After SCOTUS decision, Holder trying to reinstate Voting Rights Act pre-clearance

[Jhhnn]

You have to be pretty stupid to believe that Republicans are gerrymandering with the intent to disenfranchise minority voters vs. the intent to win elections.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other in Texas.

It's called cracking & packing. Austin has been cracked into grotesque fajita strip districts, one of which stretches all the way to the Mexican border in an attempt to deny progressive Texans any representation, and other districts have been packed when necessary to keep their representation artificially low, prevent the existence of competitive neighboring districts. They just couldn't figure out how to rig the game to have it all.

That wouldn't be necessary if they were offering a good product in the Marketplace of Ideas they touted so strongly not too long ago.

It's utterly shameful in a way that only rightwing authoritarians can witness w/o cringing.

 

[khon]

It would be really interesting to see how US elections turned out if there were no gerrymandered districts or intentionally restrictive voting laws.

I guess we will never know though.

 

[nehalem256]

Six of one, half a dozen of the other in Texas.

It's called cracking & packing. Austin has been cracked into grotesque fajita strip districts, one of which stretches all the way to the Mexican border in an attempt to deny progressive Texans any representation, and other districts have been packed when necessary to keep their representation artificially low, prevent the existence of competitive neighboring districts. They just couldn't figure out how to rig the game to have it all.

And the goal is to "crack and pack" Democrats. No racism required.

Sometimes I wonder if Democrats see racism in their bfest cereal since there are no black cheerios.

That wouldn't be necessary if they were offering a good product in the Marketplace of Ideas they touted so strongly not too long ago.

Unfortunately "good product" is basically a dog-whistle for bribes(aka welfare) and treason(aka amnesty).

 

[khon]

And the goal is to "crack and pack" Democrats. No racism required.

True.

Republicans are trying to rig the elections in their own favor, and the fact that those they disenfranchise are minorities is merely accidental, the main point is that they are Democrats.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It would be really interesting to see how US elections turned out if there were no gerrymandered districts or intentionally restrictive voting laws.

I guess we will never know though.

We do know. Just count up the total number of votes D vs. R, and apply the ratio to the number of seats. Which shines a bright light on what an outrageous subversion of democracy it is. NC Dems running for the state house got just over 50% of the votes but only won 4 of 13 seats. These outrageously skewed proportions alone should be enough to invalidate gerrymandered districting. A lot of voters' voices are being completely nullified.

 

[poofyhairguy]

It's called cracking & packing. Austin has been cracked into grotesque fajita strip districts, one of which stretches all the way to the Mexican border in an attempt to deny progressive Texans any representation, and other districts have been packed when necessary to keep their representation artificially low, prevent the existence of competitive neighboring districts. They just couldn't figure out how to rig the game to have it all.

The packing is my favorite. Seeing those Houston districts vote 80%+ Dem in the most conservative state is always a shock come election day no matter how much I see it.

One day the table will turn due to demographics and it will be a bloodbath. Until then I will enjoy my low taxes.

 

[Jhhnn]

And the goal is to "crack and pack" Democrats. No racism required.

So, uhh, when the desired effect ends up being racist, why, it's not racist at all because you can claim that the means weren't racist.

That's the same sort of argument used to justify poll taxes, literacy tests & property ownership as voting criteria by all past & present advocates of Jim Crow.

Sometimes I wonder if Democrats see racism in their bfest cereal since there are no black cheerios.

Sometimes I wonder how Righties can think being deliberately obtuse is clever.

Unfortunately "good product" is basically a dog-whistle for bribes(aka welfare) and treason(aka amnesty).

So, efforts to undermine egalitarian democracy are justified on the basis of a false sense of moral superiority based on strawman arguments?

It's Truthiness through & through. Contrary to what you might think, you can't just believe the truth into existence. Reality is not faith based.

The Texas gerrymander would be shameful under any circumstances, even if all Texans were of the same race. It's an affront to the concepts of decency & fair play, a desperate rear guard action in defense of Southern White Privilege along with all the repressive & damaging caste roles it demands.

 

[marvdmartian]

Nothing new, as Obama and Holder both seem ready and willing to ignore the US Constitution, whenever they don't agree with it. 🙄

The simplest way for Texas to pass a voter ID law is to include the fact that, if a person falls within a certain level of income, they can obtain it for free. Just bring something that shows you have an address (utility bill, etc), so they can mail you your card, and require a thumb print, so you can't get a duplicate card under another name (Texas requires a thumb print to obtain a drivers license, so there would be no way to call this racism).

The biggest reason liberals seem to have, by calling for a requirement for ID to vote racist, is the income level. Making said voter ID card free, takes away that argument. If you have to show an ID to cash a check, why not to vote??

Or should we simply use the Iraqi method of dying everyone's thumb purple, after they've voted?? :hmm:

 

[Jhhnn]

Nothing new, as Obama and Holder both seem ready and willing to ignore the US Constitution, whenever they don't agree with it. 🙄

The simplest way for Texas to pass a voter ID law is to include the fact that, if a person falls within a certain level of income, they can obtain it for free. Just bring something that shows you have an address (utility bill, etc), so they can mail you your card, and require a thumb print, so you can't get a duplicate card under another name (Texas requires a thumb print to obtain a drivers license, so there would be no way to call this racism).

The biggest reason liberals seem to have, by calling for a requirement for ID to vote racist, is the income level. Making said voter ID card free, takes away that argument. If you have to show an ID to cash a check, why not to vote??

Or should we simply use the Iraqi method of dying everyone's thumb purple, after they've voted?? :hmm:

Oh, please. There is no evidence indicative of a significant level of in person voter fraud in this country, regardless of how badly Repub leaders need to claim that there is. Which means that there is no demonstrable need for voter ID.

The fact that Righties keep going on about it indicates that they have other motives for wanting it quite so adamantly & desperately, as if the Republic would crumble w/o it.

The only thing that's crumbling is upper class white privilege, which scares the living dogshit out of them, something they'll seek to preserve by any means possible. Strict voter ID is just one of those ways.

 

[berzerker60]

It would be really interesting to see how US elections turned out if there were no gerrymandered districts or intentionally restrictive voting laws.

I guess we will never know though.

California just went to a system of a jury of non-partisan (or rather, balanced partisan) citizens deciding the districts and pretty quickly saw a much, much closer reflection of votes-to-representation. As a bonus, California Democrats now have no excuses if they don't do a good job anymore, because they have a supermajority and the Orange Country Republicans can't keep being obstructionist shits. This will hopefully keep Dems more honest since they'll be facing other Dems instead of some awful Republican you can't stand to vote for.

True.

Republicans are trying to rig the elections in their own favor, and the fact that those they disenfranchise are minorities is merely accidental, the main point is that they are Democrats.

Step 1: Be the party of racist shitheels for a few generations, attack minorities (including physically)
Step 2: "Mend your ways"
Step 3: Attack Democrats, who for some reason (surely unrelated to Step 1) includes the vast majority of minorities

 

[Geosurface]

I continue to wait for Republicans to offer evidence of the huge epidemic of voter-registration fraud that has driven such dramatic changes in voter registration laws in Republican-controlled states.

What you won't understand either ever, or until it's too late... is that systematically trying to suppress voter turnout from the lower rungs of society (and no I'm not just talking about any specific demographic, these people come in all shades, genders, and ages) who primarily use that vote to continually increase the ways in which the government vampire-sucks the contributing segments of society in order to facilitate THEM breeding more, working less, and draining the system in a thousand different ways...

... was one of the few remaining hopes for preserving this country as anything other than a festering pile of shit.

But the misguided champions of social justice and the downtrodden which liberals are, will blindly charge forward as they always do... raising their shining shield high to defend them! Encourage them to vote more! Push for more social services for them and less personal responsibility for them! Set up systems which encourage them having more kids than they can support! etc etc etc

Unfortunately once all the conservative dragons are slain, all the big meanies are gone... the social justice white knight's fancy expensive armor is going to start looking pretty tempting to pull off his freshly slain corpse and go take to the pawn shop.

 

[Jhhnn]

What you won't understand either ever, or until it's too late... is that systematically trying to suppress voter turnout from the lower rungs of society (and no I'm not just talking about any specific demographic, these people come in all shades, genders, and ages) who primarily use that vote to continually increase the ways in which the government vampire-sucks the contributing segments of society in order to facilitate THEM breeding more, working less, and draining the system in a thousand different ways...

... was one of the few remaining hopes for preserving this country as anything other than a festering pile of shit.

But the misguided champions of social justice and the downtrodden which liberals are, will blindly charge forward as they always do... raising their shining shield high to defend them! Encourage them to vote more! Push for more social services for them and less personal responsibility for them! Set up systems which encourage them having more kids than they can support! etc etc etc

Unfortunately once all the conservative dragons are slain, all the big meanies are gone... the social justice white knight's fancy expensive armor is going to start looking pretty tempting to pull off his freshly slain corpse and go take to the pawn shop.

So you're really anti-democracy, right?

You speak as if our socio-economic ills weren't a symptom of the failure of trickle down supply side Capitalism to deliver on its promises.

If America's financial elite really wants less social welfare spending, then they'll create more decent paying jobs to eliminate the need for it.

Too deep? I'm sure it is.

 

[shira]

What you won't understand either ever, or until it's too late... is that systematically trying to suppress voter turnout from the lower rungs of society (and no I'm not just talking about any specific demographic, these people come in all shades, genders, and ages) who primarily use that vote to continually increase the ways in which the government vampire-sucks the contributing segments of society in order to facilitate THEM breeding more, working less, and draining the system in a thousand different ways...

... was one of the few remaining hopes for preserving this country as anything other than a festering pile of shit.

But the misguided champions of social justice and the downtrodden which liberals are, will blindly charge forward as they always do... raising their shining shield high to defend them! Encourage them to vote more! Push for more social services for them and less personal responsibility for them! Set up systems which encourage them having more kids than they can support! etc etc etc

Unfortunately once all the conservative dragons are slain, all the big meanies are gone... the social justice white knight's fancy expensive armor is going to start looking pretty tempting to pull off his freshly slain corpse and go take to the pawn shop.

I do give you credit for your honesty. But your assumption that I "won't understand . . . ever" why the right thinks suppressing votes from the "lower rungs of society" is a good idea is incorrect. I completely understand WHY the right wants to suppress these votes. In a nutshell, it's so the right can get more right-wingers elected, so that they can force their agenda down the throats of the American people.

 

[shira]

There's plenty of evidence along with convictions of voter fraud, since when does a crime have to reach a "huge epidemic" before you pass laws against it?

If you don't understand the question, don't make lame responses. But let me see if I can make it clear even to your limited intellect:

When right-wing states all of a sudden are falling all over themselves to pass voter ID laws, it's reasonable to ask the question: What's prompting this right-wing groundswell of support for voter ID laws? Why have these states suddenly become so eager to change their laws? Is there evidence of a significant uptick (or ANY uptick) in voter ID fraud? And if not, WHY is the right so eager to pass these laws?

If you were being honest, you'd write what Geosurface wrote: These laws have NOTHING to do with protecting the integrity of the election process, because everyone knows that the type of fraud these laws are claimed to prevent is insignificant, even in an election as close as Florida in 2000. What these laws have EVERYTHING to do with is discouraging a significant and growing group of American citizens who are disproportionately Democrats from registering to vote.

And as a side-note, most of the states passing these laws are also passing laws making it more difficult to vote by alternative methods, such as absentee ballots or early voting.

In your heart, do you really think these new voting laws are an honest attempt, free of ulterior motives, to make elections better?

 

[nehalem256]

S
So, efforts to undermine egalitarian democracy are justified on the basis of a false sense of moral superiority based on strawman arguments?

Egalitarian democracy is impossible when a large percentage of the electorate is complete morons who are completely incapable of running even their own lives.

Letting people who have bastard kids with 3 baby-daddies vote does far more to undermine egalitarian democracy than any requiring photo ID to vote.

Funny that Democrats have no problem requiring private corporations to verify people's identities to allow them to work, but then turn around and say it is impossible for poor people to get this same ID to vote.

Don't you think the need to work is a little bit more important than needing to vote?

So you're really anti-democracy, right?

You speak as if our socio-economic ills weren't a symptom of the failure of trickle down supply side Capitalism to deliver on its promises.

If America's financial elite really wants less social welfare spending, then they'll create more decent paying jobs to eliminate the need for it.

Too deep? I'm sure it is.

Funny. You do realize the the 2 biggest predictors of social immobility are divorce and having bastard children.

Now which side is it that promoted that set of values?

 

[Jhhnn]

Egalitarian democracy is impossible when a large percentage of the electorate is complete morons who are completely incapable of running even their own lives.

I thought that the Teatards were your friends. You shouldn't talk about them like that.

Letting people who have bastard kids with 3 baby-daddies vote does far more to undermine egalitarian democracy than any requiring photo ID to vote.

So, uhh, some animals are more equal than others, right? Perhaps we should destroy the village to save it?

Funny that Democrats have no problem requiring private corporations to verify people's identities to allow them to work, but then turn around and say it is impossible for poor people to get this same ID to vote.

No such requirement exists.

Don't you think the need to work is a little bit more important than needing to vote?

No, but the dearth of employment in this country is a failure of capitalism, and the welfare state is a reaction to that, not a cause.

Funny. You do realize the the 2 biggest predictors of social immobility are divorce and having bastard children.

Now which side is it that promoted that set of values?

Liberals have never promoted such values, regardless of your assertions that they have. It's apparently something you need to believe to close the circle of denial you live in. Righties have succeeded in denying access to birth control of various sorts for decades, and have shamed & blamed unwed mothers all the way, rather than attempting to enable them to higher achievement.

Preaching against sin requires suffering sinners, and Righties want to make sure that they do suffer in obvious ways.

 

[Geosurface]

So you're really anti-democracy, right?

Absolutely.

It can work for a time, given the right populace (a populace of sufficient intellect and with the right priorities) but inevitably the worst instincts of the people will gain more and more sway.

 

[nehalem256]

I thought that the Teatards were your friends. You shouldn't talk about them like that.

And yet these "teatards" as you put it are able to acquire photo ID. What does is say about your friends that they are unable to?

So, uhh, some animals are more equal than others, right? Perhaps we should destroy the village to save it?

Maybe you consider yourself to be the equal of an illiterate crackwhore :hmm:

Democracy is not, and should not be the end goal of a society in and of itself. The purpose of a democracy is to achieve a better society. If restricting democracy is necessary to ensure a better society then Democracy should be restricted. Arguably are country was found on restricted Democracy.

No such requirement exists.

100% BS. http://jobsearch.about.com/cs/backgroundcheck/a/background_2.htm

Verification requirements for working are at least as onerous as for voter ID. Arguably more as a DL is not sufficient to work.

No, but the dearth of employment in this country is a failure of capitalism, and the welfare state is a reaction to that, not a cause.

Inaccurate. If you normalize for the increase in workforce participation rate due to left-wing feminists pushing women into the workplace there is no "dearth of employment".

Liberals have never promoted such values, regardless of your assertions that they have. It's apparently something you need to believe to close the circle of denial you live in. Righties have succeeded in denying access to birth control of various sorts for decades, and have shamed & blamed unwed mothers all the way, rather than attempting to enable them to higher achievement.

Funny that the unwed mother rate was MUCH MUCH lower before the advent of effective BC huh?

Liberals have worked to destigmatize unwed motherhood and divorce for decades.

Preaching against sin requires suffering sinners, and Righties want to make sure that they do suffer in obvious ways.

People should suffer for their bad choices. In basic economics this is known as incentives.

 

[piasabird]

Mexicans live everywhere in Texas. Some are legal and some are not. You cant really stack votes in specific areas. It just wont work and if anyone says differently they are just telling you lies. Let Texas run Texas and Let NY run NY.

Maybe in New York they are arranging voting districts for a more liberal outcome. This statement is just as valid as the Texas Claim. It is just stupid. Maybe it is only racism when conservatives do the same thing.

To the victor goes the spoils.

Any statement that refers to "Lower Rung of Society", is written by someone that thinks they are better than you are. Since they are so much better than you and I we should do what they say. If you believe this bull shit you are of a lower intellect and a lower social class. They have successfully brainwashed you.

 

[Jhhnn]

And yet these "teatards" as you put it are able to acquire photo ID. What does is say about your friends that they are unable to?



Maybe you consider yourself to be the equal of an illiterate crackwhore :hmm:

Democracy is not, and should not be the end goal of a society in and of itself. The purpose of a democracy is to achieve a better society. If restricting democracy is necessary to ensure a better society then Democracy should be restricted. Arguably are country was found on restricted Democracy.

Yep, along with slavery. Your point is what, exactly? That we should or could turn back the clock a few hundred years to suit your reactionary agenda?

100% BS. http://jobsearch.about.com/cs/backgroundcheck/a/background_2.htm

Verification requirements for working are at least as onerous as for voter ID. Arguably more as a DL is not sufficient to work.

I-9 forms stay in the possession of the employer and are quite commonly falsified. No verification is required. Check your nearest fast food place for verification of that. Nor is it or any form of ID a requirement for continuing employment. If my license is expired, revoked, or lost, it affects my employment not at all, unless I drive for a living.

The I-9 system is a placebo, specifically designed to provide cover for businesses to hire whoever they want.

Obviously, millions of Americans function in an entirely adequate fashion w/o the kind of ID that Righties want as a means to restrict the electorate. You did say that, didn't you? That you want to violate the constitution & its amendments to achieve such ends? Of course you did, given that the Constitution will likely never be amended to suit your crackpot ends.

Inaccurate. If you normalize for the increase in workforce participation rate due to left-wing feminists pushing women into the workplace there is no "dearth of employment".

So what? American capitalism welcomed those workers with open arms. Your characterization of "pushing" is utterly inaccurate, as well. Even among families who can afford it, few women choose to be hausfraus their entire lives. Or should they be denied choice on the basis of male privilege? Is marriage a partnership, or a power relationship?

Funny that the unwed mother rate was MUCH MUCH lower before the advent of effective BC huh?

Liberals have worked to destigmatize unwed motherhood and divorce for decades.

The shotgun wedding & beaten wife rate was a lot higher, too, but you probably don't want to talk about that, the dark side of the good old days.

People should suffer for their bad choices. In basic economics this is known as incentives.

Yes, and their children should suffer, too! How do you define bad choices, anyway? By circumstance, obviously. In your head & the moralistic world you want, bad choices are entirely different than those in a more enlightened & more affluent society. So, of course, you'll seek to impose suffering to satisfy your misplaced sense of self righteousness, even when there would be little or no suffering otherwise.

In your head, it's not really about bad choices at all, but about what you arbitrarily choose to define as "sin".

 

[xBiffx]

This debate has gone full retard. This county is not a democracy.

But I guess if you're gonna go retard, go full retard. Well done.

 

[nehalem256]

Yep, along with slavery. Your point is what, exactly? That we should or could turn back the clock a few hundred years to suit your reactionary agenda?

So common sense is now "reactionary"

I-9 forms stay in the possession of the employer and are quite commonly falsified. No verification is required. Check your nearest fast food place for verification of that. Nor is it or any form of ID a requirement for continuing employment. If my license is expired, revoked, or lost, it affects my employment not at all, unless I drive for a living.

The I-9 system is a placebo, specifically designed to provide cover for businesses to hire whoever they want.

And liberals have repeatedly said the "solution" to illegal immigration is more enforcement by businesses.

So what? American capitalism welcomed those workers with open arms.

Well no shit. Increasing the supply of labor decreases its cost. Why wouldn't corporations welcome it?

Your characterization of "pushing" is utterly inaccurate, as well. Even among families who can afford it, few women choose to be hausfraus their entire lives. Or should they be denied choice on the basis of male privilege? Is marriage a partnership, or a power relationship?

I was simply pointing out that it has consequences.

I guess failing to ignore reality is now "hating women" huh? So much for reality having a liberal bias.

The shotgun wedding & beaten wife rate was a lot higher, too, but you probably don't want to talk about that, the dark side of the good old days.

So the children should suffer instead because their mothers are idiots and choose to screw despicable men?

Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri data published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005.

Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center.

Girls whose parents divorce face significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2183857...igher-risk-nontraditional-homes/#.UM9XfIM701J

Yes, and their children should suffer, too! How do you define bad choices, anyway? By circumstance, obviously. In your head & the moralistic world you want, bad choices are entirely different than those in a more enlightened & more affluent society. So, of course, you'll seek to impose suffering to satisfy your misplaced sense of self righteousness, even when there would be little or no suffering otherwise.

In your head, it's not really about bad choices at all, but about what you arbitrarily choose to define as "sin".

Well lets just say that having a child a 16 year old is a bad choice. Having a child as a single parent is a bad choice. Saying the single parenthood is bad isn't arbitrary. See for example "and their children should suffer too". If being a single mother isn't a bad choice why would their children be suffering?

 

[Jhhnn]

So common sense is now "reactionary"

You took "dodging the question", huh? of course you did.

And liberals have repeatedly said the "solution" to illegal immigration is more enforcement by businesses.

Which changes the truth of the matter as it currently stands not in the slightest. Dodging again, I see, unable to back up your assertions.

Well no shit. Increasing the supply of labor decreases its cost. Why wouldn't corporations welcome it?

So what? Corporations exist at the whim of the people on the basis of perceived benefit. With unemployment as high as it is, they're obviously not holding up their end of the bargain or fulfilling their own promises as "Job Creators". Therefore, we have the welfare state, and will continue to do so until business finds a way to create more employment.

I was simply pointing out that it has consequences.

I guess failing to ignore reality is now "hating women" huh? So much for reality having a liberal bias.

I suppose that's why you referenced "left wing feminists pushing women into the workplace", huh? Oh, wait- those would be emotionally loaded terms commonly employed by women haters, wouldn't they?

So the children should suffer instead because their mothers are idiots and choose to screw despicable men?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2183857...igher-risk-nontraditional-homes/#.UM9XfIM701J

You reference a small subset of single mothers & their consorts, then use that to tar them all. Obviously, no real comparison to what you see as the good old days is available for comparison, either, becuse the modern element of divorceprevents us from looking at that.

Well lets just say that having a child a 16 year old is a bad choice. Having a child as a single parent is a bad choice. Saying the single parenthood is bad isn't arbitrary. See for example "and their children should suffer too". If being a single mother isn't a bad choice why would their children be suffering?

Heh. Having a child at 16 was entirely commonplace 100 years ago, even more common during the Revolutionary war era. What changed were social mores, but you still want to cling to others as if they were written in stone. Being a single mother in Denmark, for example, isn't a big deal, nor do their children "suffer" in the same way that your outmoded moralistic shaming provides in our own culture. Liberals say their children should suffer less- we are, after all, an extremely wealthy society, entirely capable of taking care of our own. You say that they should suffer more than they already do on account of the "sins" of their parents, which pretty much puts the lie to your faux concerns about their situation wrt living in non-traditional families.

Oh, wait- did I just point out that you've been talking out of both sides of your mouth in pursuit of a vindictive old testament social agenda?

Yes, yes I did.

 

[ElFenix]

I guess that Obama and Holder can't take a hint. Just because you don't agree with Voter ID laws, that doesn't mean you can reimpose the same VRA pre-clearance provisions that the SCOTUS just struck down. Especially since the same SCOTUS ruled Voter ID laws constitutional by a 6-3 margin not long ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...6740b2-f49b-11e2-a2f1-a7acf9bd5d3a_story.html

the supreme court told congress that the preclearance featuring bail-out formula had to use updated data. the preclearance featuring bail-in provision is still alive and well. but, specific jurisdictions have to be bailed in for specific matters, rather than preclearance with bail-out where everybody was required to have preclearance for everything.

so, the OP and the rage about 'taking a hint' is based on poor understanding of the law.