Republicans Rounding Up Democrats in Texas

[Washington Resistance Army]

What's the research that excuses Native Americans from being among the least likely to hold college degrees despite getting steep discounts in tuition or even going completely free?

A very long list of inbuilt structural biases combined with geographical isolation and lack of funding is the chief reason why natives don't attend college in large numbers. We've known about this for years, there's a number of groups working to change it.

[The Republic of Fore]

1. Yeah, don't share pills. See? Wasn't so hard.

Ya lemme just ignore my friend, who has the same prescription, but is fucked over by the way healthcare works and is in pain. God, do you have any empathy at all?

And considering how few americans bother to vote, I doubt most felons would care.

Doesn't make it not a denial of a basic right. Even one person's rights being infringed is a travesty.

2. I don't make excuses for lazy whiners. If you want something that badly then "wahhh dey said mean wurdsss!!!" isn't going to stop you. If it does, then maybe you deserved to fail. Because everyone isn't going to be nice. There will always be people putting you down, Doesn't matter if you're a criminal or johnny d paleface from the suburbs.

Fuck this attitude with a rusted harpoon. Yeah, no fucking shit a lot of people are dicks. Does that mean we shouldn't fucking try not to be? We shouldn't try to care for our fellow man? Your attitude is part of the problem, and honestly is way more whiny and lazy than the people you're complaining about. Because it demonstrates that you can't be assed to give even token support to other people. And society, in the end, relies on people supporting each other. If you don't think you're up for that, you sure as hell shouldn't be calling others lazy.

1. Don't need to hand out narcotics to have empathy. Or does Tylenol not exist where you're from? Considering that the opioid epidemic killed 90,000 people last year I'd say It's better for your friend to not give them narcotics.
2. Do whatever you want, doesn't change that everyone still has to learn how to deal with someone saying mean things. I don't owe support to other people who can't do anything to help themselves. Anybody who would rather squeal "but life isn't fair!" While doing nothing to improve their own life is lazy, period. Show me the law that says I have to support anyone. Society also relies on everyone contributing, not laying on their butt wailing about how hard life is and demanding everyone else support them.

[The Republic of Fore]

What's the research that excuses Native Americans from being among the least likely to hold college degrees despite getting steep discounts in tuition or even going completely free?

A very long list of inbuilt structural biases combined with geographical isolation and lack of funding is the chief reason why natives don't attend college in large numbers. We've known about this for years, there's a number of groups working to change it.

So more cheap excuses, and of course there's groups working to change it. Anybody can make up a cause to beg for donations. I can tell you what the problem is. Large numbers of us who want nothing better than to lay in some torn up trailer and repeat "buh my land! the white man took mah landdd!" rather than try to be anything in life. And those of us who actually do try and succeed are just apples, or disrespecting our ancestors. Ain't no implicit bias stopping you from applying to college. College administrators jump at every chance to brag about how diverse their campus is. They bend over backwards to admit us.

[Necroghastia]

Ya lemme just ignore my friend, who has the same prescription, but is fucked over by the way healthcare works and is in pain. God, do you have any empathy at all?

Doesn't make it not a denial of a basic right. Even one person's rights being infringed is a travesty.

Fuck this attitude with a rusted harpoon. Yeah, no fucking shit a lot of people are dicks. Does that mean we shouldn't fucking try not to be? We shouldn't try to care for our fellow man? Your attitude is part of the problem, and honestly is way more whiny and lazy than the people you're complaining about. Because it demonstrates that you can't be assed to give even token support to other people. And society, in the end, relies on people supporting each other. If you don't think you're up for that, you sure as hell shouldn't be calling others lazy.

1. Don't need to hand out narcotics to have empathy. Or does Tylenol not exist where you're from? Considering that the opioid epidemic killed 90,000 people last year I'd say It's better for your friend to not give them narcotics.

Oh? I didn't know you were a doctor! Let alone that you were the prescribing doctor in that story!

2. Do whatever you want, doesn't change that everyone still has to learn how to deal with someone saying mean things. I don't owe support to other people who can't do anything to help themselves. Anybody who would rather squeal "but life isn't fair!" While doing nothing to improve their own life is lazy, period. Show me the law that says I have to support anyone. Society also relies on everyone contributing, not laying on their butt wailing about how hard life is and demanding everyone else support them.

Yeah, the only person laying on their butt wailing about how hard life is is you.

[Washington Resistance Army]

A very long list of inbuilt structural biases combined with geographical isolation and lack of funding is the chief reason why natives don't attend college in large numbers. We've known about this for years, there's a number of groups working to change it.

So more cheap excuses, and of course there's groups working to change it. Anybody can make up a cause to beg for donations. I can tell you what the problem is. Large numbers of us who want nothing better than to lay in some torn up trailer and repeat "buh my land! the white man took mah landdd!" rather than try to be anything in life. And those of us who actually do try and succeed are just apples, or disrespecting our ancestors. Ain't no implicit bias stopping you from applying to college. College administrators jump at every chance to brag about how diverse their campus is. They bend over backwards to admit us.

"nooooooooooooooooooooooooo nothing can actually be wrong with society people are just lazy whiners"

Literally you rn and it's ridiculous. Be honest have you ever even actually studied the topic?

[Page]

A very long list of inbuilt structural biases combined with geographical isolation and lack of funding is the chief reason why natives don't attend college in large numbers. We've known about this for years, there's a number of groups working to change it.

So more cheap excuses, and of course there's groups working to change it. Anybody can make up a cause to beg for donations. I can tell you what the problem is. Large numbers of us who want nothing better than to lay in some torn up trailer and repeat "buh my land! the white man took mah landdd!" rather than try to be anything in life. And those of us who actually do try and succeed are just apples, or disrespecting our ancestors. Ain't no implicit bias stopping you from applying to college. College administrators jump at every chance to brag about how diverse their campus is. They bend over backwards to admit us.

So what? I honestly don't see why lazy people get the most hate when there are so many people with jobs that are intrinsically harmful, whose endeavors make the world a worse place. Better to laze around in a trailer than to be an ICE terrorist spending your day rounding up people and tearing apart families, or to be running some Christian fundamentalist child abuse camp, or to be the person who finds excuses for health insurance companies to not pay out, or work for usurers at Amscot, or to be a school employee who spends your whole day looking for dress code violations and students making out in the hallways, or to work for collections harassing people and their families all day long.

If we got rid of all the jobs that make the world worse and also got rid of all the bullshit jobs that aren't really necessary (e.g. the government wouldn't need to hire people to review eligibility for welfare if money was just given unconditionally, there wouldn't be grunt workers in boiler rooms helping their rich scumbag bosses gamble on short stocks), and everyone evenly divided the necessary labor, we'd all need work no more than 10 or 12 hours in a week.

And even if in such a communist society there were genuinely lazy people who refused to make any contributions, so what? Write them off. Meet their basic needs and leave them be, this small group of people aren't putting any real burden on society, you could feed them with a fraction of the surplus food that gets thrown away. You know how economies of scale work, right? It wouldn’t actually cost hundreds of dollars to pay for a person's cellphone because there is no meaningful cost difference in the factory spitting out 1000 phones instead of 999, it only costs a few cents more for a tower that supports 999 phones to support one more.

I find it very hard to believe that any significant amount of people would truly contribute nothing anyway. Maybe those people who aren't working are offering company and friendship to someone who would otherwise be alone, maybe they go play chess in the park and in doing so provide an opponent for others who want to do the same.

And as for the infinitesimal minority who truly contribute nothing? Feed them anyway, house them anyway just because it's the compassionate thing to do.

[The Alma Mater]

So more cheap excuses, and of course there's groups working to change it. Anybody can make up a cause to beg for donations. I can tell you what the problem is. Large numbers of us who want nothing better than to lay in some torn up trailer and repeat "buh my land! the white man took mah landdd!" rather than try to be anything in life. And those of us who actually do try and succeed are just apples, or disrespecting our ancestors. Ain't no implicit bias stopping you from applying to college. College administrators jump at every chance to brag about how diverse their campus is. They bend over backwards to admit us.

"nooooooooooooooooooooooooo nothing can actually be wrong with society people are just lazy whiners"

Literally you rn and it's ridiculous. Be honest have you ever even actually studied the topic?

This is 2021. Nowadays, we no longer study topics. We "do our own research"; which means we follow the trail of breadcrumbs someone with an agenda left for us for a few minutes and then believe we know vastly better than "the sheep".

[Galloism]

I rarely see an argument against allowing felons to vote, even against allowing people in prison to vote, that is anything more than an appeal to emotion, that it just "feels" wrong to let them vote.

There is logic behind certain loss of rights like not allowing a person who has committed a violent crime to own a gun, but taking away voting rights is arbitrary and baseless. Should felons also lose their freedom of religion?

I would also point out that in a country like America with a mass incarceration problem, if the prison vote is or would become a bloc significant enough to sway elections, that's a good thing. I can think of no better way to rein in the tyranny of the criminal justice system than to incentivize politicians to offer shorter sentences and better conditions as a way of winning votes.

Because the way I see it, if the prison population is anywhere near big enough to affect the outcome of the election, then there is no doubt you have an unjust system in which most incarcerated people shouldn't be free in the first place.

I actually been pondering this for a while, and there is ONE restriction I would make on currently incarcerated felons.

Unless you are a lifer, you cannot change your place of residence to the prison. It is the last place of residence before you went to prison that you vote in their elections. You don't want the local prison to overwhelm local elections and result in weird things happening.

But, other than that, there's no real good reason to keep them from voting. It's not like there's going to use it to fire ballots at people, poll workers blowing up in your face...

[New Rogernomics]

This went on for a month in 2003 over redistricting. The Texas Republicans can wail all they like, but they weren't able to arrest Democrats then and they wouldn't be able to arrest them now.

As long as they remain in DC or in a state with a Democratic governor and legislature, Republicans really can't do much about it.

The governor can call another special session immediately after which he’s threatened to do.

He can, though he still needs the quorum in the state to actually achieve anything. During the 2003 redistricting fight eventually quorum was met when enough Democrats returned to the state. Texas Democrats have only done this for a month before, though it is entirely possible this time that Democrats try for two months.

What is clear however is that eventually enough will return to meet quorum, as it wouldn't be possible for Texas Democrats to stay away for a whole year I'd think. Then the Republicans will be able to pass their terrible bill, and that part of the fight will be over.

[Fahran]

One wonders whether society at large has a vested interest in heeding the voices of murderers, rapists, and others who have no regard for either society or their fellow citizens as a matter of principle. Especially prior to the close of their sentences.

[New Rogernomics]

One wonders whether society at large has a vested interest in heeding the voices of murderers, rapists, and others who have no regard for either society or their fellow citizens as a matter of principle. Especially prior to the close of their sentences.

Well, murderers are rarely released, and rapists avoid punishment if they are rich and white under the "just a piece of action" clause that US judges seem to have enacted. So I'd think most were wrongly convicted, were imprisoned on flaky evidence, or accepted a plea deal, and those released would be mostly African Americans. So there is I think a more racist vested interest in some states to prevent them having the right to vote, and historically in the deep south for example trumped up charges against African Americans enabled many states to continue slave plantations unimpeded for quite a while. In another country perhaps this wouldn't be a major issue, though in the US, plenty have reasons to distrust the US justice system which in many cases can be unfair and corrupt, if not racist.

[Ifreann]

So they committed a felony. And therefore? How does it then logically follow that they should not be able to vote?

I don’t buy into retributive justice. I think it’s ineffective and barbaric. This silly idea of “waaaa you did bad thing so I’m going to take your toys away” needs to die already.

I don't buy into the idea that actions shouldn't have consequences. If someone can't handle the extremely simple task of not committing a felony I see no reason they need to vote.

Why should those actions have the consequence of being disenfranchised? Leaving aside any questions about whether it's sensible to pursue punitive justice, or whether it is easy or difficult to comply with the law, or any other adjacent issue, why should the action of being convicted of a felony be followed by the consequence of disenfranchisement?

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

One wonders whether society at large has a vested interest in heeding the voices of murderers, rapists, and others who have no regard for either society or their fellow citizens as a matter of principle. Especially prior to the close of their sentences.

A person, by virtue of being a person, is entitled to fair political representation of their interests and ideals. It is of no interest to me on which side of the law their chosen career sits.

[Elwher]

I see the thread has somewhat gone off track (what a surprise) but as to the original question, I have a proposal. Legislators who miss more than a certain small number of successive votes should be removed from the legislature and the person with the second largest number of votes in their election put in their seat. As that is usually a member of the opposite party, it would deter legislators from running off.

[Ifreann]

I see the thread has somewhat gone off track (what a surprise) but as to the original question, I have a proposal. Legislators who miss more than a certain small number of successive votes should be removed from the legislature and the person with the second largest number of votes in their election put in their seat. As that is usually a member of the opposite party, it would deter legislators from running off.

Or just let constituents recall their representatives at any time for any reason. If a legislator has a good reason for missing votes then their constituents won't recall them. If a legislator misses one important vote without a good reason then their constituents can recall them.

[Elwher]

I see the thread has somewhat gone off track (what a surprise) but as to the original question, I have a proposal. Legislators who miss more than a certain small number of successive votes should be removed from the legislature and the person with the second largest number of votes in their election put in their seat. As that is usually a member of the opposite party, it would deter legislators from running off.

Or just let constituents recall their representatives at any time for any reason. If a legislator has a good reason for missing votes then their constituents won't recall them. If a legislator misses one important vote without a good reason then their constituents can recall them.

With the exception of health-related reasons, there are no good reasons for missing votes. If I deliberately miss a certain number of days at my job, I would be fired. Their job is to debate and vote on legislation; do it or lose the job.

[Fahran]

A person, by virtue of being a person, is entitled to fair political representation of their interests and ideals. It is of no interest to me on which side of the law their chosen career sits.

In most places, the right to vote is not actually connected with personhood, but, rather, with citizenship. Given society is often preserved and upheld by laws, I think a person who rejects laws, human empathy, and morality rightly has the right to vote stripped from them until they're deemed to have performed sufficient penance and justice has been adequately visited upon them.

[Ifreann]

Or just let constituents recall their representatives at any time for any reason. If a legislator has a good reason for missing votes then their constituents won't recall them. If a legislator misses one important vote without a good reason then their constituents can recall them.

With the exception of health-related reasons, there are no good reasons for missing votes.

Whether there are good reasons or not is a question that can only be answered by the constituents of the representative in question.

If I deliberately miss a certain number of days at my job, I would be fired. Their job is to debate and vote on legislation; do it or lose the job.

Even if their bosses do not wish them to lose their job? Strange way to conduct representative democracy.

[Fahran]

Well, murderers are rarely released, and rapists avoid punishment if they are rich and white under the "just a piece of action" clause that US judges seem to have enacted.

Some people presumably want to allow inmates to vote. And the fact that a lot of rapists get off with slaps on the wrist when, more justly, they would be hanged does not mean that we should not hold those who get more than a slap on the wrist to account. I don't think such people have very much worthwhile to say on average, and those who do may be granted a special dispensation in the event that they're deemed to have reformed themselves.

So I'd think most were wrongly convicted, were imprisoned on flaky evidence, or accepted a plea deal, and those released would be mostly African Americans.

And I think you don't have the evidence to demonstrate that most incarcerated felons didn't actually commit the crimes they were convicted of committing. And "black people commit more felonies" is really not the strong point you think it is. Framed as it is, it just comes across as BS's "13 do 50." And I shouldn't need to explain why that particular talking point is stupid. On a sociological and CRT level, the relationship of African-Americans to the criminal justice system does warrant the promotion of racial justice and the closing of racial disparities, but it does not mean individual felons should not be held to account for things they did that hurt other people - who were also probably African American.

So there is I think a more racist vested interest in some states to prevent them having the right to vote, and historically in the deep south for example trumped up charges against African Americans enabled many states to continue slave plantations unimpeded for quite a while. In another country perhaps this wouldn't be a major issue, though in the US, plenty have reasons to distrust the US justice system which in many cases can be unfair and corrupt, if not racist.

Every multiethnic society is racist to some degree by the standards some have proposed, but, again, I don't see a lot of racist intent in modern-day prohibitions against convicted felons voting. There are very good philosophical arguments for not allowing inmates to vote, not the least of which is they don't respect the society that would give them that right in many cases. Nor do they respect their fellow citizens. They wouldn't murder, assault, or rape people otherwise.

[Giovenith]

Don't mind Shofercia, his sole function is to make noises about his impartiality while pushing 'bothsame' bullshit for the sole purpose of dismissing and downplaying and insisting there's no reason to get worked up about anything Republicans/right wingers in general might be doing.

Ah, so saying that we shouldn't

mind Shofercia, Forsher, his sole function is to make noises about his impartiality knowledge of other countries while pushing 'bothsame' YouTube videos instead of naming a single city to back up his argument

isn't an Ad Hominem. Got it Forsher, thanks for the input!

Myrensis and Shofercia both receive a *** Warning for Flamebaiting ***.

If you have a problem with the way someone argues, you're perfectly able to criticize that behavior itself without turning it into a personalized passive-aggressive snipe against the individual specifically.

[Ifreann]

A person, by virtue of being a person, is entitled to fair political representation of their interests and ideals. It is of no interest to me on which side of the law their chosen career sits.

In most places, the right to vote is not actually connected with personhood, but, rather, with citizenship. Given society is often preserved and upheld by laws, I think a person who rejects laws, human empathy, and morality rightly has the right to vote stripped from them until they're deemed to have performed sufficient penance and justice has been adequately visited upon them.

In most places, conviction for a criminal offence does not lead to the revocation of one's citizenship. So if voting is tied to citizenship, and citizenship is not tied to criminal convictions, why should the right to vote be tied to criminal conviction?

[Fahran]

In most places, conviction for a criminal offence does not lead to the revocation of one's citizenship. So if voting is tied to citizenship, and citizenship is not tied to criminal convictions, why should the right to vote be tied to criminal conviction?

It does lead to a partial stripping of the rights often associated with citizenship. You do not, for instance, allow felons, especially violent felons, freedom of movement. Such rights are restricted in the interest of safeguarding society or as a matter of principle. I have explained the justification behind why murderers and rapists especially should be denied the vote, namely they have behaved as predators within society flouting the rights of fellow citizens and laws. It is thus just that they lose any say in policy until they are deemed to have reformed and done penance. Because their actions have revealed them to be bad actors and you do not give bad actors those sorts of responsibilities. And voting is as much a responsibility as a right in my view.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

the thing about voter fraud is that tactically, it's very fucking dumb

Until I bring back political machines. It's me. Ya gurl. Boss 'Ran. Vote early and often, friendos. I'll also buy the pollsters, vote counters, and organizers dinner to discuss... business. That means it's tax deductible and totes ethical.

While I agree with the sentiment you're quoting, that quotation is not mine. Also, it leads back to a different thread.

[Kowani]

They got caught because they were idiots, and pointing out that it's very easy to run an illegal ballot harvesting operation, so easy that even idiots can do it, was the point. If you want it to actually work, you'd need to get smart people involved,

you wouldn't need "smart people" what you'd need are gods of silence and discretion (and probably actual divine intervention)

but to claim that just because idiots got caught no one will ever try to break the law again and not get caught sounds... counterproductive.

yeah that's not the claim

The incentive to successfully commit voter fraud is greater than you think, as even influencing 0.64% of the votes can shift the election from Biden to Trump.

just to be clear here the flipping in particular requires fabricating a total of 42,918 votes spread across 3 separate states (Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin-and this is the absolute bare minimum)

And 0.64% is not very hard to influence, especially with mail in ballots. You can get voter rolls, figure out who doesn't really vote, and mail in their ballots.

what a dumb fucking scheme lmao
so this would fail almost instantly at the preparation stage (and continue to collapse at every step beyond that)
so the states that require you to request a mail-in ballot (which you need personal information for) are...alabama, alaska, arkansas, arizona, delaware, florida, georgia, idaho, indiana, kansas, kentucky, louisiana, maine, minnesota, mississippi, missouri, montana, nebraska, new mexico (some counties only), new york, north carolina, north dakota, oklahoma, pennsylvania, south carolina, south dakota, tennessee, texas, virginia, west virginia, and wyoming
so this plan would fail from the outset because you can't get a mail-in ballot for most of these people
then it fails again because because most states don't make voter history available
the ones that do are arizona, colorado, delaware, DC, florida, georgia, iowa, maine, maryland, minnesota, missouri, new hampshire, north carolina, north dakota, ohio, pennsylvania, south dakota, tennessee, vermont, and wisconsin

so let's find the states where you could presumably get someone else's ballotand where you could find the information to not get an active voter
iowa, maryland (and that one was an emergency pandemic measure that doesn't seem to have been extended), ohio, wisconsin
but there's a catch! ohio doesn't let you take a copy home or view it electronically-voter registration files are only available to public inspection at times when the office of the board of elections is open for business. (8:00-17:00, monday through friday)
maryland, meanwhile, requires you to be a registered voter there
so the only states where the research isn't impossible on its own are iowa and wisconsin (which, to be clear, are not enough to flip the 2020 election), which only start sending-out mail-in ballots 28 and 47 days before the election respectively
of course, you gotta actually get the ballots in the first place and that is a fuckton of driving and hoping the person whose identity you are stealing does not get to the mailbox before you do (and unlike them, you gotta do that shit every day, because you don't know when that ballot's getting there)
and good luck with the signatures on ballots by the way lmao i'm not sure how you'd get past that one
like it's hard to establish just how much of a catastrophic failure this would turn out to be
it collapses in on itself at practically level and that's before you start thinking of things like leaks, human error, one of those "inactive voters" deciding that this is the year, anyone getting cold feet, getting caught when the signatures inevitably don't match or the budget
this is election rigging for dumbasses and that's not including the fact that it wouldn't work anyway even if everything went perfectly

I'm not encouraging this, and I am, in fact, very much against this, and it's one of the reasons why voter rolls should be purged regularly, as this is the exact type of bullshit that needs anti-fraud laws.

i mean voter-roll maintenance is good policy in a vacuum but the republicans certainly can't do it and your reason was atrociously bad

I see the thread has somewhat gone off track (what a surprise) but as to the original question, I have a proposal. Legislators who miss more than a certain small number of successive votes should be removed from the legislature and the person with the second largest number of votes in their election put in their seat. As that is usually a member of the opposite party, it would deter legislators from running off.

i mean they're not "missing votes" so this wouldn't do anything in the first place

One wonders whether society at large has a vested interest in heeding the voices of murderers, rapists, and others who have no regard for either society or their fellow citizens as a matter of principle. Especially prior to the close of their sentences.

giving the state the mechanism to legally remove people from the political process is horrendous policy before we get into the idea that certain criminals have no regard for society or others

A very long list of inbuilt structural biases combined with geographical isolation and lack of funding is the chief reason why natives don't attend college in large numbers. We've known about this for years, there's a number of groups working to change it.

So more cheap excuses, and of course there's groups working to change it. Anybody can make up a cause to beg for donations. I can tell you what the problem is. Large numbers of us who want nothing better than to lay in some torn up trailer and repeat "buh my land! the white man took mah landdd!" rather than try to be anything in life. And those of us who actually do try and succeed are just apples, or disrespecting our ancestors. Ain't no implicit bias stopping you from applying to college. College administrators jump at every chance to brag about how diverse their campus is. They bend over backwards to admit us.

structural bias is not in fact the same thing as implicit bias even if words prove confusing for people and the former is infinitely more important

it was of lesser importance

The based response to the point I brought up is still "You shouldn't need an ID for any of those things. I thought this was America." The sanity of this response is, of course, questionable.

when have i ever responded to anything that way

[GuessTheAltAccount]

One wonders whether society at large has a vested interest in heeding the voices of murderers, rapists, and others who have no regard for either society or their fellow citizens as a matter of principle. Especially prior to the close of their sentences.

The problem is that you're incentivizing lawmakers to pick and choose what to make a felony based on whether or not this would disenfranchise those who'd otherwise vote against them.