• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

Did you bother to notice that is South Africa and not in the US?

Wait - Nelson Mandela wasn't President of the United States?!?! Are you sure??!?

Gosh - this is amazing. Nobody knew that. No one was ever aware of that fact.


HEY YA"LL! OTHER COUNTRIES, APPARENTLY, EXIST!

I KNOW - IT SHOCKED ME TO!​

And those other countries, like South Africa, like Mexico, like India, despite being poorer and facing far more severe issues with self-government than we do, somehow nonetheless manage to take the basic same step of security that you would require in order to write a check or enter a political rally for someone who is railing against ID's.

They don't have to pay for it.

Fun Fact - in the states that have instituted voter ID, you generally don't have to pay for those either :)

I wouldn't have a problem with a photo ID to vote if it was issued to voters free of charge and without effort when they registered to vote

Sadly, this is apparently not true, as that is, in fact, pretty much what we already have.

but when that ID card require extra effort to obtain when people are already registered voters it becomes just another attempt to make a poll tax or Jim Crow law.

.....No. Having to walk down the hallway to pick up an ID from the office next to the office where you registered is not Jim Crow, nor a poll tax.

And, furthermore, if you aren't even willing to pick up your ID, then, frankly, I'm just as glad that you aren't voting, as I doubt you are putting any more effort into paying attention to U.S. budget or foreign policy.
 
I pointed out that they were kept off the ballot in Senate races.

Your response was to argue with the strawman position that "they weren't allowed to run".

So, either it was a deliberate mistake, or you weren't reading very carefully. Which happens to us all. :)

That being said, your claim here is also incorrect. California did, in fact, alter it's law in such a way as to keep Republicans off the Senate ballot in that state. The 2018 Senate Election was between Dianne Feinstein (Democrat) and Kevin de Leon (Democrat). The 2016 Senate Election was between Kamala Harris (Democrat) and Loretta Sanchez (Democrat).

Now. Since ya'll are very concerned with changes by a dominant legal party designed to ensure they maintain political supremacy within the representation of a state, I'm sure ya'll are just furious about this, no?

No? :)

To be on the ballot is to run for office, and if they're allowed on the ballot they're running. You're creating a false distinction to avoid my actual argument. We have a similar system with a runoff in my city. Early voting is going on now for the primary. That won't keep republicans off the general election ballot, or keep them from running. They're running and have the same chance to end up in the final two general election ballot as all the Democrats running. There's a good chance both finalists will be Republicans for at least some races, and I expect a Republican to win the race for Mayor.

If you want to claim some 'right' for the top two in the general to be a Republican, that's fine. Make your case. But you know the format - top two go on to the general. It's too bad the GOP in CA is so pathetic they can't even get a guy into the runoff, but that's not because the law kept "Republicans" off the Senate ballot. It's because the GOP ran about 73 candidates and split the GOP vote in the primary. Maybe the GOP should get organized
 
Fun Fact - in the states that have instituted voter ID, you generally don't have to pay for those either :)

Sadly, this is apparently not true, as that is, in fact, pretty much what we already have.

.....No. Having to walk down the hallway to pick up an ID from the office next to the office where you registered is not Jim Crow, nor a poll tax.

And, furthermore, if you aren't even willing to pick up your ID, then, frankly, I'm just as glad that you aren't voting, as I doubt you are putting any more effort into paying attention to U.S. budget or foreign policy.

You're misrepresenting the known burdens for long time voters when new ID laws come online. Just for starters, choosing Texas as an example, about 600,000 registered voters needed a new ID next time they voted. Of course in Texas about 1/3 of counties had NO office that issued these supposedly free IDs that all people needed to do was walk down the hall to get. Not one place in the county issued an ID. 1/3 of counties. And of course Texas deliberately shorted the public information campaigns to notify the electorate of this change in decades-long practices, because they didn't want those folks to get ID and vote. We don't have to pretend differently. If that wasn't the intent, any state not run by absolute morons would do as you suggest and make it very, very easy to get ID in multiple locations in every county.

In Alabama, just after new voter ID laws were put into effect, the state closed a bunch of DMV offices, coincidentally in a bunch of poor counties that were disproportionately black. The feds investigated, said, yeah, there's a problem here, and AL backtracked. But that's the mindset we're dealing with here. Put in new laws requiring 200k or so poor people to get new ID, then make it HARD to get them by closing the offices where you can get them. Your BS about walking down the hall is either dishonest or ignorant.

Another problem is that most people have some form of "ID" but the red states who were trying to drive down voting by Democrats came up with very short lists that excluded many forms of ID held by the poor, non-drivers, such as SS cards, college IDs, benefit cards, even work IDs.

And frankly, you're debating about voter ID and didn't put the minimal effort into it to, say, read a case challenging the laws that in several cases were struck down. So you're ignorantly spouting off on voter ID while applauding people disenfranchised by voter ID laws because they are ignorant. Lack of self awareness is a strong suit of right wingers.

Finally, the basic problem the strict "voter ID" laws is no one can prove they serve any purpose but keeping Democrats who don't drive from voting. There's NO evidence impersonation fraud at the polls rises above the trivial, there's no evidence a long list of acceptable IDs doesn't adequately address that trivial risk, so there's no evidence that the laws solve any problem except for too many poor people voting, which is a big problem for Republicans, especially the urban poor. So to defend them we get BS like that above, that ignores all the real issues those laws present when enacted.
 
Last edited:
Re: Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Healâ€[emoji769] or face restructuring

To be on the ballot is to run for office, and if they're allowed on the ballot they're running. You're creating a false distinction to avoid my actual argument. We have a similar system with a runoff in my city. Early voting is going on now for the primary. That won't keep republicans off the general election ballot, or keep them from running. They're running and have the same chance to end up in the final two general election ballot as all the Democrats running. There's a good chance both finalists will be Republicans for at least some races, and I expect a Republican to win the race for Mayor.

If you want to claim some 'right' for the top two in the general to be a Republican, that's fine. Make your case. But you know the format - top two go on to the general. It's too bad the GOP in CA is so pathetic they can't even get a guy into the runoff, but that's not because the law kept "Republicans" off the Senate ballot. It's because the GOP ran about 73 candidates and split the GOP vote in the primary. Maybe the GOP should get organized

Oh, cool, I can do this too.

"It's too bad Democrats are so pathetic they can't win in gerrymandered districts, but those districts are the system the State has set up, and that's the law. Maybe they should get organized".
 
Re: Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Healâ€[emoji769] or face restructuring

Oh, cool, I can do this too.

"It's too bad Democrats are so pathetic they can't win in gerrymandered districts, but those districts are the system the State has set up, and that's the law. Maybe they should get organized".

You can ignore the point because you can't defend it, so move the goal posts to a new argument? Yes, you can!! For the record, your claim was on Senate races, and gerrymandering doesn't impact them because they're statewide races. So you can't even move the goal posts without failing.

Back on topic, and what you keep ignoring - why does a "top two" format disadvantage the GOP?

Short answer is it doesn't, which is why you keep ignoring that point and instead act like a Trump cultist making bad faith arguments instead of addressing that simple point.
 
Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring | Fox News





Radicals ought to be ashamed of themselves as this is absolutely radical behavior over losing an election. Radical liberalism gone crazy
Radicals are only radicals until they win.

The SCOTUS has been wrong on multiple decisions recently, chief among them the decisions that allowed the outsized influence of big money to even further purchase our political decision process and push it ever further from what the voters demand.

I'm not sure if we'll reverse that in time to fend off climate change, but we have no choice but to try.
 
Re: Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Healâ€[emoji769] or face restructuring

You can ignore the point because you can't defend it, so move the goal posts to a new argument? Yes, you can!! For the record, your claim was on Senate races, and gerrymandering doesn't impact them because they're statewide races. So you can't even move the goal posts without failing.

:) I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the conversation you were inserting yourself into before you responded?
 
Re: Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Healâ€[emoji769] or face restructuring

:) I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the conversation you were inserting yourself into before you responded?

Why does that matter. I responded to a specific claim and it appears since you can't defend it you've abandoned it. Let's try this again:

"Back on topic, and what you keep ignoring - why does a "top two" format disadvantage the GOP?

Short answer is it doesn't, which is why you keep ignoring that point and instead act like a Trump cultist making bad faith arguments instead of addressing that simple point."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom