The Voting Rights Fight - Futility on the March!

[stimpy]

It was a personal attack of the lowest kind.

Really? I could think of many, many more personal attacks that would be far more blatant and much "lower".

Probably.
It's just my opinion that helping someone then throwing it in their face to try and make an unrelated point is disingenuous at best.

As opposed to taking help from someone and then shitting all over them? Personally, I think that feeling a little bitter about it is acceptable. And a perfectly reasonable ask. I wouldn't ask for assistance from people I hate. And I wouldn't treat people I like this way. So, it seems reasonable to me to ask someone to clarify their behavior. Whether it was his intent or not, I suspect that if he ever asks for help again, there will be more than one cold shoulder.

To me, that's why we have different forums.
R&P is going to be much more of a hornets nest and volatile than EBG.
Treating them as equal is probably not a great idea.

I dont see how posting one's thoughts in R&P equals shitting on everything ever posted in every forum.

[ImLawBoy]

I suspect the thing that is really causing the friction here with Unagi's post is the word choice.

I don't know why the people on this board ever feel like reaching down to you while your marriage is in failure and you are at the bottom of your rope.

Had it been phrased more along the lines of, "People here have helped you out when you had personal problems, and then you turn and gloat at them about an issue that is important to them," I think the reaction would have been much less harsh. Saying someone's "marriage is in failure" is a pretty loaded statement and is likely to cause reactions.

[Smoove_B]

is a pretty loaded statement and is likely to cause reactions.

Kinda like drive-by posting that Democrats are tyrants and thankfully our elections aren't going to be Federalized and our republic has been saved?

It's distilled, Grade A horseshit from a known character. Indifference. That is what you get now.

[TheMix]

Now, Smoove, that was just someone's "thoughts".

[Carpet_pissr]

I suspect the thing that is really causing the friction here with Unagi's post is the word choice.

I don't know why the people on this board ever feel like reaching down to you while your marriage is in failure and you are at the bottom of your rope.

Had it been phrased more along the lines of, "People here have helped you out when you had personal problems, and then you turn and gloat at them about an issue that is important to them," I think the reaction would have been much less harsh. Saying someone's "marriage is in failure" is a pretty loaded statement and is likely to cause reactions.

Agree, good point. It's actually what caught me initially, but then I realized the actual intent, and that the post was worded very poorly.

Side note: I never read MSD's marriage issues thread (I guess that happened in my couple year's long absence), but I also went through a marriage crisis and shared VERY openly about it here (I wonder in hindsight if that was smart, but at the time, I honestly didn't feel like I had a choice...almost felt compelled to do it). In any case, at the time, I was obsessed with that thread (my own). I read every response immediately, and deeply appreciated the posters who took so much time to write sincerely helpful things, even when some of the things I read, I didn't agree with. It was honestly like a lifeline at that particular point in my life, and I will always remember the support I received (ironically, IIRC, MSD commented in that thread, and pretty much said "dump that bitch ASAP" That's not really related, just interesting to note!! ).

ANYWAY, I really can't fathom a situation where I would do a drive-by Nelson "HA HA!!" post in a thread where those people posted. But I am not politically opposed to the active posters, so there is that. I wouldn't do something like that ANYway, because that's just not the way I roll, but given the prior support/thread? "Bad form" is about the nicest way to describe that IMO.

[Smoove_B]

Now, Smoove, that was just someone's "thoughts".

Well he can certainly enjoy masturbating with his thoughts all by himself now.

[malchior]

To me, that's why we have different forums.
R&P is going to be much more of a hornets nest and volatile than EBG.
Treating them as equal is probably not a great idea.

This is the second time this idea has been mentioned by someone and I think it is flawed in composition. Separating out P&R was a good idea. No doubt but it doesn't mean people aren't interacting in one bigger community.

I dont see how posting one's thoughts in R&P equals shitting on everything ever posted in every forum.

It isn't. Despite where they post it still is people interacting with some structure. That doesn't mean that people can't see and say, 'Remember when we were kind to you in the past? We are wondering why are you being unkind now."

[ImLawBoy]

is a pretty loaded statement and is likely to cause reactions.

Kinda like drive-by posting that Democrats are tyrants and thankfully our elections aren't going to be Federalized and our republic has been saved?

It's distilled, Grade A horseshit from a known character. Indifference. That is what you get now.

No, not really similar. This is a thread about voting rights, so it's not jarring to see someone post about voting rights - even if I think that person has backwards views on the issue. "Tyranny of the majority" is well-known phrase (as is "tyranny of the minority", FWIW) and i suspect that most people here really understand that he was invoking those concepts and not calling people who support voting rights literal tyrants.

To be clear, I think msd is dead wrong on this point. I think his post was both lacking in thought and was needlessly antagonistic. I've never had much respect for his political thinking, and I have even less now. I thought he had at least reformed enough in action to not return to his BS drive-by posting ways. I think Unagi's point has some validity. My comment was merely my thoughts on why Unagi's comments sparked the reaction they did. Had he phrased it differently we might be more focused on msd's wrongheadedness (the actual, important issue) than on Unagi's comment and the reactions to it.

[Smoove_B]

That's fair - appreciate the insight.

I don't care what they say about you, for a lawyer you're decidedly ok.

[Unagi]

Well, I do care if I've offended people - so I want to apologize to those that I have.

I think if I had left it to 'at the end of your rope', I'd have offended less, and I must admit that I (it was very much a shoot from the hip post) I included the details with the hope that it would invoke some soul searching from msd - - but I can see how that language can also just hurt msd, and offend a good number of you - so I regret my words.

I will stand up to the point though.


And stimpy, your flow of logic is odd. One can offer help sincerely but then later feel like a schmuck because that person later comes back and spits in your face.

I’m sure the frog was upset with the scorpion that stung him while carrying the scorpion across the river.

[stimpy]

And stimpy, your flow of logic is odd. One can offer help sincerely but then later feel like a schmuck because that person later comes back and spits in your face.

I’m sure the frog was upset with the scorpion that stung him while carrying the scorpion across the river.

I get that. Just how I feel.
When I decide to lend a hand to someone, it's always with the understanding I expect nothing in return.
If they turn out to be ungrateful, lesson learned and I move on.

[Unagi]

Not sure what you think is different here, except perhaps an exchange of words? Perhaps in my case here, an appeal to msds’s sense of shame (for treating us like this) ? I don’t see that as bad behavior. Again, I was too personal and revealing in my choice of words, but the angle you are shooting for says I have no place to be sincerely offended, I entirely disagree. I honestly thought msd had (not changed his politely believes but) changed in how he may address all of us after that. This was me being shocked that wasn’t the case.

[stimpy]

Not sure what you think is different here, except perhaps an exchange of words? Perhaps in my case here, an appeal to msds’s sense of shame (for treating us like this) ? I don’t see that as bad behavior. Again, I was too personal and revealing in my choice of words, but the angle you are shooting for says I have no place to be sincerely offended, I entirely disagree. I honestly thought msd had (not changed his politely believes but) changed in how he may address all of us after that. This was me being shocked that wasn’t the case.

You can be as offended as you want.
It was strictly the (unrelated to this specific post) personal attack I took issue with.

[Unagi]

Ok. Well you can take issue all you want.

[coopasonic]

Re msd: We (collectively we, I think I stayed out of the thread as I'd had a couple close calls with my marriage and am not comfortable getting involved in others relationships) gave him help, knowing that his political alignment was vastly different from many of ours and our actions were unlikely to impact that, but could make his life better. I think that's the good side of the woke/aware/DIB/democratic socialist movements. We want to see people as a whole and realize we are different but still more similar. You lift people up and offer help to make everyone's lives better. Maybe most of the time it changes nothing in the bigger picture, but if you don't try you can never succeed. Social progress is slow and has setbacks and that can be frustrating and seem unrewarding. Life shouldn't be a competition. OK, that't enough pointless platitudes for now.

Re Voting rights: f*ck

[stimpy]

Ok. Well you can take issue all you want.

Thanks.
And I'm sure all the others that had issue with it appreciate it too!!

[Blackhawk]

The rest of us said, "Not cool", or "I get what you're saying, but the approach isn't great" and moved the hell on.

[stimpy]

The rest of us said, "Not cool", or "I get what you're saying, but the approach isn't great" and moved the hell on.

As did I, and am still trying to, until Unagi decided (as usual) to single me out.

[Blackhawk]

The rest of us said, "Not cool", or "I get what you're saying, but the approach isn't great" and moved the hell on.

As did I, and am still trying to, until Unagi decided (as usual) to single me out.

After you went after him with your teeth bared and fangs dripping, yes. After that he did single you out. Or, rather, he rose to your bait.

[Carpet_pissr]

The rest of us said, "Not cool", or "I get what you're saying, but the approach isn't great" and moved the hell on.

[stimpy]

Wow.....
There were at least 20 posts before I posted and out of those there were at least 7 people who found his throwing a personal comment in there too much.

Then I post this rage filled diatribe:

I know a guy that went to prison once.
One of our friends wrote letters to him once or twice a month.
When the guy got out of prison, the person who wrote the letters became furious that he was never treated differently from those of us who didnt write letters. He thought he deserved to be held to a higher standard because of it. He felt so slighted he never talked to the guy again and constantly talks shit about him now.

Unagi reminds me of that guy.

Msd did a drive by troll post in R&P. Shocking.....I know.
Most people took it for what it was.
All because you may have wrote some words of encouragement or advise in another forum doesnt mean it's okay to bring his personal life into play whenever it's convenient to do so.

It was a personal attack of the lowest kind.

RAWR!!!

[Unagi]

Stimpy is just mad because I won’t date him.

[stimpy]

Stimpy is just mad because I won’t date him.

And after I sent you all those letters while you were in prison........

[LordMortis]

This is a thread about voting rights, so it's not jarring to see someone post about voting rights - even if I think that person has backwards views on the issue.

Not that my opinion counts for much but that's what I see. OO is very insulated and have pretty much cut off the them. So only the us can rant and troll against them while they are absent and we're much more forgiving of that or at least they ignore me when I do it.

[Isgrimnur]

Sinema already came out today and said she has no intention of changing her mind. With those two asshats there's no chance of getting anything done. I'm sure everything will be fine.

They talk about principles but they are the firewall for oligarchs. They'll absorb the punches and soak up the dollars. Perhaps after the Cruz lawsuit currently in front of SCOTUS has a ruling (coming up shortly), they'll be finally able to get paid to meet with donors - as Citizen's United implied was ok. It's a grand system we have.

Hold on to your butts

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in a case involving the use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans, dealing the latest blow to campaign finance regulations.

The court said that a federal cap on candidates using political contributions after the election to recoup personal loans made to their campaign was unconstitutional.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 decision. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for her liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

"The question is whether this restriction violates the First Amendment rights of candidates and their campaigns to engage in political speech," Roberts wrote. He said there is "no doubt" that the law does burden First Amendment electoral speech. "Any such law must be at least justified by a permissible interest," he added, and the government had not been able to identify a single case of so-called "quid pro quo" corruption.

Roberts concluded that the "provision burdens core political speech without proper justification."

Wait, we need reasons to pass laws now?

[malchior]

How surprising. The Roberts court has pretty much defined quid pro quo as practically cartoonishly literal bags of money -- complete with dollar sign on the side - with a wink, nod, and handshake agreement for specific outcomes. Anything less is not corruption.

I think in due time Robert's might not be seen as radical on things such as abortion. However he is radical in enabling the wolf of corruption to eat the body politic dressed up in free speech clothing.

[stessier]

How surprising. The Roberts court has pretty much defined quid pro quo as praftivally cartoonishly literal bag of money on the desk with an agreement for specific outcomes. I think in due time Robert's might not be seen as radical on things such as abortion. However he is radical in enabling the wolf of corruption to eat the body police dressed up in free speech clothing.

Are you feeling ok? Or just trying to type really fast?

[malchior]

How surprising. The Roberts court has pretty much defined quid pro quo as praftivally cartoonishly literal bag of money on the desk with an agreement for specific outcomes. I think in due time Robert's might not be seen as radical on things such as abortion. However he is radical in enabling the wolf of corruption to eat the body police dressed up in free speech clothing.

Are you feeling ok? Or just trying to type really fast?

My phone has the worst keyboard in history. It's impossible to type on. I didn't mean to even post it but instead preview it.

This happened once trying to type this out. Haha.

Edit: In any case, every day the evidence increasingly shows us that this system is in terminal collapse. There seems to be no way to regulate campaign finance according to these radicals.

[stessier]

My phone has the worst keyboard in history. It's impossible to type on. I didn't mean to even post it but instead preview it.

Just checking - we are of an age where medical things happen.

[Pyperkub]

How surprising. The Roberts court has pretty much defined quid pro quo as praftivally cartoonishly literal bag of money on the desk with an agreement for specific outcomes. I think in due time Robert's might not be seen as radical on things such as abortion. However he is radical in enabling the wolf of corruption to eat the body police dressed up in free speech clothing.

Are you feeling ok? Or just trying to type really fast?

My phone has the worst keyboard in history. It's impossible to type on. I didn't mean to even post it but instead preview it.

This happened once trying to type this out. Haha.

Edit: In any case, every day the evidence increasingly shows us that this system is in terminal collapse. There seems to be no way to regulate campaign finance according to these radicals.

Mostly. The uptick in anti-trust enforcement is a step in the right direction, as are (obliquely) the Russian sanctions.

As we've seen with all the FARA cases lately, the other awful thing that has been happening due to these issues is a massive influx of foreign money to US campaigns.

And yes, this is voting rights related, because what we've been seeing is an intentional dilution of voting rights and voter influence in favor of keeping these money spigots flowing...

[Zarathud]

If there was a functioning press, you could fix this issue by public pressure of having to disclose the payments. But FOX and MAGA shamelessness breaks all political norms and consequences.

The direct result of this ruling is Trump “repaying” himself for “loaning” his campaign millions of dollars that never existed. And he’ll die before anyone can prove it.

[Little Raven]

Fears of a new Jim Crow in Georgia appear to have been overstated.

When the Spalding County Board of Elections eliminated early voting on Sundays, Democrats blamed a new state law and accused the Republican-controlled board of intentionally thwarting “Souls to the Polls,” a get-out-the-vote program among Black churches to urge their congregations to cast ballots after religious services.

But after three weeks of early voting ahead of Tuesday’s primary, record-breaking turnout is undercutting predictions that the Georgia Election Integrity Act of 2021 would lead to a falloff in voting. By the end of Friday, the final day of early in-person voting, nearly 800,000 Georgians had cast ballots — more than three times the number in 2018, and higher even than in 2020, a presidential year.

Voting-rights groups and Democrats say they have changed their strategies to mobilize voters under the new rules. In Spalding County, for instance, local activists moved Souls to the Polls to a Saturday, and they defiantly promised that they would work twice as hard if that was what it took to protect voter access.

This is great news. Whatever happens in the election, it won't be because the population stayed home.

[malchior]

Fears of a new Jim Crow in Georgia appear to have been overstated.

The fear had somewhat abated as the article noted. The draft bill was quite draconian and their first attempt was scaled back under pressure.

Even then the piece notes some of the suppression mechanics worked as expected. Mail-in voted dropped dramatically and the mail-in rejection rate skyrocketed like we saw in other states that went after mail-in voting as a suppression mechanism. They are proven to work. It's great that people were motivated to turn out but it's a bit early to declare victory either way until we see a few elections.

But much of the rhetoric directed at the bill was actually based on draft legislation that was subsequently scaled back. Local and national organizations, including the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines, had put enormous pressure on state Republicans to strip out some of the more contentious provisions. Republicans agreed to drop, for instance, language barring most Georgians from voting by mail and curtailing early voting on weekends. They even expanded early-voting hours in the final bill.

[Alefroth]

Still time to crack down on whatever successful mechanisms were utilized.

[Blackhawk]

And this is a sample size of one. It isn't a question of how much of a turnout there was, it is a question of how it affected the turnout. What would this election have looked like without that law?

[gbasden]

And just because people still came out despite the suppression efforts doesn't mean that trying to suppress the vote isn't bullshit.

[YellowKing]

You're going to have a certain percentage come out precisely *because* of the suppression attempts. The question is what happens 2, 3 election cycles down the road when they've been boiled sufficiently that anger is no longer a motivation.

[Smoove_B]

I know discussing voting rights is no longer cool (or interesting), but just saw this reminder of what's about to happen in OHIO

An American state of almost 12 million people—Ohio—is weeks away from holding an election for Congress on a map of districts that its own (bipartisan) court has ruled are unconstitutional.

No court has ruled otherwise.

But that election is about to begin, because…

…those overseeing the map-drawing process chose to violate the law & court orders for so long, they forced that illegal map onto the ballot

There is no minimizing this. There is no sugarcoating this. There is no “both sidesing” this.

It is utterly lawless. And illegitimate

But it gets WORSE.

The same body lawlessly rigging that map also changed the rules of how Ohio elects Supreme Court justices for THIS year, to favor their candidates. And their clear goal is to ignore the current court’s orders for long enough, that their new election rule…

…gets them a partisan and favorable court, that will retroactively undo the rulings they are violating.

And national Republicans are sending millions in Ohio to get that done.

THE entire sequence is a blatant attack on the rule of law you’d expect to see in another country…

…not here. There is no sugarcoating it. There is no normalizing it. There is no “both sidesing” it.

But it gets WORSE.

If their plan succeeds, the swing justice who would reverse the current court’s rulings and uphold their illegal maps is the son of the Governor..

Unrolled here

[malchior]

Let's be honest. No one is interested in facing that the system is in a complete failure state. Rule of law has been under assault blatantly for some time now. To the point we're seeing open fuckery and yet people are yawning. I have no doubt this will continue to get worse because no one will believe and thus act on what their eyes are seeing. I think chances are very high that we're going to mostly silently watch our democracy sink beneath dark waters while everyone continues to tell us we're overreacting.

[Carpet_pissr]

Let's be honest. No one is interested in facing that the system is in a complete failure state. Rule of law has been under assault blatantly for some time now. To the point we're seeing open fuckery and yet people are yawning. I have no doubt this will continue to get worse because no one will believe and thus on what their eyes are seeing. I think chances are very high that we're going to mostly silently watch our democracy sink beneath dark waters while everyone continues to tell us we're overreacting.

I agree that it FEELS like it's just a hard truth that no one wants to admit (that it's possible/happening/happening to the extent that it seems to be), even on here (for a very long time). Then again I've learned to be VERY suspicious of my intuition and "feels" on well...most things.

Mayhaps it's that I am overly sensitive to it. I've noticed it, and therefore I see evidence of it everywhere, whether that is actually true or not.

As I think LB mentioned at one point a long while ago, it's not palpable enough for the average American to grab a pitchfork. We have become lazy and complacent because we haven't needed the pitchfork in soooo long. Hell, we don't even know where the pitchfork is anymore! We might even suspect we sold that pitchfork to Google and FB on eBay long ago.