then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall
im sorry if I ever indicated being triggered, hate to dissapoint you but im not. Youre just hiding behind some lies to try an make me look bad. What does that say about you? Insulting s9me guy for adding his two cent, thats what I call childishB1rd wrote:
Feel free to go back to Reddit if this place triggers you too much.
Hey now, you can't just leave the shitstorm you created just because other people laughed at you. Take responsibility of itbig suck wrote:
then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall
Definitely a more accurate statement than mine. I think saying 12 was a bit exaggerated. Then again, anyone who has the chance to vote and doesn't shouldn't be taken seriously at all, regardless of age.B1rd wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure that most Trump supporters are 16+, just putting it out there.
There are different reasons as to why some people don't vote other than stubborness, ignorance, ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (god I hate typing this line) etcFoxtrot wrote:
Then again, anyone who has the chance to vote and doesn't shouldn't be taken seriously at all, regardless of age.
It's not about reason either. It's about adult citizens who complain about their own country and yet they don't go out and vote (and that's how Trump obviously won; a lot of the people were fed up with the status quo and they went out and done something about it. But it seems like no one on the left wants to admit that -- calling everyone racist is much easier). It's sad seeing people wasting away their rights like that, because people in other countries would kill for a chance like that.Kisses wrote:
There are different reasons as to why some people don't vote other than stubborness, ignorance, ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (got I hate typing this line) etcFoxtrot wrote:
Then again, anyone who has the chance to vote and doesn't shouldn't be taken seriously at all, regardless of age.
ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (got I hate typing this line)That's pretty ungrateful of you
Well, there's "tolerance", as in, being tolerant of Muslims, LGQTBQQ, terror attacks, other liberals, and people and groups you already like. Then there's the tolerance of allowing people you don't necessarily agree or with or like the right to speak, give them basic respect, and not use violence against them. Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side, and have been pretty hypocriticial in things like being tolerant of Muslims, but not Christians. Respecting free speech and such, has mainly been a virtue of the right.Raspberriel wrote:
Funny how tolerance only entered the picture again once your side came to power.
So, you called us a bunch of idiots, yes I would say that was an insult and yes I would say you are acting triggered. What lies am I hiding behind? Are you actually gonna add something useful to the conversation or are you going to leave like you said you would?big suck wrote:
then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall
Well done, I see your 10,000 hours in MS paint has paid off.Dawnsday wrote:
You don't tolerate intolerance. That's how tolerance dies. Intolerance should not be tolerated under any circumstance.B1rd wrote:
Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side
So, you called us a bunch of idiots, yes I would say that was an insult and yes I would say you are acting triggered. What lies am I hiding behind? Are you actually gonna add something useful to the conversation or are you going to leave like you said you would?big suck wrote:
then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall
Well done, I see your 10,000 hours in MS paint has paid off.[/quote]Dawnsday wrote:
Yes you doDawnsday wrote:
You don't protest free speech with free speech
Making voting mandatory is stupid, but it should be a right regardless. People have the right to throw away their rights, so I can't exactly do anything about it but except have an opinion on their character. Unfortunately, there's always going to be all kinds of misinformed people who are gonna vote, but we can't exactly throw democracy out of the window because of that.B1rd wrote:
I never thought it was possible to change the status quo through voting. And if all choices are bad, then there's not much reason to vote. In Australia voting is mandatory, which is pretty shitty because it just forces uninterested and uninformed people make uninformed choices.
Out of curiosity, but why do you keep quoting one sentence out of an entire paragraph and make an argument out of that, instead of just answering to the paragraph itself?Mahogany wrote:
You don't tolerate intolerance. That's how tolerance dies. Intolerance should not be tolerated under any circumstance.B1rd wrote:
Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side
That's some good stuffDawnsday wrote:
You missed theMahogany wrote:
Yes you doDawnsday wrote:
You don't protest free speech with free speech
That's literally the point of free speech
Attempting to deny free speech should not be tolerated under any circumstance.
The right to free speech applies to the government, not to private entitiesDawnsday wrote:
Using the RIGHT to your free speech to deny someone else's RIGHT to free speech is uh. No that's not quite how it works
What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by. They had it to shut down because the riots were getting out of hand. Even the chancellor of the university defended Milo and his right to free speech. It wasn't the university that drove him out, it was the students themselves. How could he possibly get an event there if the university didn't even want him, as you claimed lmaoMahogany wrote:
The right to free speech applies to the government, not to private entities
If the college wants to shut down mr snowflake's hateful speeches, they can absolutely do that for any reason they want. Perfectly acceptable
If trump says people can't protest, or starts threatening them with defunding, THAT is an attack on the right to free speech, because now the government is influencing what people say. Which he did, by the way - much more serious than anything the college or protesters ever did.
Free speech never came into the berkley situation at all. The alt-right just wants an excuse to spread hate, and then cry "muh rights" when it doesn't even apply to them.
And those disguised attackers are despicable.Dawnsday wrote:
Maybe we're skimming over the fact the talk Milo was going to give was not boycotted, it was outright destroyed. Riots took place, Communist propaganda was spread, Free speech boundaries were crossed.
Clearly they weren't in touch with the student body.Foxtrot wrote:
What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by.
If the right to free speech applied to private entities, you couldn't get banned from any forum, for example. This place bans users. Reddit bans users. Even 4chan bans users. Private entities absolutely don't have to uphold the right to free speech.Foxtrot wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure the right to free speech also applies to private entities, or we must have pretty different ideas about "free speech".
He didn't get an event there though, precisely because the university didn't want him. They outright protested his talk.Foxtrot wrote:
How could he possibly get an event there if the university didn't even want him
Yes they were.Dawnsday wrote:
i dont think they were given much choice
They didn't take part, for one. Don't you think if they agreed, they'd have joined in?Dawnsday wrote:
The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time
"These two things are the same because I say they are"Dawnsday wrote:
Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same.
They could have not told the police to stand down. They could have done nothing. They had plenty of choices, and they made one. Which was, in my opinion, the right choice.Dawnsday wrote:
The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.
That's a boycott, not a protest. There was a sizable peaceful protest going on, with a separate rogue element doing their own thing.Dawnsday wrote:
Peaceful protest would just be not going
"Hey guys ignore it and it'll go away"Dawnsday wrote:
it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical
But by your logic, private entities don't apply to free speech. So if the university wanted him there for a conference, the students had no right to be opposed to that.Mahogany wrote:
Clearly they weren't in touch with the student body.Foxtrot wrote:
What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by.
Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideasMahoganyt wrote:
If the right to free speech applied to private entities, you couldn't get banned from any forum, for example. This place bans users. Reddit bans users. Even 4chan bans users. Private entities absolutely don't have to uphold the right to free speech.
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speechesThey also rely on the students financially, so yeah, no shit they'd follow their best interest.
Yes they were.They DID the mayor literally told the police to stand down
They could've said no
They could've called in police
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speeches
They didn't take part, for one. Don't you think if they agreed, they'd have joined in?
Trump didn't denounce the quebec shooter after it became known they weren't muslim. Does that automatically mean trump supports the shooting of muslims? As much as I hate the man, no, it doesn't mean that, and it's a stupid argument to make.
"These two things are the same because I say they are"Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues, there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo"", all that happened was people sat idly by and egged on Antifa as Antifa rampaged through center street.
Hey - you don't get to decide this, buddy. Otherwise, I can turn around and say "All trump supporters are the same as that quebec shooter and want to exterminate all muslims"
They could have not told the police to stand down. They could have done nothing. They had plenty of choices, and they made one. Which was, in my opinion, the right choice.No, the mayor told them to stand down. Eventually the choice was changed and the police forcibly dispersed everyone with rubber bullets and teargas, sadly the event was already cancelled by this point.
Ahh, so the mayor is the smart one. Credit to themDawnsday wrote:
They DID the mayor literally told the police to stand down
Nah fam I denounced the violent rioters as much as the next guy. The peaceful protestors were fine thoDawnsday wrote:
You at the time DEFENDED antifa and said it was their free speech
I did, and that proves your shit wrong right thereDawnsday wrote:
Not one leftist said "wow this is wrong what the fuck is going on here?
I didn't. I voiced my opposition to the violence, you fucking dolt. Don't speak for shit you can't prove, or don't even know about.Dawnsday wrote:
Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues
There were, you dolt. There were both peaceful and violent contingents. I stand fully against the violent ones, and fully behind the peaceful ones.Dawnsday wrote:
there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo""
thats an odd way to spell "thankfully"Dawnsday wrote:
sadly
The students are what make up the university. A university isn't "just" the management, students are an important part of the school identity. So yea, they had plenty of right.Foxtrot wrote:
But by your logic, private entities don't apply to free speech. So if the university wanted him there for a conference, the students had no right to be opposed to that.
You outright admit you were wrong yet you keep spouting bullshit about how you still feel justifiedFoxtrot wrote:
Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideas
If he's actively pushing Nazism i.e. in a speech then... eh? It's not THAT bad- it's forcibly stopping him from spreading hate speech-, although I'd prefer him to just get arrested. Vigilantism is a dangerous road, and hate speech is illegal already, so.Dawnsday wrote:
is it ethical to punch a nazi
Jesus christ.Mahogany wrote:
You outright admit you were wrong yet you keep spouting bullshit about how you still feel justifiedFoxtrot wrote:
Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideas
why are you so delusional
The students are what make up the university. A university isn't "just" the management, students are an important part of the school identity. So yea, they had plenty of right.Kind of hard to ignore riots.
Also, the uni could've just ignored them, too. That'd have been fine.
Dawnsday wrote:
Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues, there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo"", all that happened was people sat idly by and egged on Antifa as Antifa rampaged through center street.
"There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."B1rd wrote:
By no means is there a separate type of speech called "hate speech" that isn't covered under free speech. Is someone inciting violence? Then that is not covered under free speech, which is rather for the exchange of ideas. But simply giving a speech advocating for Naziism is not something that isn't protected by free speech.
Dawnsday wrote:
Islam explicitly incites violence
Don't even.Dawnsday wrote:
Islam explicitly incites violence
In Islamic faith, it is not believed that Quran was given to Muhammad in entirety like Ten Commandments. Rather, it was gradually told by God to Muhammad over many years in response to the situations he and his followers were facing at the moment. It is, to make an analogy, a collection of case laws rather than a constitution. However, this collection often only has the verdicts, not the whole proceedings.This seemed pretty legit to me
There is an entire field of study dedicated to learning the history of Arabia at the time, understating the context at which a ruling was made and got included in Quran, and trying to figure out how it applies to the situations one can face today. Quran verses in isolation don't mean much. You have to consider which enemy they were at war with at the time the verse was added to Quran and what had they done to make God so angry to understand the ruling. At least that is the Islamic tradition followed by most Muslims. Contextual interpretation as opposed to literal. And that is why the Islamic world does not agree with ISIL's interpretation, which is basically trying to follow ancient case laws instead of interpreting and adapting them to a modern setting.
For example, there are more than five categories of kafir, and the only way to know which one a verse is referring to is to know its context. More progressive clergymen have interpreted that this word in the above verses refers to a category (kafir mo'aned harbi) that basically means those who are currently at war with Muslims because of their (Muslims') religion. Even conservative ones generally do not believe that it refers to all non-muslims.
I mean, what do Nazis do? What do neo-Nazis do?B1rd wrote:
There is nothing about National Socialism that inherently advocates for violence. You can't just say that it does in some vague, disconnected sort of way and then claim that it is justification to shut down that entire political scene. Using that justification you could shut down pretty much any political group, or even pastors giving a sermons because the Bible 'incites violence' in some passages, therefor the entire religion does.
He has zero values and he's already proven this. He sounds like he's been indoctrinated into a cult or something, or his parents are/were horribly abusive.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I'm surprised to hear defense of Nazism from an ancap who thinks that fucking taxation is a form of violence.
They believe in racial superiority, that's true. Genocide and oppression has happened under a Nazi government, but it's not intrinsically linked to Nazism itself. They're violent? Maybe some are, doesn't mean they all are or that it is inherently linked to the ideology. Honestly, I'm really sick of Nazism being brought up in every single political discussion and being treated as the boogeyman of political ideologies. Communism has killed far, far more people than Nazism did. It also advocates for the violent takeover of private property, and we have seen communists being violent both in the past and present. So does that mean that advocacy for Communism should be banned as well? I can even easily argue that our current system is based on violence, since it is, taxation and all that is enforced through the threat of violence. Do you see now how you're being inconsistent? Nazism has been specifically targeted as the worst political ideology to ever exist, when in reality it isn't a far different or any worse than a lot of others.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I mean, what do Nazis do? What do neo-Nazis do?
Any ideology that claims racial superiority is dangerous and leads to genocide or other forms of oppression. They're violent.
I'm surprised to hear defense of Nazism from an ancap who thinks that fucking taxation is a form of violence.
By saying that genocide and oppression have happened under Nazism (in the only time Nazism has ever been tried), you're basically admitting that Nazism causes this dangerous shit, no? I bet you don't let Communists have the same excuse (oh, REAL Communism has never been tried.). You bringing up death tolls under Communism helps prove that.B1rd wrote:
They believe in racial superiority, that's true. Genocide and oppression has happened under a Nazi government, but it's not intrinsically linked to Nazism itself. They're violent? Maybe some are, doesn't mean they all are or that it is inherently linked to the ideology. Honestly, I'm really sick of Nazism being brought up in every single political discussion and being treated as the boogeyman of political ideologies. Communism has killed far, far more people than Nazism did. It also advocates for the violent takeover of private property, and we have seen communists being violent both in the past and present. So does that mean that advocacy for Communism should be banned as well? I can even easily argue that our current system is based on violence, since it is, taxation and all that is enforced through the threat of violence. Do you see now how you're being inconsistent? Nazism has been specifically targeted as the worst political ideology to ever exist, when in reality it isn't a far different or any worse than a lot of others.
We actually have a precedent of this happening. There was a National Socialist party in America for some time that held some public speeches. I believe they were attacked by violent Jews, and the leader was eventually assassinated. No, I don't think that is justified.
And the racial superiority part has some truth to it, we have an abundance of evidence that makes it clear that some races are superior in certain areas to others. It's just the conclusion that one draws when looking at things empirically, with no bias. We've had a big discussion about this in ITT. Though the Nazis took that way too far with lots of pseudo-science. I think Hitler believed he could just walk over Russia because they were inferior slavs, and ignore America because it was full of jews and blacks.
But, in a lot of countries, talking about something like the race-IQ relationship would be classified as 'hate speech'. Realise that when I say people like Nazis shouldn't be attacked for speech, it's not because I'm advocating for Nazis. Blind and irrational hatred for anything just contributes to anti-rationalism and an anti-intellectual society.
P.S. About what you asked me about before; I did go searching for proof and data, but since good sources like that are hard and tedious to find I never finished getting enough to put up a post.
It actually is, it's called for in the Communist Manifesto.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Violent takeover of property isn't necessarily advocated in Communism either btw, if people vote themselves into that position then it's just a change in property law.
Oh, my mistake, sorry. I haven't read Marx's stuff yet, but I assumed that a violent takeover wouldn't exactly be necessary if the majority voted for Communism to be the country's economic system, since that's how democracy worksjohnmedina999 wrote:
It actually is, it's called for in the Communist Manifesto.
All your other points are solid, though.
I tried to change topicFaust wrote:
You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus. In other news, how is everyone?
I'll never stop fighting bigotry and fascism, even in such an insignificant place as these forums. I don't expect to reach a consensus with them, either.Faust wrote:
You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus.
In other news, how is everyone?Pretty good actually
I am THE potato. IrelandBlitzfrog wrote:
Lets change the topic to what type of potato do you think you're.
We just need Kisses to post another asian girl who he considers "perfection" tbhMadvillain wrote:
A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.
No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..
We won't get a consensus there either, jsTae wrote:
We just need Kisses to post another asian girl who he considers "perfection" tbhMadvillain wrote:
A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.
No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..
Well, that's true tbh. At least there'd be a more agreed view there.Raspberriel wrote:
We won't get a consensus there either, js
We got livesDawnsday wrote:
I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead
Do not.Hika wrote:
We got livesDawnsday wrote:
I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead
I have founds lots and lots of anecdotal evidence, women being raped multiple times in different occasions, Rotherham, people working with new immigrants and giving account of how violent they, "no-go zones" where police are too afraid to patrol, etc. It's just hard to find 'official' statistics that give a link, because of reasons like: the studies are hidden behind paywalls, the evidence going against the official agenda. You know that the study you cited was made with the agenda of 'dispelling myths' about immigration and crime. Hardly unbiased. I mean it is somewhat more plausible that people from Mexico aren't that bad, but how can you really think that people from hardcore Muslim countries, countries with a completely different culture, with a low IQ, lots of human rights abuses, most of whom aren't even literate in their own language, do you really think these people would be an boon to Western countries?DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
By saying that genocide and oppression have happened under Nazism (in the only time Nazism has ever been tried), you're basically admitting that Nazism causes this dangerous shit, no? I bet you don't let Communists have the same excuse (oh, REAL Communism has never been tried.). You bringing up death tolls under Communism helps prove that.
Not to mention Hitler was one of the founders of Nazism and so you can say that his actions are representative of the ideology in action. Marx wasn't in charge of the Communist revolution.
I also think that defenders of Stalinist Communism, i.e. Stalin apologists, are just as bad as Nazi apologists. They shouldn't be allowed near politics either, they're crazy and advocate for dangerous fascism.
Violent takeover of property isn't necessarily advocated in Communism either btw, if people vote themselves into that position then it's just a change in property law.
We also weren't talking about Communism in the first place, so I don't see why you're changing the subject and turning it into a rant about how Nazis are unfairly targeted for having an evil, dangerous ideology.
It also makes sense that Jews would violently resist Nazism since they'd be defending themselves from an ideology that oppresses them. Would it surprise you if black people violently resisted the KKK coming back and getting more powerful? It shouldn't, they'd be the ones most terribly affected by it.
I understand your point that free speech should let you say pretty much anything, but exceptions do need to be made for a reason. Ideologies like Nazism aren't good enough for humanity.
also, I just asked for evidence that immigrants commit more crime than natives. It shouldn't be hard to find if it's true. The opposite seems to be true, though, like I said.
it's almost like its not about the consensusFaust wrote:
You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus. In other news, how is everyone?
I just feel like a lot of alt-right politics are generally based on "feels" instead of actual statistics. Like you said, you can only really find anecdotal evidence, which shouldn't mean much when it comes to policy making. The real world often doesn't match expectations. I think most people would assume immigrants commit more crime, but if data repeatedly shows that they don't, then that's just a fact that people will have to accept. Statistics are the most important thing when it comes to policymaking outside of a simple race to get the most votes, which I think is something that should be avoided in a proper democracy.B1rd wrote:
I have founds lots and lots of anecdotal evidence, women being raped multiple times in different occasions, Rotherham, people working with new immigrants and giving account of how violent they, "no-go zones" where police are too afraid to patrol, etc. It's just hard to find 'official' statistics that give a link, because of reasons like: the studies are hidden behind paywalls, the evidence going against the official agenda. You know that the study you cited was made with the agenda of 'dispelling myths' about immigration and crime. Hardly unbiased. I mean it is somewhat more plausible that people from Mexico aren't that bad, but how can you really think that people from hardcore Muslim countries, countries with a completely different culture, with a low IQ, lots of human rights abuses, most of whom aren't even literate in their own language, do you really think these people would be an boon to Western countries?
I'm talking about communism because you seem intent on unfairly labeling Nazism as the worst political ideology. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of your position. Of course communism is violent, it's not like 100% will voluntarily hand over their property to the state. As I've already said, you can call lots of political ideologies violent. But instead of using "directly incites violence" as a basis for why it Nazism should be excluded from free-speech, you've basically shifted the goalposts and now you're saying "I think it's bad, therefore it should be excluded". That's not how free speech works, you combat words with words, and violence with violence. Your reasoning is little different from Antifa, who because they label Milo or Richard Spencer as 'nazis', gives them justification to use violence to stop them talking.
I think Islam is violent, and I think that people who advocate for unrestricted Muslim immigration are arguing for something that will cause violence and disorder in our society. Does that give me justification to use violence against anyone arguing for immigration?
That would be such a Fuz thoughFuZ wrote:
muslims should be removed from earth
I've seen this show up a lot lately in different contexts. I have to wonder who you're looking at in the alt-right that makes you feel this way, because you'll inevitably find people that place emotion over reason under any banner, typically being very loud, too.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I just feel like a lot of alt-right politics are generally based on "feels" instead of actual statistics.
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
The real world often doesn't match expectations. I think most people would assume immigrants commit more crime, but if data repeatedly shows that they don't, then that's just a fact that people will have to accept. Statistics are the most important thing when it comes to policymaking outside of a simple race to get the most votes, which I think is something that should be avoided in a proper democracy.
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least. I was looking into gerrymandering and it's pretty infuriating how much of the electoral process has been messed up from such a simple concept.Brian OA wrote:
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.
Boy I hope so.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least.
It's especially infuriating when you look at all the major Supreme Court cases about gerrymandering or redistricting -- nearly all of the parties doing the redistricting are Republican.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least. I was looking into gerrymandering and it's pretty infuriating how much of the electoral process has been messed up from such a simple concept.Brian OA wrote:
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.
Yes there isB1rd wrote:
but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college
well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeahBrian OA wrote:
Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering
I agree that the idea behind the electoral college is fine, honestly, it's just been turned into something grossly non-representative of America.B1rd wrote:
There is definitely flaws in the US election system, but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college. It's not fair that California and New York dominate the elections. Voter fraud is also something that needs to be looked into.
Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.Raspberriel wrote:
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
I mean I don't really know jack shit about this so I'm just assuming everyone does it when they get the chance, and even then, my issue would be that this is a thing you can do at all, regardless of political affiliation.Raspberriel wrote:
well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeahBrian OA wrote:
Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering
No, we had this debate before. And at that same debate, I said I didn't worship the Democrats as infallible, so nice try.B1rd wrote:
I've heard that the "if 3 million illegals voted" claim has some substance. Don't just write something off without evidence.
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.Raspberriel wrote:
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
Massively misrepresenting my argument. I'm completely fine with proper voter ID laws. The ones they tried to push disproportionately *targeted*, not affected, black voters (and minorities in general I assume). It got shot down in a federal court for racial discrimination. They essentially wanted to make it illegal to use the kinds of IDs that black people generally use, while doing nothing about the IDs that white people use.B1rd wrote:
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.
1 for horsesKisses wrote:
@Mahogany
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?