GOP attempting to purge 1 in 7 black voters from voter rolls

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/10/29/gop-list-would-purge-1-in-7-black-voters.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is why it's not hyperbolic to call the GOP a white nationalist party.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

plus 1 in 8 Asian-Americans and 1 in 11 Whites.    Minorities are more likely to have common first and last names. I imagine among some white ethnicities there are similarly high rates of ending up on this list.

 

[King]

Considering voter fraud is a 1 in 10,000,000 case, anything else than 1 in 10,000,000 of any race being purged is criminal.

[AggregateDemand]

Why don't you just get even with Republicans by passing registration and I.D. laws so their constituents have a harder time voting?

[King]

Because constricting voting is morally reprehensible?

[Likely Voter]

It is sadly telling that as demographics have changed the GOP solution isn't to find ways to appeal to the new electorate but to find ways to get fewer people to vote (based on the assumption that their voters will be more likely to make it through the various new hurdles). Even if they succeed in the short term it will only come back to bite them on the ass in the future. Just look at how California has changed for the GOP post Prop 187.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Because constricting voting is morally reprehensible?

[AggregateDemand]

Because constricting voting is morally reprehensible?

So are taxes, but that's never stopped Democrats from raising rates and expanding taxable transactions.

[Joe Republic]

Because constricting voting is morally reprehensible?

So are taxes, but that's never stopped Democrats from raising rates and expanding taxable transactions.

Haha, taxes are immoral now?  Ohh, Republicans.

[IceSpear]

This "issue" just shows how impotent and useless the media has become. Instead of reporting the facts that the GOP is trying to restrict minorities from voting, they simply report on the "he said she said" about how the Republicans think it's such a MAJOR problem that 0.000000000000000000001% of votes were illegally cast. Truly disgusting. "Fair and balanced"!

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Only 1 in 7?  Low brow expectations on the part of the pubs.

[Mehmentum]

And Republicans wonder why they're having trouble appealing to minorities.

[AggregateDemand]

Haha, taxes are immoral now?  Ohh, Republicans.

The Founding Fathers identified government as a necessary evil.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

But what is the political philosophy of and derived from the social and material conditions of the so-called Enlightenment to us now?

[King]

muh immaculate supernatural founding fathers

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

muh immaculate supernatural founding fathers

Well, of course that's how AggregateDemand actually thinks, but, much as with his homophobia, I'm perversely interested to see what his on-paper excuse is.

[AggregateDemand]

Well, of course that's how AggregateDemand actually thinks, but, much as with his homophobia, I'm perversely interested to see what his on-paper excuse is.

I'm not sure how balancing economic/social privileges between married and unmarried citizens could be construed as homophobia, but I'm sure you have a good explanation (hah!).

Regarding taxation, you don't have to be part of the muh-founding-fathers-demographic, nor do you have to be particularly well-educated to understand the concept of dead-weight economic loss.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Nor, I submit, do you have to be a revolutionary socialist to understand that deadweight loss may in many instances be an acceptable price to pay for living in a society.

One of the chief conceits of Enlightenment thought was the idea that a person should or at least could be more or less fully described and understood without reference to other people or social relationships. Developments in sociology and psychology since that time have discredited that idea. (This isn't a falsely 'progressive' view of history, as I think this was recognized in some form or another at various points in the past and in various other societies as well.) An individual does not, as it turns out, really exist in the fullest sense without reference to others, and individual property does not really exist except with reference to collective social and resource-allocation dynamics. Individual rights are important in the sense and to the extent that the feelings of personal well-being and mutual respect that they engender have salutary effects on everybody, not just on the one person exercising a right at any given time.

That being the case, it would be immoral for most forms of government not to engage in taxation, since it remains the easiest way to correct for morally repugnant allocation of resources.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Please keep discussions on topic, AggregateDemand. Don't hijack threads.

[King]

Just like the Democrats hijacked the constinution and the free enterprise system!!!!11

[Maistre]

Just like the Democrats hijacked the constinution and the free enterprise system!!!!11

You can just change to a D-NM avatar if you want to, your schtick will not be any less funny I assure you.

Of course it wasn't really that funny to begin with.

[King]

And who are you?

[AggregateDemand]

Nor, I submit, do you have to be a revolutionary socialist to understand that deadweight loss may in many instances be an acceptable price to pay for living in a society.

You're not making a legitimate argument. If the cost is acceptable, the economic gains will outweigh the economic losses, and opportunity cost will be minimized. What you're arguing is that you reserve the right to substitute basic mechanisms of economic accountability with your own conscience and limited-understanding. The result is free-enterprise that is powerful enough to make people filthy rich, and a government that is dumb enough to make people destitute.

The Enlightenment was a rebuke of monarchy. Monarchy is the manifestation of individualism run amok. To classify the Enlightenment as an individualistic conceit is to misunderstand everything about it. Sovereign individuals leads naturally to democracy. Protecting the democratic process is not an immoral attack on the individual. The contrary, in fact.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Nor, I submit, do you have to be a revolutionary socialist to understand that deadweight loss may in many instances be an acceptable price to pay for living in a society.

You're not making a legitimate argument. If the cost is acceptable, the economic gains will outweigh the economic losses, and opportunity cost will be minimized. What you're arguing is that you reserve the right to substitute basic mechanisms of economic accountability with your own conscience and limited-understanding.

Yes, that's called morality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a result, not the only possible result.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'Individualism run amok' is an extremely odd characterization of medieval and Renaissance social systems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've contradicted yourself within the same paragraph.

[KCDem]

I see the Republican War on Blacks continues unabated.