To the Republic


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 400 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:


Voter suppression is a real and serious problem. Without it, the Republican party could no longer exist in its current form.

However, I don't think it is credible that new voter suppression efforts over the past eight years wiped out eight MILLION Democrat votes.

You're not looking at the secondary and tertiary effects and further.

Voter A gets suppressed, possibly thrown in jail for 'causing a disturbance'.

Voter B sees Voter A get suppressed, decides they don't want to go to jail, doesn't vote, walks away.

Voter C sees Voter A and B have no impact whatsoever and stays home.

Voter D attempts to ensure that they can vote, seeing what happened to A and B, and has their vote disqualified for 'Reasons'.

...etc, etc, and so on.

This is all spurred by outright hypocrisy for a Republic based on representation of the people, for the people.

Not sure how to fix that one, to be honest.


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Not sure how to fix that one, to be honest.

A vote anyway

B Get the vote out for the same people in places where they can't do that to the citizens

C) film it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:


Voter suppression is a real and serious problem. Without it, the Republican party could no longer exist in its current form.

However, I don't think it is credible that new voter suppression efforts over the past eight years wiped out eight MILLION Democrat votes.

You're not looking at the secondary and tertiary effects and further.

Voter A gets suppressed, possibly thrown in jail for 'causing a disturbance'.

Voter B sees Voter A get suppressed, decides they don't want to go to jail, doesn't vote, walks away.

Voter C sees Voter A and B have no impact whatsoever and stays home.

Voter D attempts to ensure that they can vote, seeing what happened to A and B, and has their vote disqualified for 'Reasons'.

...etc, etc, and so on.

This is all spurred by outright hypocrisy for a Republic based on representation of the people, for the people.

Not sure how to fix that one, to be honest.

Yeah, though as far as I know we didn't see a surge in "voters thrown in jail". It's been a concern in some districts - mostly places like we heard about Ferguson where some huge percentage of the population has warrants out for minor offences - usually not being able to pay traffic fines and the like. There's often rumours spread that cops will be waiting to pick up anyone who shows up to vote with a warrant.

Most of the new voter suppression laws focus more on making it harder to vote rather than arresting people or scaring them away - reduced early hours, stricter voter id requirements, less polling places, fewer machines/longer lines at the polling places, etc.

It doesn't really work the way you're describing it. As CBDunkerson said, that large an effect isn't credible. I'm sure it played a role and might have shifted some of those key states, but there are other reasons turnout was down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:


Voter suppression is a real and serious problem. Without it, the Republican party could no longer exist in its current form.

However, I don't think it is credible that new voter suppression efforts over the past eight years wiped out eight MILLION Democrat votes.

You're not looking at the secondary and tertiary effects and further.

Voter A gets suppressed, possibly thrown in jail for 'causing a disturbance'.

Voter B sees Voter A get suppressed, decides they don't want to go to jail, doesn't vote, walks away.

Voter C sees Voter A and B have no impact whatsoever and stays home.

Voter D attempts to ensure that they can vote, seeing what happened to A and B, and has their vote disqualified for 'Reasons'.

...etc, etc, and so on.

This is all spurred by outright hypocrisy for a Republic based on representation of the people, for the people.

Not sure how to fix that one, to be honest.

Yeah, though as far as I know we didn't see a surge in "voters thrown in jail". It's been a concern in some districts - mostly places like we heard about Ferguson where some huge percentage of the population has warrants out for minor offences - usually not being able to pay traffic fines and the like. There's often rumours spread that cops will be waiting to pick up anyone who shows up to vote with a warrant.

Most of the new voter suppression laws focus more on making it harder to vote rather than arresting people or scaring them away - reduced early hours, stricter voter id requirements, less polling places, fewer machines/longer lines at the polling places, etc.

It doesn't really work the way you're describing it. As CBDunkerson said, that large an effect isn't credible. I'm sure it played a role and might have shifted some of those key states, but there are other reasons turnout was down.

What effect would voter suppression combined with voter apathy produce?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh hey Trump Scotus pick would have let states jail LGBT people for having sex in their homes.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Since there are people on this thread that clearly think the results of the most recent election are good, I'd like to hear their justification for that attitude. From my POV, we have elected a tantrum-throwing child as president, and the platform of the party is control is carefully chosen to make life terrible for as many people as possible. Added to that is that fact that the quality of life, by nearly any metric you care to name, is consistently worse in red states than in blue, and now we get those policies for the entire country!

I am not kidding when I wonder how in the world anyone could reasonably be for that. I really would like it if someone would explain to me why they think we shouldn't be freaking right out now.


I would be freaking out, but it does not good so I am working on what I can do to help with what is coming.


I don't think Obama saw raising the debt as a good thing - which is probably why he raised it less and less every year, rather than increasing spending and allowing us to go even further into debt than we were already on the path to being.

That, and passing the budget is technically Congress' job. Which they haven't been very good at for a number of years now, admittedly. Point is, it's not really fair to give the President all the blame (or all the praise, depending on whether or not you liked the results) for the budget. He can influence it, but not totally control it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

Since there are people on this thread that clearly think the results of the most recent election are good, I'd like to hear their justification for that attitude. From my POV, we have elected a tantrum-throwing child as president, and the platform of the party is control is carefully chosen to make life terrible for as many people as possible. Added to that is that fact that the quality of life, by nearly any metric you care to name, is consistently worse in red states than in blue, and now we get those policies for the entire country!

I am not kidding when I wonder how in the world anyone could reasonably be for that. I really would like it if someone would explain to me why they think we shouldn't be freaking right out now.

Tuesday, as I was getting off the bus and headed to my car to drive home from work my wife texted me with a small shopping list and asked me if I wouldn't mind stopping at the store on my way home.

I went in to Walmart, which is on the way home from the lot where I catch the bus, and as I was walking inside I passed a young man, maybe in his early twenties carrying two bags of groceries out of the store, and he was wearing a backpack

Sticking out of the back pack where three different "zombie apocalypse survival weapons" that I recognized from the ThinkGeek catalog. It caught my eye so I turned around to get a closer look and noticed his pack was stuffed with "things", and had several survival items hanging from clips on the outside of his backpack.

That is when I "got it."

You see, the Hunger Games, the Maze Runner, Walking Dead, it all makes sense to me now. So many disaffected, struggling people in this country have finally realized that an apocalypse will be way more fun, running around killing other people because they are different, taking their stuff so you can survive, knowing the playing field has finally been leveled and that everyone must fight to survive on equal footing - THIS is what people want.

You see for decades there have been movies and television shows that show how the Bully gets his justice in the end, and we have learned, time and time again, that it is all a lie. Bullies usually come out on top, and instead of standing up to them and trying to make you life have meaning, with kindness and hard work, and sacrifice when it is needed, isn't ever going to hold a candle to being

Daryl.

Everybody wants to be Daryl


ryric wrote:
Since there are people on this thread that clearly think the results of the most recent election are good, I'd like to hear their justification for that attitude.

Well, there's this.

To be fair, "good" is relative. "Less bad", is perhaps more accurate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

I don't think Obama saw raising the debt as a good thing - which is probably why he raised it less and less every year, rather than increasing spending and allowing us to go even further into debt than we were already on the path to being.

That, and passing the budget is technically Congress' job. Which they haven't been very good at for a number of years now, admittedly. Point is, it's not really fair to give the President all the blame (or all the praise, depending on whether or not you liked the results) for the budget. He can influence it, but not totally control it.

Again: Debt is not the worst evil. It's not even inherently bad. What you spend it on matters more.

The Bush deficit was created largely by tax cuts & military spending on wars of choice. The Obama deficit was largely a response to the recession - plummeting revenue early on and increased social spending to keep people and states afloat and help get the recovery started. The deficit naturally dropped as revenue increased and people found work again as the economy slowly recovered.

Trying to balance the budget during a recession is at the very least heartless - slashing social programs as more and more people need them. According to much economic theory, it also traps you in a downward spiral as cutting spending shrinks the economy, which reduces revenue, so you cut spending, which shrinks the economy, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Edit: TimD, I don't see the relevance of a post about the second amendment.

The Clintons have always been opposed to the 2nd Amendment. Trump, at least, is arguably less of a threat there.

For a less moderate point of view, for those who think Trump IS the next Hitler, here you go.

... and no, despite being a Republican, that author is not really a fan of Trump, either.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One's Second Amendment rights end when they attempt to trump one's First Amendment rights.

Or Fifth, etc, et al.

Let's all try to get this discussion back onto the track of 'The Republic' and off the election commentary?

I know it's hard, my comment above indicates the difficulty!

Let's try a different angle, then?

When we look at the United States, what is the first thing that comes to mind?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TimD wrote:
ryric wrote:
Since there are people on this thread that clearly think the results of the most recent election are good, I'd like to hear their justification for that attitude.

Well, there's this.

To be fair, "good" is relative. "Less bad", is perhaps more accurate.

As a strong 2A proponent, I'm not sure why people are of the opinion that Trump is in any way a notable defender of the 2nd amendment. Putting the (R) after his name doesn't make it so. He even explicitly advocated for Stop and Frisk, which should be a red flag among a sea of red flags.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:
TimD wrote:
ryric wrote:
Since there are people on this thread that clearly think the results of the most recent election are good, I'd like to hear their justification for that attitude.

Well, there's this.

To be fair, "good" is relative. "Less bad", is perhaps more accurate.
As a strong 2A proponent, I'm not sure why people are of the opinion that Trump is in any way a notable defender of the 2nd amendment. Putting the (R) after his name doesn't make it so. He even explicitly advocated for Stop and Frisk, which should be a red flag among a sea of red flags.

Because Stop and Frisk would only take guns away form the scary minorities, leaving the nice white people and their guns safe and sound.

[/sarcasm]


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

Because Stop and Frisk would only take guns away form the scary minorities, leaving the nice white people and their guns safe and sound.

[/sarcasm]

I suspect a LOT of people would have an issue with 'Stop and Frisk' if it became the de facto approach to all encounters.

Why don't we have that, again?

Oh, right! The Constitution! Bill of Rights! Fourth Amendment!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Because Stop and Frisk would only take guns away form the scary minorities, leaving the nice white people and their guns safe and sound.

[/sarcasm]

I suspect a LOT of people would have an issue with 'Stop and Frisk' if it became the de facto approach to all encounters.

Why don't we have that, again?

Oh, right! The Constitution! Bill of Rights! Fourth Amendment!

But it only applies to urban thugs, so it's okay.

It's not like there's any racial coding in this whole rural/urban split, is there?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


It's not like there's any racial coding in this whole rural/urban split, is there?

Except, if we're going to Make America Great (again?) Aren't we already pretty great? then we need to be *completely* fair about this and *EVERYONE* must get federally fondled!

Not just the folks who are flying and don't like their bodies scanned. Not just the folks who are living in impoverished urban areas.
Not just the folks who may or may not have a different complexion than anyone else.

EVERYONE!

*coughs*

Wait, were we talking about the United States of America again, or some other place?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
TimD wrote:
ryric wrote:
Since there are people on this thread that clearly think the results of the most recent election are good, I'd like to hear their justification for that attitude.

Well, there's this.

To be fair, "good" is relative. "Less bad", is perhaps more accurate.
As a strong 2A proponent, I'm not sure why people are of the opinion that Trump is in any way a notable defender of the 2nd amendment. Putting the (R) after his name doesn't make it so. He even explicitly advocated for Stop and Frisk, which should be a red flag among a sea of red flags.

Straw man: I said "less bad" than Clinton for 2A. Did not say "notable defender". The "R" after his name doesn't particularly endear him to me, either. Unless your argument is that he's somehow WORSE than Clinton for 2A support? (which I'd find laughable as Clinton is pretty much the poster child for anti-2A, but would be interested in how you came to that conclusion on the chance I may have missed something).

351 to 400 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / To the Republic All Messageboards