Republicans keep admitting their party relies on voter suppression

[Kokolums]

1, undocumented immigrants aren't voting in national elections. The GOP knows this, even Trump knows this.
2, the GOP has been about voter suppression, especially minorities since 1965. And they know when turnout is high they lose seats. 2008 and 2018 for your most recent source.
3, everyone has a right to vote, yet where the GOP holds or held power you see some of the most restrictive laws and austere measures in place to keep blue votes down.

So yes, that's exactly what he meant.

1. illegals ARE allowed to vote in many elections below the federal level. So Trump and the GOP *can* claim an open borders policy is a voter suppression tactic wielded against the people that have lived in America for generations. Also, there is plenty of evidence that children of immigrants vote overwhelmingly democratic, so Trump and the GOP can accuse the democrats of voter suppression at the federal level as well by claiming the goal of open borders policies are to get a large 2nd generation population installed in the US.
2. Racism charges cut both ways. The left is accusing the right of being racist against non-whites. The right is accusing the left of being racist against whites. Hence the high probability of civil war.
3. The GOP argues that open borders policies effectively take away the right to vote to the people who've lived here for generations. How would you feel, right now, if China imported 20 million people into California, they started voting in state and local elections, and then their kids all started voting republican? Would you consider that voter suppression of democrats? Or should everyone have the right to vote? I'm guessing tthat scenario would make you very angry.

[Egomaniac]

1. illegals ARE allowed to vote in many elections below the federal level. So Trump and the GOP *can* claim an open borders policy is a voter suppression tactic wielded against the people that have lived in America for generations. Also, there is plenty of evidence that children of immigrants vote overwhelmingly democratic, so Trump and the GOP can accuse the democrats of voter suppression at the federal level as well by claiming the goal of open borders policies are to get a large 2nd generation population installed in the US.
2. Racism charges cut both ways. The left is accusing the right of being racist against non-whites. The right is accusing the left of being racist against whites. Hence the high probability of civil war.
3. The GOP argues that open borders policies effectively take away the right to vote to the people who've lived here for generations. How would you feel, right now, if China imported 20 million people into California, they started voting in state and local elections, and then their kids all started voting republican? Would you consider that voter suppression of democrats? Or should everyone have the right to vote?

1) That isn't suppressing any voters.
2) Your civil war is not happening.
3) Why are you bringing up "open borders" anyway?

You should really learn what the term "voter suppression" means. Adding more voters is not voter suppression. Needlessly hampering the ability of eligible voters to vote is voter suppression.

[Noxx79]

To use an example/analogy, voter fraud isn't much of an issue in magnitude, but I can agree that the fact it's happening means a breach in public trust. So I agree with you on that last part, and I think you'd agree with the magnitude being quite low for voter fraud.



This was the claim made in the OP - if you don't care whether voter suppression is what keeps GOP in power, then I'm not sure why you're taking up this line of discussion.

To use an analogy: murder is bad. It doesn’t matter if the murderer is murdering because they bathe in their blood to get eternal youth. That doesn’t work. Murder is still bad, and it remains bad.

You’re diverting from the fact that republicans are suppressing vote, and they continue to do it because they fear their message isn’t reaching the majority of the population. Rather than remedying the message, they suppress the vote.

Besides, shouldn’t you be quivering in fear of Chinese people down in your bunker?

[Egomaniac]

To use an analogy: murder is bad. It doesn’t matter if the murderer is murdering because they bathe in their blood to get eternal youth. That doesn’t work. Murder is still bad, and it remains bad.

You’re diverting from the fact that republicans are suppressing vote, and they continue to do it because they fear their message isn’t reaching the majority of the population. Rather than remedying the message, they suppress the vote.

Besides, shouldn’t you be quivering in fear of Chinese people down in your bunker?

To take it even further...It's like me stabbing my neighbour 37 times and pushing him out the window and him asking "yeah, but how effective was the murder?"

[Ivanstone]

Where's the evidence that it works to the point that it's their only reason for being in power? (Also take into account the study I cited)

Wisconsin Elections 2018
US Senate - Dems 55.4% vs GOP 44.5%. Dems Win.
US Congress - Total Dem Votes 53.18% vs GOP 45.6%. GOP Gets 5 out of 8 sets.
Governor - Dems 49.5% vs GOP 48.4%. Dems Win.
AG - Dems 49.4% vs GOP 48.8%. Dems Win.
SoS - Dems 52.7% vs GOP 47.2%. Dems Win.
Treasurer - Dems 55.4% vs GOP 44.5%. Dems Win.
State Senate - Dems 47% vs GOP 52.3%. GOP wins 11 - 6 seats. (Ten GOP senators were up for re-election vs 7 Dems thus explaining the only GOP victory)
Assembly - Dems 53% vs GOP 45%. GOP wins 63 - 36 seats.

The Dems pretty much pasted the GOP but lost power due to gerrymandering. And, yes, thats voter suppression. On top of that outgoing Governor Scott Walker immediately signed bills to limit the power of the Governor and AG.

Voter suppression is widespread through other methods in Wisconsin including Voter ID laws. Wisconsin was required to give out free ID's but did so with reluctance and certainly not in time for the 2016 Presidential elections.

[fwc577]

Wisconsin Elections 2018
US Senate - Dems 55.4% vs GOP 44.5%. Dems Win.
US Congress - Total Dem Votes 53.18% vs GOP 45.6%. GOP Gets 5 out of 8 sets.
Governor - Dems 49.5% vs GOP 48.4%. Dems Win.
AG - Dems 49.4% vs GOP 48.8%. Dems Win.
SoS - Dems 52.7% vs GOP 47.2%. Dems Win.
Treasurer - Dems 55.4% vs GOP 44.5%. Dems Win.
State Senate - Dems 47% vs GOP 52.3%. GOP wins 11 - 6 seats. (Ten GOP senators were up for re-election vs 7 Dems thus explaining the only GOP victory)
Assembly - Dems 53% vs GOP 45%. GOP wins 63 - 36 seats.

The Dems pretty much pasted the GOP but lost power due to gerrymandering. And, yes, thats voter suppression. On top of that outgoing Governor Scott Walker immediately signed bills to limit the power of the Governor and AG.

Voter suppression is widespread through other methods in Wisconsin including Voter ID laws. Wisconsin was required to give out free ID's but did so with reluctance and certainly not in time for the 2016 Presidential elections.

Did you get the state Senate results backwards? I would be surprised if you tell me Dems had all those victories yet still managed to get their ass kicked in the Senate here.

[Ivanstone]

Did you get the state Senate results backwards? I would be surprised if you tell me Dems had all those victories yet still managed to get their ass kicked in the Senate here.

No but State Senators serve alternating 4 year terms. The districts up for grabs were in districts that favour the GOP and its likely that more GOP voters showed up. The margin of victory still shows a certain amount of gerrymandering. By proportion they should've won 9-8 rather than 11-6. Also Senate districts are composed of 3 Assembly districts which themselves are heavily gerrymandered.

[Beefhammer]

1. illegals ARE allowed to vote in many elections below the federal level. So Trump and the GOP *can* claim an open borders policy is a voter suppression tactic wielded against the people that have lived in America for generations. Also, there is plenty of evidence that children of immigrants vote overwhelmingly democratic, so Trump and the GOP can accuse the democrats of voter suppression at the federal level as well by claiming the goal of open borders policies are to get a large 2nd generation population installed in the US.
2. Racism charges cut both ways. The left is accusing the right of being racist against non-whites. The right is accusing the left of being racist against whites. Hence the high probability of civil war.
3. The GOP argues that open borders policies effectively take away the right to vote to the people who've lived here for generations. How would you feel, right now, if China imported 20 million people into California, they started voting in state and local elections, and then their kids all started voting republican? Would you consider that voter suppression of democrats? Or should everyone have the right to vote? I'm guessing tthat scenario would make you very angry.

1, has nothing to do with suppression and you should feel ashamed for even trying to connect the two.
2, you really need a time out for peddling this shit.
3, again has nothing to do with suppression. You really should understand what undocumented immigrants can vote for in local elections. Also, huge strawman.

I'll take the hit, but how many times did your mom drop you on your head as a baby?.

[Kraenen]

And my point is that you are focusing on the wrong thing.

The fact that they are doing it is the issue. Exactly how effective they are at is a lesser concern.

Just to follow you on this (since really, we can discuss anything inside the OP and focusing on one of the multiple claims is fine) - why is the bare fact of trying or wanting to try the only thing that matters, when surely the damage done is what counts for a great deal?

- - - Updated - - -

To use an analogy: murder is bad. It doesn’t matter if the murderer is murdering because they bathe in their blood to get eternal youth. That doesn’t work. Murder is still bad, and it remains bad.

You're arguing that voter fraud is still bad even if it doesn't happen much, which I agree with. I just don't see that it's a significant issue. Likewise, the impact of GOP voter suppression should be supported with evidence.

You’re diverting from the fact that republicans are suppressing vote, and they continue to do it because they fear their message isn’t reaching the majority of the population. Rather than remedying the message, they suppress the vote.

Plainly this isn't "diverting" when I'm addressing the claim that "Republicans are suppressing the vote and need to in order to stay in power". See my analogy to voter fraud (again).

Besides, shouldn’t you be quivering in fear of Chinese people down in your bunker?

Ok I'll bite, why should I be "quivering in fear of Chinese people"?

- - - Updated - - -

Voter suppression is widespread through other methods in Wisconsin including Voter ID laws. Wisconsin was required to give out free ID's but did so with reluctance and certainly not in time for the 2016 Presidential elections.

This is actually contradicted by the evidence I posted initially. The study concluded that strict voter ID laws had inconsequential effects on voting.

[Egomaniac]

Just to follow you on this (since really, we can discuss anything inside the OP and focusing on one of the multiple claims is fine) - why is the bare fact of trying or wanting to try the only thing that matters, when surely the damage done is what counts?

Because the damage is still being done. Stop the damage first, Total up the amount of damage caused later.

- - - Updated - - -

You're arguing that voter fraud is still bad even if it doesn't happen much, which I agree with. I just don't see that it's a significant issue. Likewise, the impact of GOP voter suppression should be supported with evidence.

They've admitted that they are doing it and that they don't think they can win if they don't do it...that's the evidence.

It's like a guy walked in to the police station covered in blood and said "I killed my wife"...and you are standing there "Well, what evidence is there that he killed his wife"

[Kraenen]

They've admitted that they are doing it and that they don't think they can win if they don't do it...that's the evidence.

It's like a guy walked in to the police station covered in blood and said "I killed my wife"...and you are standing there "Well, what evidence is there that he killed his wife"

This is really not true - and the analogy does not work for the same reason. Independent evidence is needed to corroborate the claim, even if it's made by the individual who is themselves confessing.

Because the damage is still being done. Stop the damage first, Total up the amount of damage caused later.

This is backwards analysis. It's "begging the question" as they say.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

Just to follow you on this (since really, we can discuss anything inside the OP and focusing on one of the multiple claims is fine) - why is the bare fact of trying or wanting to try the only thing that matters, when surely the damage done is what counts for a great deal?

It doesn't matter how effective or ineffective it is, attempting to do it is the crux of the problem. This fact is exemplified by our legal system having charges for "attempted" crimes. You don't need to actually kill or injure someone to be convicted of attempted murder, you just need to have made the attempt. The damage done in the attempt is factored into the severity of the punishment, it is not a factor in whether or not punishment is merited.

[Kraenen]

It doesn't matter how effective or ineffective it is, attempting to do it is the crux of the problem. This fact is exemplified by our legal system having charges for "attempted" crimes. You don't need to actually kill or injure someone to be convicted of attempted murder, you just need to have made the attempt. The damage done in the attempt is factored into the severity of the punishment, it is not a factor in whether or not punishment is merited.

I think I can agree with this - for the same reason I believe voter fraud is a valid issue even though the damage done is virtually meaningless.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

I think I can agree with this - for the same reason I believe voter fraud is a valid issue even though the damage done is virtually meaningless.

Agreed, we should be charging people for voting fraud; recent events have shown the Republicans are willing to use that tactic too.

The difference in scale is enormous when you compare voter fraud to voter suppression. Voter fraud is often done at an extremely low-level, while voter suppression is enacted through legislation that impacts entire counties or even entire states.

[Mihalik]

2. Racism charges cut both ways. The left is accusing the right of being racist against non-whites. The right is accusing the left of being racist against whites. Hence the high probability of civil war.

What's your God damn obsession with civil war (in this instance more exactly race war)? Did you like buy thousands of cans of canned hamburgers and are now worried you never get a chance to eat them? Or what the fuck?

Like it's almost pathological. You mention civil war on average 1/3 of your posts.

What is wrong with you?

Your posts give me a weird mass shooter vibe man.

[D Luniz]

@Kokolums

if your policies dont appeal to people, you dont get to block them from voting against you
so constantly justifying the GOP's attempts with "well their children wouldnt vote for them" isnt a reason that works in a democracy

[Ivanstone]

This is actually contradicted by the evidence I posted initially. The study concluded that strict voter ID laws had inconsequential effects on voting.

"Because states adopted strict ID laws only 2 to 12 years ago, our results should be interpreted with caution: we find negative participation effects neither in the first election after the adoption of the laws nor in following ones, but cannot rule out that such effects will arise in the future.Enforcement of the laws already varies across locations and could very well become more stringent over time, especially if polarization on the issue increases. So we do not see our results as the last13
word on this matter – quite the opposite, we hope that they will provide guidance on the types of data and empirical strategies others can use to analyze the longer-run effects of the laws in a few years."

Also more importantly the GOP believes that stricter Voter ID will disenfranchise voters. Whether it is effective or not is irrelevant. The GOP also believes in the following:
Voter Roll Purges
Gerrymandering
Closure or restriction of Polling Places
Closure or restriction of Voter Registration Locations such as the DMV
Undisclosed political donations
Unrestricted political donation amounts
Restricting voting options such as removing or limiting mail-in ballots or early voting
Using unsecured voting devices
Against making Election Day a holiday or not punishing businesses who impede their employees from voting
I'm probably missing other things but this should do.

[Themius]

I'm not sure why asking for evidence is considered a defense of voter suppression. I'm looking to establish the claim that was made in the OP - that voter suppression is the only reason they're in power. People have provided citations that politicians believe they need to suppress votes, but this is still a large step away from proving their intents are linked up with real consequences (specifically the claim made in the OP).

I mean are you entirely unaware of the overt plan republicans had once obama was in office? I mean they were fucking gloating about it in events there are videos of it they have stated aims of it!

The daughter of the fucking orchestrator released his harddrive.

And the bit about staying in power HAS BEEN SAID BY POLITICIANS THEMSELVES

And in the Obama era they expressly began gerrymandering and changing laws specifically to stay in power.

For fuck sakes IT'S IN THE PAPERS FROM THE ORCHESTRATOR how to suppress minority votes and make sure white people vote more. Like WE HAD THREADS ON THIS

There is literally a huge thread about it, with links, and such, or you can go and look through it for yourself since the daughter did put it out... and then look up the politicians talking about it over the years and seeing results. And saying the results are due to [B]the voter suppression methods they went with/B]

But sure keep doing the

"I'm just asking questions"

"Is Wendy using your lunch money to buy heroin? Probably not but how do we know? I don't want my lunch money going to drugs whose taking these drugs. I'm just asking questions"

[Egomaniac]

This is backwards analysis. It's "begging the question" as they say.

So, you think its a better idea to let them keep doing what they are doing while we tally up the damage?

[Themius]

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...2-19A1016.html

Even more voter suppression:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/polit...ion/index.html

Wisconsin's state Supreme Court has overruled the governor's order to postpone Tuesday's election and ordered the election to proceed apace.
By a 5–4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court reverses a lower court order extending the deadline for mail-in ballots in Wisconsin

Wisconsin's Supreme Court blocked Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' order to postpone Tuesday's election, despite his arguments that in-person voting could endanger poll workers and voters.

The court sided with Republicans who control the state legislature and opposed Evers' executive order Monday that sought to delay the election until June 9. The decision was 4-2, with the court's conservative majority backing the GOP's position.
Shortly afterward, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the national and state Republican Party, blocking a lower court ruling that had given voters six extra days -- between Election Day and April 13 -- to turn in their absentee ballots.
Instead, the US Supreme Court said in a 5-4 ruling -- opposed by the court's liberals -- that Wisconsin must only count ballots that are postmarked by Tuesday. Of nearly 1.3 million absentee ballots requested, about 550,000 had not yet been returned as of Monday morning.
The two decisions marked the latest twists in legal battles that have thrown the primary into chaos as state and local elections officials have consolidated polling places and scrambled to find workers and supplies for those that will open.

That's 42% of the vote that the've yet to get.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure why asking for evidence is considered a defense of voter suppression. I'm looking to establish the claim that was made in the OP - that voter suppression is the only reason they're in power. People have provided citations that politicians believe they need to suppress votes, but this is still a large step away from proving their intents are linked up with real consequences (specifically the claim made in the OP).

There's some more evidence.