Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    I don’t think either party has a leg to stand on in that area. It’s really obvious with this latest kerfuffle.
    You can take your both sides shtick elsewhere.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I'm not even sure why you'd bring that up, because "broad consensus" has never been the goal of democratic governance.
    Because he said he considers reaching broad consensus easier then "states choose their own rules" (as it seems to be the case right now).

    Take it with him.

    1> "Both sides" is a distraction. It posits an equivalence that does not exist.
    You don't need equivalence; you still need both sides to agree to reach consensus.

    And without consensus it will not pass Senate no matter how well-intentioned.

  3. #83
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    You don't need equivalence; you still need both sides to agree to reach consensus.

    And without consensus it will not pass Senate no matter how well-intentioned.
    Stalemate and inaction is better than letting things slip towards fascism and oppression.

    Pretty damned simple calculus, there.


  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    I don’t think either party has a leg to stand on in that area. It’s really obvious with this latest kerfuffle.
    Democrats: We want a unified set of core rules to ensure fairness that applies to everyone equally and addresses the states constantly trying to deny citizens their Constitutional right to vote.
    D3thray: Yeah, they're just selfish, greedy jerks that want power to cause harm.

    Do you even hear yourself?

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Stalemate and inaction is better than letting things slip towards fascism and oppression.
    "Stalemate" in this case means Republicans continue their biased self-serving gerrymandering. Because they can.

  6. #86
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    "Stalemate" in this case means Republicans continue their biased self-serving gerrymandering. Because they can.
    And?

    You seem to not grasp the basic concept of "if you can't make things better, you can at least ensure they don't get worse".


  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You seem to not grasp the basic concept of "if you can't make things better, you can at least ensure they don't get worse".
    How exactly do you ensure they don't get worse when they are already getting worse - leading to this new act that is supposed to "fix" those problems?

    Do you see this act as fruitless attempt that will get no traction? Or just another way to show GOP "values" and nothing else?

  8. #88
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    How exactly do you ensure they don't get worse when they are already getting worse - leading to this new act that is supposed to "fix" those problems?
    Is there a reason you're moving goalposts, now?


  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Is there a reason you're moving goalposts, now?
    Which goalpost?

    I'm just trying to understand how exactly do you and other people see this act. Create some kind of picture that makes sense.

  10. #90
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Which goalpost?

    I'm just trying to understand how exactly do you and other people see this act. Create some kind of picture that makes sense.
    The Voter Rights Act?

    It protects people's right to vote, ensuring that every citizen who's of age should have equitable access to submit a vote. That's the goal, whether it's sufficient to achieve that by itself is up for debate.

    What's not up for debate is if it's some attempt by Democrats to seize power. It isn't. The only people pushing that bullshit are lying fascists projecting their own malicious intent. Giving their arguments any credence is asinine and demonstrates intentional bad faith.


  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The Voter Rights Act?

    It protects people's right to vote, ensuring that every citizen who's of age should have equitable access to submit a vote. That's the goal, whether it's sufficient to achieve that by itself is up for debate.

    What's not up for debate is if it's some attempt by Democrats to seize power. It isn't. The only people pushing that bullshit are lying fascists projecting their own malicious intent. Giving their arguments any credence is asinine and demonstrates intentional bad faith.
    Saying that they hold such views is "giving them credence"? Isn't that what you are doing constantly?

    And to disprove self-serving perception - which of those proposed measures do you think will be net positive for Republicans?

  12. #92
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Saying that they hold such views is "giving them credence"? Isn't that what you are doing constantly?
    Acting as if those views are legitimate positions is giving them credence. They're as abusive and false as someone saying "the jews are drinking the blood of Christian babies!"

    If you think I'm giving them "credence", you don't understand what the word means.

    And to disprove self-serving perception
    Let's stick to the facts. I really don't see the point in entertaining whether someone is lying or just completely disconnected from reality.

    which of those proposed measures do you think will be net positive for Republicans?
    Depends on how you mean "net positive". If you mean "politically advantageous, at the expense of equitable and fair elections", then none, probably. If you mean "protecting the rights and freedoms of Republican voters", then pretty much all of them.

    And if you mean the former, then I dismiss that as a valid concern, because you're talking about maliciously cheating the electoral system to illicitly secure power against the will of the people. Yes, fascists feel that way. No, those whines don't deserve consideration; they deserve nothing but mockery and derision.


  13. #93
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    19,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    That's like "they believe in voting" - both true and meaningless.
    You asked what principles they could possible share. I suggest a regard for democracy which is more or less what the bill is trying to defend. The fact that Republicans evidently don't value democracy isn't a good look for them.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Acting as if those views are legitimate positions is giving them credence. They're as abusive and false as someone saying "the jews are drinking the blood of Christian babies!"

    If you think I'm giving them "credence", you don't understand what the word means.
    As far as i see i didn't act like those are "legitimate positions". It's views people hold; they don't need broad legitimacy to exist and shape their actions.

    Let's stick to the facts. I really don't see the point in entertaining whether someone is lying or just completely disconnected from reality.
    I just like understanding internal logic of different narratives - even if i do not necessarily share underlying premises.

    And testing how strong or weak those underlying premises are.

    Depends on how you mean "net positive". If you mean "politically advantageous, at the expense of equitable and fair elections", then none, probably. If you mean "protecting the rights and freedoms of Republican voters", then pretty much all of them.
    Many measures suggested in this act, as far as i'm aware, appeared as Democrat initiatives before elections. Elections they quite clearly wanted to win against Republicans.

    As such assuming them to be data-based approaches intended to increase Democrat turnout/share looks like reasonable heuristic. And makes Republican opposition to them perfectly natural.

    You don't seem to dispute such possibility; obviously you would see their loss as net positive given everything else they have done.

    And if you mean the former, then I dismiss that as a valid concern, because you're talking about maliciously cheating the electoral system to illicitly secure power against the will of the people. Yes, fascists feel that way. No, those whines don't deserve consideration; they deserve nothing but mockery and derision.
    "Cheating" is acting outside of established rules; if established rules had allowed for everything that is happening - be that through creative interpretation of laws or through law non-enforcement - then that is just "acting within systemic framework". However flawed that framework might be.

    Changing the rules by adding another law layer can also be a form of cheating - especially laws favoring one of the parties in an ongoing competition when the same party will be in charge of enforcing them. We have seen plenty examples of that on state level; you can see gerrymandering process itself as one of such legislative levers.

    Opposition is supposed to prevent such one-sided moves; and currently Senate doesn't allow one party to ram anything through easily. Thus proposed law not passing would be system working as intended.

    ...and to change it through voting you would have to be already winning within existing framework - OR have shared goals.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2022-01-25 at 10:19 AM.

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    As far as i see i didn't act like those are "legitimate positions". It's views people hold; they don't need broad legitimacy to exist and shape their actions.

    I just like understanding internal logic of different narratives - even if i do not necessarily share underlying premises.

    And testing how strong or weak those underlying premises are.

    Many measures suggested in this act, as far as i'm aware, appeared as Democrat initiatives before elections. Elections they quite clearly wanted to win against Republicans.

    As such assuming them to be data-based approaches intended to increase Democrat turnout/share looks like reasonable heuristic. And makes Republican opposition to them perfectly natural.

    You don't seem to dispute such possibility; obviously you would see their loss as net positive given everything else they have done.

    "Cheating" is acting outside of established rules; if established rules had allowed for everything that is happening - be that through creative interpretation of laws or through law non-enforcement - then that is just "acting within systemic framework". However flawed that framework might be.

    Changing the rules by adding another law layer can also be a form of cheating - especially laws favoring one of the parties in an ongoing competition when the same party will be in charge of enforcing them. We have seen plenty examples of that on state level; you can see gerrymandering process itself as one of such legislative levers.

    Opposition is supposed to prevent such one-sided moves; and currently Senate doesn't allow one party to ram anything through easily. Thus proposed law not passing would be system working as intended.

    ...and to change it through voting you would have to be already winning within existing framework - OR have shared goals.
    You should probably stay in your lane, you really shouldn't whine about cheating while being fucking Russian and defending the literal dictator Putin at every fucking corner.

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    You should probably stay in your lane, you really shouldn't whine about cheating while being fucking Russian and defending the literal dictator Putin at every fucking corner.
    He has to. Russians haven't had the freedom to vote in a long time. Can't let this catch on back home or this'll be another thing he can blame the West for.

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by madethisfor1post View Post
    He has to. Russians haven't had the freedom to vote in a long time. Can't let this catch on back home or this'll be another thing he can blame the West for.
    "Freedom to vote" doesn't seem to solve any American problems.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    "Freedom to vote" doesn't seem to solve any American problems.
    Its cute that you think American's have "Freedom to vote".

  19. #99
    Banned Yadryonych's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Матушка Россия
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Its cute that you think American's have "Freedom to vote".
    It's even cuter that instead of fixing the horrible voting system they are trying to fuck it up even more and call it an improvement.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Yadryonych View Post
    It's even cuter that instead of fixing the horrible voting system they are trying to fuck it up even more and call it an improvement.
    How's it you're consistently the dumber paid troll? Like do you even grasp all the hoops you have to jump through to run a fair election with decent turnouts? Is there some kind of firewall that prevents you from accessing all of the actual statements of GOP politicians who expressly state their actions are to suppress voting?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •