. I suggest you read up so we can discuss reality and not make baseless “hypotheticals.”
Last edited:
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Interesting. Here we are passing all of these voter suppression laws in response to 2020 and…
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Brother, I think you just described every Socialist revolution. Sorelianism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, and on, and on all start with noble ideals that you’d have to be some sort of callous monster to not support. Then comes what occurs later.