View Single Post
Old 09-04-2019, 06:28 AM
Genesis Genesis is offline

Guru of Gilneas
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 13,277


Originally Posted by Ganishka View Post
So, a bunch of Democrat "investigators" dismissed the fact that a thousand felons voted illegally in the election? Then, there's the fact that 177 felons were convicted of illegally voting in the Franken-Coleman race.
I never said that the investigators were Democrats. The point is that not a thousand felons voted illegally in the election as per the report from the watchdog group. It was substantially smaller than the accusation. (Not sure where you got the 177 number from. Mind providing a source for that?) But saying that 177 felons voted illegally does not somehow mean that 177 felons illegally voted for Franken. This is again a gap in your argumentation that you fail to address.

And there's no actual "facts" to back up your claims of some great racist conspiracy against brown people to prevent them from voting. Unless you are willing to accuse vast swathes of "POCs" for being too stupid to know how to get proper identification to be eligible to vote.
I have already linked earlier to a public admission in court from 2018 by NC Republicans about targeting the voting methods that blacks in the state often used. You are of course free to ignore that public testimony, though that would be of your own willful stupidity.

Wrong. What it proves is that there is no "racism" at all.
So racism does not exist because if racism was a thing then he would not be on the ballot (of the Democratic Party)? That's like saying that there is not an opioid crisis, because if there was then everyone would be an opioid addict. It is logic that is almost too stupid beyond words or believe that any person who professes values of rationality, facts, and reason would earnestly believe, but here we are, and now we all have the great pleasure of hearing that "racism" cannot be a real thing because Obama was elected president.

Clerical errors need to be eradicated merely because they damage trust in the integrity of voting, which is essential to a Republic.
Considering that these clerical errors surface due to issues such as electoral boards being understaffed, lacking insufficient funds, and the like, it would of course require a bigger government to properly address these issues.

Oh, and you keep linking that Desmoines Register story,

I have linked it once and only once.

Well, there's this.

I know it's not Federal, but it's a start. Start with the local politicians, and advance up.
The example given regarding such local elections were school boards:
But Republicans had hoped to send a message to localities such as San Francisco, where noncitizens are now allowed to vote in school board elections.
Even if one were not a legal citizen (yet), I imagine that non-citizens living in an area may have an invested interest in who sits on the school board or other local elections. I don't think that it's unreasonable for residents to vote for local issues like this. I proudly remain a US citizen, but I wish that I could at least vote for local issues here in Vienna that impact my day-to-day life here as a legal, working resident.

Those are legal immigrants, though. They are often very fastidious with being patriotic and trying to do things the right way, almost always more so then even natural-born citizens.
You had said including legal immigrants though.

I never stated that.
We were talking about illegal immigrants voting, and you compared it to Julius Caesar putting loyalists in the Senate. You may not have stated that, but I am not sure how it would be equivalent unless Congress was being expanded with illegal citizens. But maybe you just learned a thing from those videos and wanted to regurgitate some Rome trivia without context or asking whether it was a parallel to the situation at all.

Not really.

Left-wing policies lead to no one arresting the homeless people, and to letting Heroine and Meth use become tolerated. That leads to trash, feces, and drug needles littering the streets. The Left-wing high tax policies lead to housing and rent being too expensive for most people to pay for, people not being able to afford rent/housing leads to them becoming homeless, the more homelessness, the more drugs and feces on the streets.

You can see this exact same thing in every Left-wing enclave on the west coast or the east coast: repulsive amounts of crime and degredation, not being cleaned up because it would be "Fascist" or "intolerant" to clean up the bums and drugs.
If you honestly think that San Francisco is friendly to the homeless, I don't think we have anywhere close to the same experiences of the city. I also don't really think that you are diagnosing the actual issues well. You're just pointing to boogeyman of "high taxes," but has been more an issue of price control for housing and rent. These are things that allow housing retailers (hardly the lefty types) to drive up the prices for housing, because there is a demand (i.e., Silicon Valley "new money") that is willing to drive up the price. This pushes a lot of the property value up in the area. You are also ignoring that, on the whole, there has been a tremendous amount of growth in the population in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area as more people have moved there as a result of the tech boom starting the in '70s and '80s. It's far less about leftism and more about people gravitating towards affluent areas for opportunities, and state policies that have failed to care about it until the point that it became "Ugh! Homeless people in my city. Where did all these homeless people come from?"

It's not as if we can just blame "leftist" California either. Over half of its governors for the past forty some odd years have been Republicans. The widening of the housing costs of California against the national average began in the late '60s and early '70s. Who was California's governor then? Far leftist icon Ronald Reagan of course. Then there was Democrat Jerry Brown between '75 to '83, but he was followed by two Republican governors: George Deukmejian ('83-'91) and Pete Wilson ('91-'99), who was governor during California's housing crisis of the '90s. A one term Democrat: Gray Davis ('99-'03), who was recalled, paving the way for two term Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger ('03-'11). Since '11 there have been two Democratic governors: Jerry Brown (again, '11-'19) and Gavin Newsome ('19-present). If you want to blame the policies of the recent Democratic governors, that's far from accurate given how the California housing crisis was also an issue of the '90s. Blame the Republican's predecessor in the '80s? Wait, he was a Republican. For the past 40 years, California has voted in more Republican governors than Democratic ones.

Let me provide a point of contrast. I live in Vienna, Austria. I wager that the city is further left of San Francisco, apart from its love of smoking. Should I expect there to be a greater homeless problem here? From your rationale, yes. But it's the opposite. There is far less of one. This is not to say that there are no homeless, but it's a different attitude and there are different policies. One of the biggest ones are policies surrounding rent control and affordable housing in the city. There are also higher taxes as well. There are a lot of programs to help the homeless as well. There is a periodical that the homeless sell on the streets. (Every Viennese person I know has their preferred "Augustine dealer.") There are even clinics and hospitals that will test how clean illegal drugs brought to them are and provide people with clean needles. The logic being that while they are illegal, they would prefer that it's done in a manner that does not cause further medical problems. Despite this sort of openness, Vienna is not littered in needles. (Vienna has had Socialist mayors since 1945, with Michael Häupl serving from '94 to '18.)

Meh. You could stop it, and it would indeed help Democrats. They would pick up around 17 or so House seats with it gone. But that wouldn't be nearly enough to save the party from it's Progressive suicide. It's more that it wouldn't really matter if it was removed or not.
So you are admitting that gerrymandering is real that is unfairly and disproportionately favoring Republicans? That's a step.

Yes. I've been watching these:
They're fun videos. Yet for someone who loves history, it amazes me how you can be so eager to turn a blind eye to American history and its rampant racism even post-slavery and post-Civil Rights Act. It's not as if there is a shortage of YouTube videos that actually explain this using cited sources.

Neither of those are "white nationalists" or "white supremacists" (at least no to my limited knowledge of them,
Stefan Molyneux regularly hosts and promotes white supremacists on his channels. He regularly promotes white supremacist and white nationalist talking points on his own accord. He claimed to be an "empiricist," and not a "white nationalist," but then after a trip to Poland where he glorified how the whiteness of the area made him feel safe, the self-professed "empiricist" claims to at least be receptive to listening to "white nationalists." That is Grade A double-speak. He has also identified as a "race realist," which is dog-whistle code for "white supremacist."

Black Pigeon is also a "race realist" member of the alt-right who advocated in nation-wide segregation in the US based on marginal differences in IQ scores in white Americans and black Americans as well as promoting Jewish conspiracies regarding banking and globalism.

I usually watch Sargon of Akkad
...who is a certified racist, misogynistic dumbass and an utter joke who claims that he is a "moderate" but circulates alt-right, far right, and white supremacist talking points, such as circulating Unite the Right manufactured conspiracy theories about how the Charlottesville victim dying of a heart attack and not by being hit from a freaking car that was crashing into her. Oh, and showing up on utter nutjob, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones's show? Not a good look for a "moderate rationalist."

I'm surprised that he is still being circulated with any earnest sincerity. Carl is part of UKIP, a party that was deemed so open to courting racists, xenophobes, Nazis, and white supremacists (e.g., Tommy Robinson, Mark Meechan, etc.) that even Nigel Farage left the party. It's not as if he doesn't have an alternative for an Independent UK, since there is the current leadership of the Tories and Nigel Farage started the Brexit party that is out-performing UKIP. Carl may claim to be moderate and hate the alt-right, but what he says sure attracts a lot of them as part of his core audience.

Last edited by Genesis; 09-15-2019 at 09:12 AM..
Reply With Quote