Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 4:40 AM
120 online now:
PaulK, Son Goku (2 members, 118 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,280 Year: 15,103/29,783 Month: 1,047/1,502 Week: 45/492 Day: 8/37 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
155156
157
158159
...
170NextFF
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6513
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(3)
Message 2341 of 2540 (837536)
08-04-2018 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2339 by NoNukes
08-04-2018 5:25 PM


Re: say what?
Sorry for the confusion. My intended point is that a driver's license is not proof of citizenship, yet people insist that presenting an ID like a driver's license will prevent non-citizens from voting.

Maybe some of these people live in states that do put citizenship status on their driver's licenses, but I bet the majority of citizens don't (although the REAL ID Act at least requires that driver's licenses issued to non-documented persons be distinguishable from REAL compliant IDs).

Considering the effort I had to go through and the documentation I already needed to possess to obtain my state's ID, I can see how an ID requirement would suppress voter registration and turn out.

And remember, my ID wouldn't even prevent non-citizen voter fraud to begin with.

And voter fraud isn't even a problem, besides.



Oh, God! Pride of Man, broken in the dust again! -- Quicksilver Messenger Service

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2339 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 5:25 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2343 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 6:12 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6513
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 2342 of 2540 (837538)
08-04-2018 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2336 by Hyroglyphx
08-04-2018 3:57 PM


A summary of my feelings
As it stands in the US, however, you can't ever vote again.

Only in some states. Some states allow you to vote after your sentence has expired; others after you leave prison even if you're still on parole or probation. Vermont and Maine allow you to vote even if you are in prison.

But at any rate, it appears that there is something we agree on. At least partially.

-

I mean, am I really being so unreasonable?

Well, in my opinion, this is a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." There isn't a voting fraud problem in this country, at least not now. Maybe I'll change my mind if it starts becoming a problem.

On the other hand, it has been established that ID requirements reduce voting participation. Regardless how easy one may think it is to get an ID, I think that by itself is a bad thing.

Me, I feel that voting is a fundamental right. That means it is appropriate to apply a "strict scrutiny" standard (note: I'm not speaking as a lawyer here, just a citizen explaining my personal philosophy - don't read too much into my use of the phrase "strict scrutiny"), That is, if requiring an ID for voting infringes a person's rights - and to me, reducing voter participation is evidence all by itself that the right is being infringed - then the state must show that (1) there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and (2) that requiring an ID to vote is the least restrictive means of resolving that problem.

-

That's my opinion, of course. The whole point is that requiring an ID creates a problem. Meanwhile, there is no other problem that is being solved.

As I said, if there actually were signs that fraud at the polling station was becoming a problem, then we can discuss ways to resolve it. And perhaps requiring an ID would be one possible solution out of several that can be compared and discussed.



Oh, God! Pride of Man, broken in the dust again! -- Quicksilver Messenger Service

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2336 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-04-2018 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 2343 of 2540 (837539)
08-04-2018 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2341 by Chiroptera
08-04-2018 5:51 PM


Re: say what?
And voter fraud isn't even a problem, besides.

No, it is not. The real problem is that brown people don't vote for Republicans in large numbers. So there is a fear that any illegal voting or even legal former immigrant voting will go to Democrats. The fear is there even if actual fraudulent voting is not a problem. That fear by Republicans is attributed to Democrats as some malicious intent.

There is nothing more democratic (with a small 'd') than a voting drive to get a bunch of disaffected, currently non-voting, people registered to vote. How do you do that? Well, one way in my state is to go to college campuses and disaffected areas and make efforts to get people registered. What Republicans really want is to force all of those folks to make an unnecessary trip to the DMV or to some county registration office before they can vote. They don't want it to be something you can do online. They don't want college students voting. How do we know this is not just me making up stories about Republicans the way Hyro makes up stories about Democrats? We know because the Republicans tell us their intentions publicly.

https://www.motherjones.com/...t-think-voting-should-be-easy

quote:

“If you’re too sorry or lazy to get up off of your rear and to go register to vote, or to register electronically, and then to go vote, then you don’t deserve that privilege,” Republican John Merrill said in an interview with documentary filmmaker Brian Jenkins. Jenkins had asked why he opposed automatically registering Alabamians when they reach voting age, and his response sizzled with anger toward people who “think they deserve the right because they’ve turned 18.” So he made a pledge: “As long as I’m secretary of state of Alabama, you’re going to have to show some initiative to become a registered voter in this state.”

https://www.nytimes.com/...that-eases-vote-registration.html

quote:
But the Republicans were incensed by the Democrats' zeal to register the jobless and welfare recipients, who would have been added to the voter rolls more or less automatically in the original bill. And the Republicans were equally dismayed by the Democrats' omission, at first, of any plan to register members of the military.

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqa...

quote:
In addition to their concerns about costs and fraud, critics of the bill argued that the existing registration process was not complicated and that making it too easy to register might dilute the quality of the national electorate by including more people who knew little about the issues or the candidates.

In my opinion, there is a clear high road in this debate. Encouraging citizen participation is the high road and blocking both citizen participation and naturalization out of fear of how folks might vote is clearly the low road. I don't give a crap if the two opposing goals are partisan, the path of disenfranchising voters is clearly the non-democratic path.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2341 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2018 5:51 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2344 by jar, posted 08-04-2018 7:08 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 2345 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2018 7:21 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 2344 of 2540 (837540)
08-04-2018 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2343 by NoNukes
08-04-2018 6:12 PM


Re: say what?
NoNukes writes:

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqa...

quote:
In addition to their concerns about costs and fraud, critics of the bill argued that the existing registration process was not complicated and that making it too easy to register might dilute the quality of the national electorate by including more people who knew little about the issues or the candidates.

In my opinion, there is a clear high road in this debate. Encouraging citizen participation is the high road and blocking both citizen participation and naturalization out of fear of how folks might vote is clearly the low road. I don't give a crap if the two opposing goals are partisan, the path of disenfranchising voters is clearly the non-democratic path.

I agree we should not dilute the quality of the national electorate by including more people who knew little about the issues or the candidates and so maybe a reasonable condition to register to vote would be to have the prospective take the same tests that immigrants take to become citizens with the same requirements to pass.

Certainly any natural born voter should be as informed and knowledgeable about democracy and the Republic as them damn brown furrners.

Edited by jar, : applain spallin


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2343 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 6:12 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2346 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 7:50 PM jar has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6513
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 2345 of 2540 (837541)
08-04-2018 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2343 by NoNukes
08-04-2018 6:12 PM


Re: say what?
...making it too easy to register might dilute the quality of the national electorate by including more people who knew little about the issues or the candidates.

That's pretty funny, coming from people who would never be elected by an electorate that understood the issues.

-

...then you don’t deserve that privilege....

This is a guy who doesn't understand the concept.

Voting isn't a privilege you need to earn; it's a right that you have.



Oh, God! Pride of Man, broken in the dust again! -- Quicksilver Messenger Service

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2343 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 6:12 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 2346 of 2540 (837542)
08-04-2018 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2344 by jar
08-04-2018 7:08 PM


Re: say what?
I agree we should not dilute the quality of the national electorate by including more people who knew little about the issues or the candidates and so maybe a reasonable condition to register to vote would be to have the prospective take the same tests that immigrants take to become citizens with the same requirements to pass.

Uh, no. I don't trust anyone to hold that kind of power. We have plenty of historical evidence about how tests to allow people to vote will work out. There is no reason that even folks who cannot read and write, or who speak poor English, cannot become informed about the issues, but tests of the nature you propose will weed those folks out unnecessarily unless extreme care is taken.

No thank you.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2344 by jar, posted 08-04-2018 7:08 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2347 by jar, posted 08-04-2018 8:31 PM NoNukes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 2347 of 2540 (837544)
08-04-2018 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2346 by NoNukes
08-04-2018 7:50 PM


Re: say what?
But wait, there's more.

If you have ever looked at the test that immigrants take to become citizens you would realize that it would mean probably 90% of the US citizenry will become ineligible to vote.

The quality of the national electorate will then be assured.

Think of the time saved when only a few tens thousand votes need be counted, almost all from recently immigrated naturalized citizens.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2346 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 7:50 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2348 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 9:42 PM jar has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2348 of 2540 (837545)
08-04-2018 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 2347 by jar
08-04-2018 8:31 PM


Re: say what?
If you have ever looked at the test that immigrants take to become citizens you would realize that it would mean probably 90% of the US citizenry will become ineligible to vote.

I believe that the test results would be manipulated by whoever is in power. I get the joke, but I ain't laughing.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2347 by jar, posted 08-04-2018 8:31 PM jar has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1502
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2349 of 2540 (837547)
08-05-2018 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 2322 by Chiroptera
08-04-2018 9:44 AM


Re: Expand the franchise!
Just as a point of fact, all the European democracies, as far as I know, allow people convicted of felonies to vote once they've completed their sentences.

Those three countries in particular allow people to vote while they're in prison serving their sentences. (Well, actually, I'm not sure about the Netherlands; my quick internet search was giving me conflicting information.)

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that it is not permissible to disenfranchise people just because they've committed a crime - temporary disenfranchisement while serving a prison sentence included.

It's not quite absolute - you can take away the vote as a punishment for specific crimes where it's proportionate and relevant (in the case of someone being convicted of electoral fraud, for example; or participating in a coup to overthrow the democratic order), but not simply because someone's in prison for any old crime.

There's not a lot the ECHR can do to enforce it's rulings, though, so the various states like the UK, Bulgaria and Austria that it's ruled against on this issue just carry on as before.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2322 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2018 9:44 AM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17734
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 2350 of 2540 (837548)
08-05-2018 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2334 by Hyroglyphx
08-04-2018 3:32 PM


Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
Hyroglyphyx writes:

I said "proof of citizenship" and you replied about ID - they're not the same thing.

In most states, a requirement to obtain a driver's license is proof of citizenship.

You didn't say driver's license, you just said ID. If you're talking about driver's licenses then I guess it is possible proof of citizenship - it depends on when and where the person obtained their first license. Where I lived when I got my first license they didn't ask for a birth certificate. Each time I moved to another state I only had to show my old driver's license and provide proof of residency.

You're asking how do we prevent voter fraud without accountability? Like laws to punish those who commit voter fraud? Don't such laws already exist?

I'm saying how else are you going to know who is or isn't a legal citizen without identifying who in the fuck you actually are?

So by accountability you didn't mean holding people accountable, you meant accounting for who people really are.

How else are you going to ensure someone hasn't voted multiple times?

You know someone hasn't voted multiple times because their name is crossed off before they're handed a ballot at the polling station. We use old fashioned paper and pencil balloting here, I'm sure there are more sophisticated approaches elsewhere.

How else are you going to know if the person voting is the actual person and not a friend or a family member?

Up until the most recent election our state did not require IDs at polling stations and it was never a problem. Now they require IDs and it slows things down and they have the certainty you seem to think so important, but they've solved a problem that if it existed it was only just barely.

A signed affidavit? Thanks. About as helpful as a pinky-promise.

And yet it worked.

Well, major cities are too big to know one person from the next. But here you are explaining NH's policies which sound even more restrictive than what I'm proposing. So what are you even arguing about?

Why would you assume that just because I live here that I must agree with all the laws here? Our state motto is "Live free or die", but they may as well change it to "Freedom? Oh, it died." Earlier this year they passed a citizenship requirement that will make it so that newly issued driver's licenses will be proof of citizenship.

Just informationally, at my last driver's license renewal I got the REAL ID version because it makes travel to Canada and Mexico easier, but the application process requires a birth certificate, making the REAL ID also proof of citizenship, unlike my prior license.

Presumably one could present one's driver's license and vote as oneself, then return a few hours later and vote as one's deceased father (or mother if you're female) by showing their driver's license (expired ID's are fine if you're over 65), and just hope the same clerk isn't still there and recognizes you.

Hence the necessity of showing your i.d., scanning the friggin barcode on the back that is uniquely assigned to just you.

Since relatives voting for other deceased relatives isn't really a problem, why do you think this necessary? Why are you so hot on solving problems that don't exist or that barely exist.

I feel like you're unnecessarily complicating things to obfuscate how simple... and reasonable... checking someone's i.d. is.

The conservative in me objects to the infringements upon freedom and the complicating of procedures and requirements associated with what is in essence, though managed by the states, a national ID system. We didn't used to need it and got along fine.

You just agreed that there's no evidence of voter fraud by illegal immigrants. How could the DNC be pandering to illegal immigrants for votes when there's no evidence of voter fraud by illegal immigrants?

I'm saying Democrats heavily favor all things revolving around immigrants (legal or otherwise).

Ours is a nation built of and by immigrants, including you. Immigrants make us stronger, and people fleeing danger need our help, not our antagonism. What have these facts and issues to do with political affiliation?

There is an obvious incentive that you're pretending doesn't exist.

It takes at least five years for an immigrant to become a citizen, and all political parties can canvas for immigrant votes.

Are there any other political parties that pander for votes to their base. Does this look familiar?

Yeah, of course Republicans pander to their base...

Doesn't look pretty, does it, Trump up there on the stage telling lie after lie and the rubes cheering him on. Unaffiliated as I am with any political party, it doesn't look pretty to me when any party does it. What Trump just did in Ohio and Pennsylvania and the previous week in Florida is pandering to his base. His attitude, and also the presumed attitude of his cheering supportors, is "Make illegal immigrants suffer. It will serve as punishment for challenging our sovereign borders and as a deterrent to future illegal immigration. If children get hurt in the process then that's just too bad. If we deport people back to their home country that the fled from and they get killed then that's just too bad." Here are some of their stories:

Those who oppose ill treatment of illegal immigrants are not pandering - they're exhibiting simple human compassion for those fleeing danger, and in the greatest tradition of the United States trying to provide a welcome haven of safety, security and prosperity in which they can raise their families and flourish.

...the issue is only relevant in the given context. The discussion is identifying yourself at a polling station and the reasons why. My only reason in mentioning Democrats and immigrants is to demonstrate the incentive that.

Didn't get this, the last sentence looks incomplete.

There can be do doubt that those least able to provide documentary evidence of citizenship are the poor and minorities. Voter ID laws that include a proof of citizenship have already been struck down in several states across the country.

The process to register to vote is far more complicated than obtaining a license, Percy. Stop acting like poor people are too dumb or just too marginalized to get something like an i.d.

Denying reality won't make it go away. That is the position that some people are in, and they will be the ones disenfranchised by increasingly strict voter ID laws.

Second, meaningful evidence is accumulating that voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor and minorities the most, for example Voter ID Laws Really Do Discriminate.

How does it disenfranchise poor and minorities to get an i.d? Ridiculous!

Read the link a couple lines above that you obviously ignored. It describes how scientific analysis enabled them to conclude that neither Democrats or Republicans are making numerically accurate claims about the impact of voter ID laws, the former too high, the latter too low. You can get the numbers from the link, but here's the part of thier conclusion that states that blacks are less likely to have adequate ID:

quote:
Using this tool, the researchers confirmed what voting rights advocates already know to be true—that black voters are more likely to lack adequate identification under voter ID laws.

20-25% of the entire U.S. population is on some form of government assistance program.

It's much greater than that. The 20-25% figure is for welfare programs. Around another 20% receive social security, and that number will be growing as the country ages. Around another 20% receive Medicaid. How that adds up is complicated since obviously its possible to receive aid from more than one source. Clearly 60% of the country is not on assistance.

But however high the number is, it *is* high, and immigration would help mitigate that problem by bringing in needed young labor and tax revenue.

ALL of them are required to show proof of citizenship, proof of who they really are, proof of income, proof of address, etc... they already have i.d. in order to obtain those benefits... so this weak argument that it's just too hard for the poor is a complete fabrication. The "just blame everything on racism/classism" argument isn't a catch-all.

As I already told you, ID requirements for welfare recipients are flexible. Not non-existent, but flexible. This is from Is a photo ID required when applying for welfare, including food stamps?:

quote:
You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card.

Ami would have received different answers from the black people in this video

If they're on food stamps, Section 8 housing, HUD, TANF, WIC, they already have i.d.

Earlier you were using ID synonymously with driver's license, which these days is a photo ID that can also be proof of citizenship, but that's not the kind of ID the programs you list would necessarily use, is it. For the poor, the indigent, the homeless, the mentally ill, etc., expecting them to have and to be able to maintain possession of a photo ID is not always reasonable. Allowances have to be made, else all you're doing is providing convenient excuses for your conscience for reducing the roles of aid recipients who need it.

You should probably stop saying "i.d." or "ID". Earlier you said that to you an ID is a photo ID drivers license that is proof of citizenship, so when that's what you're talking about you should be clear about it. Just an ID could be any number of things, and a driver's license is only one of them.

See, there's an incentive for obtaining it, and they did, in order to obtain said incentive. One immutable fact about human beings; you can move mountains when money is on the line.

Ah, I see. Your attitude is that the money's there, and if they can't muster the resources and gumption to come get it then it's just tough patooties for them. Let them remain poor or destitute or prideful or mentally ill or handicapped or elderly or homeless or just tired of being pushed around, you've done all you can for them and your conscience is clear.

Looking this stuff up, SSI is for blind and disabled adults and poor children. Welfare is for poor adults and families living at or below 200% of the poverty level (deemed low income) or at or below 100% of the poverty level (poverty stricken). Welfare doesn't require a photo ID, they seem to be fairly flexible with regard to IDs.

https://nlsa.us/...ues/tips-on-applying-for-welfare-benefits

Did you read your own link? If there's something in it that would constitute a relevant response to what I said you're going to have to point me to it. Relevant to something I said earlier they do suggest some types of acceptable ID, and one of them's a library card.

So let's imagine you're working poor. You have no Internet, no car, no cell phone. You walk to work or hitch a ride or take public transportation. You never had a birth certificate. Imagine the effort it would take to qualify to vote according to the recently overturned Kansas voter ID law.

Yeah, that's why public libraries and public transportation and the welfare system in general exists...

These exist in some places and not others. Some people have access to them and not others.

But these people just have to get out to vote, right?

This sarcasm sounds like a pretty clear statement that you don't care about the impact of ID requirements on a person's ability to vote. But I guess we already knew that.

You're painting such a false narrative.

And yet you were unable to point to anything actually false. All you could do is use the word false in a sentence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2334 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-04-2018 3:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2361 by caffeine, posted 08-06-2018 11:58 AM Percy has responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 943
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2351 of 2540 (837554)
08-05-2018 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2306 by Percy
08-03-2018 7:09 AM


Re: Is the Trump lying getting worse?
Yesterday in Washington National Security Adviser John Bolton said Trump was driving his security team to repel Russian attacks on our elections:

At the same time Trump was at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania calling Russian election meddling a hoax:

So which is it? Are we taking Russian election meddling seriously, or do we consider that it ever happened a hoax?
Somebody's lying.

There are 2 divisions of Russian meddling accusations. One is true, the other false. No one, (Trump or Bolton) are lying.

https://www.cnbc.com/...ian-meddling-aimed-to-divide-us.html

The "divide America" one is true. Since the arrival of the www, Russia meddles in just about everything. the "Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election costing Hillary the presidency" is the false one, the hoax.

I saw a pretty well made vid on Facebook a week or two ago that detailed how a whole network of Russians infiltrate U.S. social media with the sole intent to sow discord and cause division in U.S. citizenry. Russian students are required to learn the English language in their schools, and the ones with an interest in pretending to be an American can be practically impossible to tell from a real U.S. citizen. They're going to post just like liberal socialists because that's exactly what they are. I've little doubt that some of them are right here on EvC.

P.S. NoNukes, I didn't mark where the vid was that I saw, but the above link describes what it was about. I'm sure that will be good enough for you. (Unless you're a Russian)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2306 by Percy, posted 08-03-2018 7:09 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2355 by Percy, posted 08-05-2018 7:05 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 943
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2352 of 2540 (837555)
08-05-2018 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2292 by Percy
08-01-2018 10:00 PM


Re: About the value-added of immigrants
For the third time in four years the US has won the International Mathematical Olympiad in which teams of high schoolers from countries around the world compete. Many of the team members are second and third generation immigrants.

Central and South American immigrants, or European and Asian? It would be important to distinguish between the two, when we're focusing on our southern border security.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2292 by Percy, posted 08-01-2018 10:00 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2356 by Percy, posted 08-05-2018 7:13 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 943
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2353 of 2540 (837557)
08-05-2018 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2304 by Taq
08-02-2018 3:52 PM


Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
The purpose of voter ID laws is not to keep illegals from voting, but to keep American citizens from voting. Specifically, to keep minority citizens from voting.

So voter ID will freely allow illegals to vote, but won't let minority U.S. citizens to vote? I LOVE this place! Are you a Russian?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2304 by Taq, posted 08-02-2018 3:52 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 943
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2354 of 2540 (837558)
08-05-2018 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2305 by ringo
08-02-2018 4:17 PM


Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
My question is: Why don't you want them to vote? Are you afraid of what they might vote for?

Yes! Free stuff for themselves.

Fair treatment, maybe? The kind of things your government is sworn to uphold?

Can't find "fair treatment" in the Constitution for anyone, including illegals of course. Where do you find it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2305 by ringo, posted 08-02-2018 4:17 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2362 by ringo, posted 08-06-2018 12:18 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17734
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2355 of 2540 (837561)
08-05-2018 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2351 by marc9000
08-05-2018 4:47 PM


Re: Is the Trump lying getting worse?
marc9000 writes:

Percy writes:

Somebody's lying.

There are 2 divisions of Russian meddling accusations. One is true, the other false. No one, (Trump or Bolton) are lying.

The answer was obvious. Trump was lying. There was definitely Russian meddling in the 2016 election. There is no hoax.

I've little doubt that some of them are right here on EvC.

Could be. So who here is a supporter of a Russian sympathizer?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2351 by marc9000, posted 08-05-2018 4:47 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
155156
157
158159
...
170NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018