difference between the parties

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So how long do we have to do this -1 day, 2 days, 3 days? And then when we are done, how long until something else gets you angry and you start the same thing again?

"again discuss how the GOP is constantly trying to impose rules on voting (that aren't in the const.) that harm minorities? "

Yes, let's. Every single time this comes up, some people ask why the requirement of getting id cards, is more burdensome for anyone based on the color of their skin. And every time that question is asked, there is no response. Because unless the fee is higher for blacks, or blacks have to climb stairs to get to the right office while whites can take the elevator, it's not even close to being racist. There may be cultural forces that determine who is more likely to jump through the hoops to get an id, but it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

"trying to provide a floor of help for someone is holding them down"

Incorrect. Everyone agrees that a safety net is a good thing. Democrats want to go further, they want to make huge numbers of blacks permanently dependent on welfare, so they will keep voting for whoever will give them that welfare. Paul, this is no longer abstract theory or speculation...there is empirical, observable evidence to make my case. You can't solve poverty (on a large scale) by giving money to poor people. Because a lack of money isn't the cause of poverty for many, it's the effect. The cause of their poverty, is often poor decision-making, or destructive personal habits, and if there's one thing we know for certain, it is this - you cannot cure that by giving someone $500 a month. We have been trying that for 50 years, and all it does is make things worse. Similarly, you don't help a drug addict by giving him cash.

"you ducked the question by stating it is the same reason the communists supported the Dems"

No, I answered the question spot on, by pointing to the fact that communists support Hilary. Obviously, there is an assumption in this country (incorrect, based on the facts) that the Democrats care about blacks, and that the GOP is racist. Most media outlets re-state this constantly, so no surprise that some thoughtless morons (like those in the KKK) would start to believe it. That doesn't make it true.

The KKK supporting Trump doesn't mean he's more racist, any more than Black Lives Matter's support of Democrats, means that Dems want to murder police officers. You cannot judge a huge political group by the actions of the lunatic fringe of either party. If Trump invites the head of the Klan to the Oval Office 70 times like Obama invited Sharpton, then I will be the first to comment that you are right, that Trump is a white supremacist. He hasn't gone down that road yet. Obama has. BIG difference.

"Obama met with him bc he speaks for a large black pop"

Agreed. But that's BAD for blacks, Paul. Blacks need to learn that he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. By inviting him to the Oval Office every month, it legitimizes the disgusting bile that Sharpton spews. The reason why blacks turn to to Sharpton, is because your party, and the media in their control, tell blacks that Sharpton is right when he blames everything on whitey. That hurts blacks in the long run, it increases the racial divide, but it helps democrats at the voting booth, and that's all they care about.

"a compassionate country should have - like food stamps for poor or preschool funding, etc"

Again, you can go too far with the amount of welfare you give someone. At some point, you rob them of their ability to stand on their own two feet. Despite what you clearly believe, liberals don't have a monopoly on compassion. I have posted repeatedly, the study called Who Really Cares, which de-bunks that myth. But Democrats keep saying it, and the media keeps saying it, so people like you start to believe it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"again discuss how the GOP is constantly trying to impose rules on voting (that aren't in the const.) that harm minorities? "

Yes, let's. Every single time this comes up, some people ask why the requirement of getting id cards, is more burdensome for anyone based on the color of their skin. no, I have answered the question a few times (the whole surgical precision thing)- so here we go again.

From an article I just found -
The court wrote that various provisions of North Carolina's law "target African Americans with almost surgical precision,"
The [original] version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs, even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to DMV-issued photo IDs....With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.

....Legislators also requested data as to the racial breakdown of early voting usage....The racial data provided to the legislators revealed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting in both 2008 and 2012....After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting.

....Legislators similarly requested data as to the racial makeup of same-day registrants....SL 2013-381 eliminated same-day registration....Legislators additionally requested a racial breakdown of provisional voting....With SL 2013-381, the General Assembly altogether eliminated out-of-precinct voting....African Americans also disproportionately used preregistration.... Although preregistration increased turnout among young adult voters, SL 2013-381 eliminated it.

....As “evidence of justifications” for the changes to early voting, the State offered purported inconsistencies in voting hours across counties, including the fact that only some counties had decided to offer Sunday voting. The State then elaborated on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”

It's not just that every provision coincidentally happens to affect blacks disproportionately. In at least a couple of cases, provisions were added only after the legislature had racial breakdowns in hand so they could make sure they weren't accidentally targeting whites too.
And every time that question is asked, there is no response. not true, we have discussed it a few times. Because unless the fee is higher for blacks, or blacks have to climb stairs to get to the right office while whites can take the elevator, it's not even close to being racist. There may be cultural forces that determine who is more likely to jump through the hoops to get an id, but it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

"trying to provide a floor of help for someone is holding them down"

Incorrect. Everyone agrees that a safety net is a good thing. Democrats want to go further, they want to make huge numbers of blacks permanently dependent on welfare, So I guess you thing blacks aren't smart enough to recognize what the Dems are doing?so they will keep voting for whoever will give them that welfare. Paul, this is no longer abstract theory or speculation...there is empirical, observable evidence to make my case. You can't solve poverty (on a large scale) by giving money to poor people. Because a lack of money isn't the cause of poverty for many, it's the effect. The cause of their poverty, is often poor decision-making, or destructive personal habits, and if there's one thing we know for certain, it is this - you cannot cure that by giving someone $500 a month. We have been trying that for 50 years, and all it does is make things worse. Similarly, you don't help a drug addict by giving him cash.

"you ducked the question by stating it is the same reason the communists supported the Dems"

No, I answered the question spot on, by pointing to the fact that communists support Hilary. Obviously, there is an assumption in this country (incorrect, based on the facts) that the Democrats care about blacks, and that the GOP is racist. Most media outlets re-state this constantly, so no surprise that some thoughtless morons (like those in the KKK) would start to believe it. That doesn't make it true.

The KKK supporting Trump doesn't mean he's more racist, any more than Black Lives Matter's support of Democrats, means that Dems want to murder police officers. You cannot judge a huge political group by the actions of the lunatic fringe of either partySo I'm confused bc isn't that the intent of the thread you started?. If Trump invites the head of the Klan to the Oval Office 70 times like Obama invited Sharpton, then I will be the first to comment that you are right, that Trump is a white supremacist. He hasn't gone down that road yet. Obama has. BIG difference.

"Obama met with him bc he speaks for a large black pop"

Agreed. But that's BAD for blacks, Paul. Blacks need to learn that he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. By inviting him to the Oval Office every month, it legitimizes the disgusting bile that Sharpton spews. The reason why blacks turn to to Sharpton, is because your party, and the media in their control, tell blacks that Sharpton is right when he blames everything on whitey. That hurts blacks in the long run, it increases the racial divide, but it helps democrats at the voting booth, and that's all they care about.

"a compassionate country should have - like food stamps for poor or preschool funding, etc"

Again, you can go too far with the amount of welfare you give someone. At some point, you rob them of their ability to stand on their own two feet. Despite what you clearly believe, liberals don't have a monopoly on compassion. I have posted repeatedly, the study called Who Really Cares, which de-bunks that myth. But Democrats keep saying it, and the media keeps saying it, so people like you start to believe it.

So again, how many days do we do this - 1 day, 2, 3 and when will something that angers causes you to start the same type of thread?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So again, how many days do we do this - 1 day, 2, 3 and when will something that angers causes you to start the same type of thread?

Paul, you can post all the articles you want saying that when id laws are put in place, black turnout is reduced more than white turnout.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S RACIST.

Way more black children are born into homes without a father, than white babies. Does that mean the institution of fatherhood is racist? No. It means that certain cultural triggers lead to disproportional fatherlessness, and blacks are more likely to embrace those cultural triggers (thanks to liberalism, by the way).

If the process for getting the id is the same for blacks, but blacks choose not to get the id, that's not racism. That's cultural laziness.

Cry all you want. Unless the process is designed to make it more burdensome for blacks to get the id, it ain't racist.

"I guess you thing blacks aren't smart enough to recognize what the Dems are doing"

Not at all. I am saying that blacks are either being specifically targeted by liberals to become welfare dependent on a large scale, or liberals are too stupid to see the clear damage being done by the policies they endorse.

How bad do things have to get in the cities, exactly, before liberals conclude that the policies are not working? And why is it racist for conservatives to claim that people in the cities deserve better, and therefore we need to try something different than what we are currently doing?

"So I'm confused bc isn't that the intent of the thread you started?. "

No. The thread isn't pointing to the "lunatic fringe" of the Democratic party. This is a sitting US Congressman. Have any Democrats suggest said that the painting should be removed, and that the guy who out it up is a jerk for doing so?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, you can post all the articles you want saying that when id laws are put in place, black turnout is reduced more than white turnout.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S RACIST.I agree it doesn't mean it is racist. But who is the judge? A certain % of the population believe it is. The judge said it specifically targeted blacks.

"So I'm confused bc isn't that the intent of the thread you started?. "

No. The thread isn't pointing to the "lunatic fringe" of the Democratic party. This is a sitting US Congressman. Have any Democrats suggest said that the painting should be removed, and that the guy who out it up is a jerk for doing so?

Sorry, I thought the title of the thread was difference between the parties.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115111]Sorry, I thought the title of the thread was difference between the parties.[/QUOTE
The difference between influential leaders of the parties, Paul, not the difference between the lunatic fringe of the two parties. The difference between what the parties actually represent.

Big whoop some judge says it targets blacks. Can you tell me why, specifically, its harder for blacks to get the id? What is it about the process that's any different, for one race versus another? I am all ears
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1115114]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Sorry, I thought the title of the thread was difference between the parties.[/QUOTE
The difference between influential leaders of the parties, Paul, not the difference between the lunatic fringe of the two parties. The difference between what the parties actually represent.

Big whoop some judge says it targets blacks. Can you tell me why, specifically, its harder for blacks to get the id? What is it about the process that's any different, for one race versus another? I am all ears
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Day 3 - so maybe we'll go until day 4? And this has been discussed, but I guess we have to discuss it again.

What difference does it make why it is harder? Blacks and Latinos say it is harder. That is not the issue.

I would imagine that a drivers license is the most common form of ID and blacks not having as many driver's licenses has something to do it (my Grand uncle died at 102 and voted every election - didn't drive, once he came here from another country never flew anywhere. So he didn't have a drivers license or a passport. Maybe he had a SS card - I don't know). The poorer folks live in the cities to be near the services there (hospitals, transportation, etc) and have less need for licenses. The older blacks might not have been born in hospitals many years ago so don't have birth certificates. Don't have as much $ as whites on average so they don't fly and don't have passports. I read that about 10% of the American's don't have a valid government ID. In some states you have to travel up to 250 miles to get an ID.

There have been numerous times when a strict ID law gets passed and word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

But again - that is not the issue.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115150]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Day 3 - so maybe we'll go until day 4? And this has been discussed, but I guess we have to discuss it again.

What difference does it make why it is harder? Blacks and Latinos say it is harder. That is not the issue.

I would imagine that a drivers license is the most common form of ID and blacks not having as many driver's licenses has something to do it (my Grand uncle died at 102 and voted every election - didn't drive, once he came here from another country never flew anywhere. So he didn't have a drivers license or a passport. Maybe he had a SS card - I don't know). The poorer folks live in the cities to be near the services there (hospitals, transportation, etc) and have less need for licenses. The older blacks might not have been born in hospitals many years ago so don't have birth certificates. Don't have as much $ as whites on average so they don't fly and don't have passports. I read that about 10% of the American's don't have a valid government ID. In some states you have to travel up to 250 miles to get an ID.

There have been numerous times when a strict ID law gets passed and word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

But again - that is not the issue.

"What difference does it make why it is harder? Blacks and Latinos say it is harder. "

Show me a post from a black who says it's harder because they are black, and why.

Let me see if I have an accurate grasp of your position here...

Paul: it's harder for blacks to get the id
Jim: how is the process harder for one race than another
Paul: because I say so

Is that about right? That's your argument? Paul, just last night, my 5 year-old told me I was a rotten father because I made him eat his veggies. He said I was a rotten person. Was I being mean? Nope. But he said I was.

Just because someone says something, doesn't make it so. If blacks freely choose not to get the id, that's their choice, it's not something that whitey forced upon them.

How did your grand uncle cash a check?

People in cities may not need drivers licenses. That doesn't mean they don't need a photo id.

Requiring a photo id is viewed by some, as a way of safeguarding the integrity of the process. I don't doubt that d requirements suppress more black votes than white votes. But that doesn't make it racist. It's only racist, if it's harder for blacks to get the id than whites. If the process of getting an id is too cumbersome, we need to address that. But if it's just a matter of people being too lazy to get the id, the fault lies with them, not with the law.

"word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

Then that person should be hounded from public service.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115150]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I would imagine that a drivers license is the most common form of ID and blacks not having as many driver's licenses has something to do it

But many or most blacks do have drivers licenses, and many whites do not. And the regulation does not specify race. So the regulation is not race specific. Percentages of a particular race contrasted to percentages of another cannot be a basis for deciding constitutional issues because the percentages are never equal. Therefor very few, if any, regulations could be enacted

(my Grand uncle died at 102 and voted every election - didn't drive, once he came here from another country never flew anywhere. So he didn't have a drivers license or a passport. Maybe he had a SS card - I don't know). The poorer folks live in the cities to be near the services there (hospitals, transportation, etc) and have less need for licenses. The older blacks might not have been born in hospitals many years ago so don't have birth certificates. Don't have as much $ as whites on average so they don't fly and don't have passports. I read that about 10% of the American's don't have a valid government ID. In some states you have to travel up to 250 miles to get an ID.

Poverty is not race specific. A lot of whites (and that number has been growing) are classified as poor. They also live in cities for the same reason as other races. Everything you cite as a disadvantage here can be applied to whites and other races as well. If a regulation cannot be passed if it affects poor people more than those who are not poor, then, again, very few, if any regulations can be passed since the poor of all colors are disadvantaged in every instance except those regulations which specifically target the poor for benefits. And those, it might be argued, are a burden to the non-poor who have to pay the price.

There have been numerous times when a strict ID law gets passed and word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

But again - that is not the issue.

When President Lyndon Johnson said that passing the Civil Rights Act would keep the N-words voting for the Dems for 200 years, that did not make the Act unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional for other reasons (but that apparently was not an issue) but not because of what he said.

Again, these sorts of made up arguments that go outside of actual constitutional limitations in order to reach decisions which seem socially just to a particular judge replace and rewrite the Constitution. Judges are not supposed to do that. It is up to the people through their Congress (who wrote it in the first place) to amend the Constitution. Judicial activism should be opposed by both sides of the aisle since it can cut both ways, left or right.