Discussion:
The Threat To "Our" Democracy
Add Reply
El Castor
2021-02-11 00:31:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.

"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...

"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-11 04:26:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
El Castor
2021-02-11 06:55:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.

The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.

There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
islander
2021-02-11 15:04:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
Personally, I doubt that quotas imposed in the higher grades solve the
problems of racial equality. Possibility they do not work in lower
grades either. This is a case of too little, too late. Rather, we need
to rethink what is implied in "All men are created equal." When does
that apply? At birth or earlier? If conservatives believe that life
begins at conception, why not also believe that the environment in the
womb is the place to begin addressing equality?
El Castor
2021-02-11 18:37:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
Personally, I doubt that quotas imposed in the higher grades solve the
problems of racial equality. Possibility they do not work in lower
grades either. This is a case of too little, too late. Rather, we need
to rethink what is implied in "All men are created equal." When does
that apply? At birth or earlier? If conservatives believe that life
begins at conception, why not also believe that the environment in the
womb is the place to begin addressing equality?
OK, then please ask those Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians to share
their secret ingredient of intelligence. Whatever it is, they brought
it with them when they emigrated to the US. How selfish of them to
hide it from the rest of us!!!

Meanwhile, a marvelous opportunity, Lowell High, has been denied by
your ignorant politics to the children most able to make use of it,
some of whom happen to be Black. BTW, we spent yesterday afternoon
with an old friend who is a Lowell graduate -- and an Ashkenazi Jew.

https://www.human-intelligence.org/race-differences-in-intelligence/
islander
2021-02-11 20:54:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
Personally, I doubt that quotas imposed in the higher grades solve the
problems of racial equality. Possibility they do not work in lower
grades either. This is a case of too little, too late. Rather, we need
to rethink what is implied in "All men are created equal." When does
that apply? At birth or earlier? If conservatives believe that life
begins at conception, why not also believe that the environment in the
womb is the place to begin addressing equality?
OK, then please ask those Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians to share
their secret ingredient of intelligence. Whatever it is, they brought
it with them when they emigrated to the US. How selfish of them to
hide it from the rest of us!!!
Meanwhile, a marvelous opportunity, Lowell High, has been denied by
your ignorant politics to the children most able to make use of it,
some of whom happen to be Black. BTW, we spent yesterday afternoon
with an old friend who is a Lowell graduate -- and an Ashkenazi Jew.
https://www.human-intelligence.org/race-differences-in-intelligence/
I don't know about Lowell, but Chris Hayes, MSNBC Anchor, writes about
Hunter College High School where he attended. Hunter also had a
reputation of being a prestigious high school in NYC. However, there
was a dark side to who got accepted:

"But the problem with my alma mater is that over time, the mechanisms of
meritocracy have broken down. In 1995, when I was a student at Hunter,
the student body was 12 percent black and 6 percent Hispanic. Not
coincidentally, there was no test-prep industry for the Hunter entrance
exam. That’s no longer the case. Now, so-called cram schools like Elite
Academy in Queens can charge thousands of dollars for after-school and
weekend courses where sixth graders memorize vocabulary words and learn
advanced math. Meanwhile, in the wealthier precincts of Manhattan,
parents can hire $90-an-hour private tutors for one-on-one sessions with
their children.

By 2009, Hunter’s demographics were radically different—just 3 percent
black and 1 percent Hispanic, according to the New York Times. With the
rise of a sophisticated and expensive test-preparation industry, the
means of selecting entrants to Hunter has grown less independent of the
social and economic hierarchies in New York at large. The pyramid of
merit has come to mirror the pyramid of wealth and cultural capital."

Are the children admitted to Lowell really the best and brightest or do
they actually come from wealthy parents? I don't know, do you?
El Castor
2021-02-11 22:12:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
Personally, I doubt that quotas imposed in the higher grades solve the
problems of racial equality. Possibility they do not work in lower
grades either. This is a case of too little, too late. Rather, we need
to rethink what is implied in "All men are created equal." When does
that apply? At birth or earlier? If conservatives believe that life
begins at conception, why not also believe that the environment in the
womb is the place to begin addressing equality?
OK, then please ask those Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians to share
their secret ingredient of intelligence. Whatever it is, they brought
it with them when they emigrated to the US. How selfish of them to
hide it from the rest of us!!!
Meanwhile, a marvelous opportunity, Lowell High, has been denied by
your ignorant politics to the children most able to make use of it,
some of whom happen to be Black. BTW, we spent yesterday afternoon
with an old friend who is a Lowell graduate -- and an Ashkenazi Jew.
https://www.human-intelligence.org/race-differences-in-intelligence/
I don't know about Lowell, but Chris Hayes, MSNBC Anchor, writes about
Hunter College High School where he attended. Hunter also had a
reputation of being a prestigious high school in NYC. However, there
"But the problem with my alma mater is that over time, the mechanisms of
meritocracy have broken down. In 1995, when I was a student at Hunter,
the student body was 12 percent black and 6 percent Hispanic. Not
coincidentally, there was no test-prep industry for the Hunter entrance
exam. That’s no longer the case. Now, so-called cram schools like Elite
Academy in Queens can charge thousands of dollars for after-school and
weekend courses where sixth graders memorize vocabulary words and learn
advanced math. Meanwhile, in the wealthier precincts of Manhattan,
parents can hire $90-an-hour private tutors for one-on-one sessions with
their children.
By 2009, Hunter’s demographics were radically different—just 3 percent
black and 1 percent Hispanic, according to the New York Times. With the
rise of a sophisticated and expensive test-preparation industry, the
means of selecting entrants to Hunter has grown less independent of the
social and economic hierarchies in New York at large. The pyramid of
merit has come to mirror the pyramid of wealth and cultural capital."
Are the children admitted to Lowell really the best and brightest or do
they actually come from wealthy parents? I don't know, do you?
My Ashkenazi friend who attended Lowell is the daughter of a shoe
salesman. Her parents rented a modest flat and never owned their own
home.

"It’s worth noting the school, founded in 1856, is already diverse and
fairly reflective of the district. Of the school’s 2,900 students, 51%
are Asian, 18% are white, 12% are Latino, 6% are Filipino, and 2% are
black. The district’s overall enrollment is, by comparison, 33% Asian,
28% Latino, 15% white, 6% black, and 4% Filipino. Black Americans make
up 5.2% of the entire San Francisco population." ...
"“Lowell is a beacon of hope for low-income students like myself,”
explained Amy Chang. “It means that, if you try hard enough, you can
receive an education on par or better than elite private schools. The
lottery system is inherently flawed.” ...
One Lowell graduate, Lisa Li Moye, said, “At MLK, I was bullied and
having the goal of getting into Lowell kept me from having suicidal
thoughts. After being admitted and surrounded by driven students, I
got out of this dark place. I want to say Lowell saved my life.”"
https://www.faithwire.com/2021/02/04/san-francisco-school-board-says-merit-based-admission-is-racist/
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-11 16:10:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that an
accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
El Castor
2021-02-11 19:01:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that an
accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost epitome of
Democracy, but in the end what could be less representative of
democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro? How far from those
ideals are the members of the "Squad"?
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-11 19:41:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that an
accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost epitome of
Democracy, but in the end what could be less representative of
democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro? How far from those
ideals are the members of the "Squad"?
The only thing other than Trump the video said was accused of being a
threat to our democracy was voter suppression. The video is correct
about that accusation, but I agree that both Trump and voter suppression
are threats to our democracy. Nonetheless, the larger claim that
accusations of "threats to our democracy" are now routine remain
unsupported.
El Castor
2021-02-11 20:59:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:41:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that an
accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost epitome of
Democracy, but in the end what could be less representative of
democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro? How far from those
ideals are the members of the "Squad"?
The only thing other than Trump the video said was accused of being a
threat to our democracy was voter suppression. The video is correct
about that accusation, but I agree that both Trump and voter suppression
are threats to our democracy. Nonetheless, the larger claim that
accusations of "threats to our democracy" are now routine remain
unsupported.
I agree on Trump. As for voter suppression, I suppose you are
referring to various proposed ID requirements. Sorry, but I see an ID
requirement as fraud suppression.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-11 23:24:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:41:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that an
accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost epitome of
Democracy, but in the end what could be less representative of
democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro? How far from those
ideals are the members of the "Squad"?
The only thing other than Trump the video said was accused of being a
threat to our democracy was voter suppression. The video is correct
about that accusation, but I agree that both Trump and voter suppression
are threats to our democracy. Nonetheless, the larger claim that
accusations of "threats to our democracy" are now routine remain
unsupported.
I agree on Trump. As for voter suppression, I suppose you are
referring to various proposed ID requirements. Sorry, but I see an ID
requirement as fraud suppression.
I support Voter ID with the following conditions:

1) The government aggressively goes out of its way to get people
registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor communities
where people are much more likely not to have driver's licenses. We
should be able to have many more people registered to vote and to
automatically issue IDs at the same time.

2) No excuse mail-in voting (like in California) is the norm. Drop boxes
are plentiful.

3) Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.

4) People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
islander
2021-02-11 23:36:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:41:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that an
accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost epitome of
Democracy, but in the end what could be less representative of
democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro? How far from those
ideals are the members of the "Squad"?
The only thing other than Trump the video said was accused of being a
threat to our democracy was voter suppression. The video is correct
about that accusation, but I agree that both Trump and voter suppression
are threats to our democracy. Nonetheless, the larger claim that
accusations of "threats to our democracy" are now routine remain
unsupported.
I agree on Trump. As for voter suppression, I suppose you are
referring to various proposed ID requirements. Sorry, but I see an ID
requirement as fraud suppression.
1) The government aggressively goes out of its way to get people
registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor communities
where people are much more likely not to have driver's licenses. We
should be able to have many more people registered to vote and to
automatically issue IDs at the same time.
2) No excuse mail-in voting (like in California) is the norm. Drop boxes
are plentiful.
3) Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
4) People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
I would add early voting on weekends for people who are not easily
excused from work or making election day a national holiday for national
elections.
islander
2021-02-12 12:35:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:41:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it
emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social
Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that an
accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost epitome of
Democracy, but in the end what could be less representative of
democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro? How far from those
ideals are the members of the "Squad"?
The only thing other than Trump the video said was accused of being a
threat to our democracy was voter suppression. The video is correct
about that accusation, but I agree that both Trump and voter suppression
are threats to our democracy. Nonetheless, the larger claim that
accusations of "threats to our democracy" are now routine remain
unsupported.
I agree on Trump. As for voter suppression, I suppose you are
referring to various proposed ID requirements. Sorry, but I see an ID
requirement as fraud suppression.
1) The government aggressively goes out of its way to get people
registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor communities
where people are much more likely not to have driver's licenses. We
should be able to have many more people registered to vote and to
automatically issue IDs at the same time.
2) No excuse mail-in voting (like in California) is the norm. Drop
boxes are plentiful.
3) Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
4) People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing
to vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing
to vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address.
If there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead,
the government should aggressively find out what happened (did they
really move).
I would add early voting on weekends for people who are not easily
excused from work or making election day a national holiday for
national elections.
Early voting should be seven days a week.
That works for me!
El Castor
2021-02-12 18:48:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:41:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it
emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the paywall.
Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new. Progressives are
confident that their beloved causes are by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs of
progressives is by definition a manifestation of social Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that an
accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San Francisco. At one
time admission to Lowell High school was based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students. Along came
Progressivism and Black numbers were radically boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids, sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the school half
Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along came the resurgent
progressivism of 2020/21. Academic merit is forgotten and San
Francisco's pre-eminent academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a triumph of
Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost epitome of
Democracy, but in the end what could be less representative of
democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro? How far from those
ideals are the members of the "Squad"?
The only thing other than Trump the video said was accused of being a
threat to our democracy was voter suppression. The video is correct
about that accusation, but I agree that both Trump and voter suppression
are threats to our democracy. Nonetheless, the larger claim that
accusations of "threats to our democracy" are now routine remain
unsupported.
I agree on Trump. As for voter suppression, I suppose you are
referring to various proposed ID requirements. Sorry, but I see an ID
requirement as fraud suppression.
1) The government aggressively goes out of its way to get people
registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor communities
where people are much more likely not to have driver's licenses. We
should be able to have many more people registered to vote and to
automatically issue IDs at the same time.
2) No excuse mail-in voting (like in California) is the norm. Drop
boxes are plentiful.
3) Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
4) People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing
to vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing
to vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address.
If there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead,
the government should aggressively find out what happened (did they
really move).
I would add early voting on weekends for people who are not easily
excused from work or making election day a national holiday for
national elections.
Early voting should be seven days a week.
That works for me!
And you had 8 years of Obama and 4 years of a Democrat House under
Trump to make your case.
Johnny
2021-02-12 20:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:57:35 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:41:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I
regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’
what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion
of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it
emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The
word “our” implies another of progressivism’s modern
virtues, inclusion. But that, as they themselves would
say, is a false narrative. When progressives refer to
“our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to
share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re
out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I
question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the
paywall. Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself
reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new.
Progressives are confident that their beloved causes are
by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs
of progressives is by definition a manifestation of social
Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that
an accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has
become a routine political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San
Francisco. At one time admission to Lowell High school was
based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students.
Along came Progressivism and Black numbers were radically
boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids,
sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the
school half Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along
came the resurgent progressivism of 2020/21. Academic
merit is forgotten and San Francisco's pre-eminent
academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a
triumph of Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost
epitome of Democracy, but in the end what could be less
representative of democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and
Castro? How far from those ideals are the members of the
"Squad"?
The only thing other than Trump the video said was accused of
being a threat to our democracy was voter suppression. The
video is correct about that accusation, but I agree that both
Trump and voter suppression
are threats to our democracy. Nonetheless, the larger claim
that accusations of "threats to our democracy" are now
routine remain unsupported.
I agree on Trump. As for voter suppression, I suppose you are
referring to various proposed ID requirements. Sorry, but I
see an ID requirement as fraud suppression.
1) The government aggressively goes out of its way to get people
registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have
driver's licenses. We should be able to have many more people
registered to vote and to automatically issue IDs at the same
time.
2) No excuse mail-in voting (like in California) is the norm.
Drop boxes are plentiful.
3) Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
4) People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for
failing to vote. In some states, voters are purged from the
rolls for failing to vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A
nondescript post card (easily ignored) is sent to them asking
if they still live at their address. If there is no response,
the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the government
should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
I would add early voting on weekends for people who are not
easily excused from work or making election day a national
holiday for national elections.
Early voting should be seven days a week.
That works for me!
And you had 8 years of Obama and 4 years of a Democrat House under
Trump to make your case.
And Obama only had the Congress for about 18 months and HR 4, passed
by the House was never considered in the Republican Senate thanks to
McConnell. Face it, the Republicans do not want everyone to vote.
It's not the government's responsibility to get people to vote. The
people that want to vote will do what's necessary to vote.

Each state makes its own rules about voting, so what you and Josh want
is not going to happen.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-12 20:17:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:57:35 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:41:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I
regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’
what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion
of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it
emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The
word “our” implies another of progressivism’s modern
virtues, inclusion. But that, as they themselves would
say, is a false narrative. When progressives refer to
“our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to
share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re
out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I
question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the
paywall. Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself
reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new.
Progressives are confident that their beloved causes are
by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs
of progressives is by definition a manifestation of social
Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that
an accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has
become a routine political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San
Francisco. At one time admission to Lowell High school was
based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students.
Along came Progressivism and Black numbers were radically
boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids,
sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the
school half Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along
came the resurgent progressivism of 2020/21. Academic
merit is forgotten and San Francisco's pre-eminent
academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a
triumph of Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost
epitome of Democracy, but in the end what could be less
representative of democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and
Castro? How far from those ideals are the members of the
"Squad"?
The only thing other than Trump the video said was accused of
being a threat to our democracy was voter suppression. The
video is correct about that accusation, but I agree that both
Trump and voter suppression
are threats to our democracy. Nonetheless, the larger claim
that accusations of "threats to our democracy" are now
routine remain unsupported.
I agree on Trump. As for voter suppression, I suppose you are
referring to various proposed ID requirements. Sorry, but I
see an ID requirement as fraud suppression.
1) The government aggressively goes out of its way to get people
registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have
driver's licenses. We should be able to have many more people
registered to vote and to automatically issue IDs at the same
time.
2) No excuse mail-in voting (like in California) is the norm.
Drop boxes are plentiful.
3) Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
4) People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for
failing to vote. In some states, voters are purged from the
rolls for failing to vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A
nondescript post card (easily ignored) is sent to them asking
if they still live at their address. If there is no response,
the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the government
should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
I would add early voting on weekends for people who are not
easily excused from work or making election day a national
holiday for national elections.
Early voting should be seven days a week.
That works for me!
And you had 8 years of Obama and 4 years of a Democrat House under
Trump to make your case.
And Obama only had the Congress for about 18 months and HR 4, passed
by the House was never considered in the Republican Senate thanks to
McConnell. Face it, the Republicans do not want everyone to vote.
What was in HR 4?
Post by Johnny
It's not the government's responsibility to get people to vote. The
people that want to vote will do what's necessary to vote.
Each state makes its own rules about voting, so what you and Josh want
is not going to happen.
In that case, no voter ID.
El Castor
2021-02-12 20:39:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 12:17:21 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:57:35 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:41:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I
regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’
what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion
of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it
emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The
word “our” implies another of progressivism’s modern
virtues, inclusion. But that, as they themselves would
say, is a false narrative. When progressives refer to
“our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to
share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re
out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I
question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the
paywall. Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself
reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new.
Progressives are confident that their beloved causes are
by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs
of progressives is by definition a manifestation of social
Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true
Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that
an accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has
become a routine political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San
Francisco. At one time admission to Lowell High school was
based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students.
Along came Progressivism and Black numbers were radically
boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids,
sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the
school half Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along
came the resurgent progressivism of 2020/21. Academic
merit is forgotten and San Francisco's pre-eminent
academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a
triumph of Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost
epitome of Democracy, but in the end what could be less
representative of democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and
Castro? How far from those ideals are the members of the
"Squad"?
The only thing other than Trump the video said was accused of
being a threat to our democracy was voter suppression. The
video is correct about that accusation, but I agree that both
Trump and voter suppression
are threats to our democracy. Nonetheless, the larger claim
that accusations of "threats to our democracy" are now
routine remain unsupported.
I agree on Trump. As for voter suppression, I suppose you are
referring to various proposed ID requirements. Sorry, but I
see an ID requirement as fraud suppression.
1) The government aggressively goes out of its way to get people
registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have
driver's licenses. We should be able to have many more people
registered to vote and to automatically issue IDs at the same
time.
2) No excuse mail-in voting (like in California) is the norm.
Drop boxes are plentiful.
3) Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
4) People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for
failing to vote. In some states, voters are purged from the
rolls for failing to vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A
nondescript post card (easily ignored) is sent to them asking
if they still live at their address. If there is no response,
the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the government
should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
I would add early voting on weekends for people who are not
easily excused from work or making election day a national
holiday for national elections.
Early voting should be seven days a week.
That works for me!
And you had 8 years of Obama and 4 years of a Democrat House under
Trump to make your case.
And Obama only had the Congress for about 18 months and HR 4, passed
by the House was never considered in the Republican Senate thanks to
McConnell. Face it, the Republicans do not want everyone to vote.
What was in HR 4?
Post by Johnny
It's not the government's responsibility to get people to vote. The
people that want to vote will do what's necessary to vote.
Each state makes its own rules about voting, so what you and Josh want
is not going to happen.
In that case, no voter ID.
In my case, yes voter ID. (-8

2016 ...
"Democratic Operative Explains Voter Fraud: We've Been Busing People
In For Fifty Years"
"In the second video from James O'Keefe's Project Veritas Action
series on the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign, Democratic party
operatives explain in detail how to successfully commit voter fraud on
a massive scale. In the video, Democratic politico Scott Foval, who
was fired after the release of Part 1 of this series, admits that the
Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years.
Related Video: Obama: Trump Needs To "Stop Whining" About A Rigged
Election
"It's a very easy thing for Republicans to say they're bussing people
in," Foval says in the video. "Well you know what? We've been bussing
people in to deal with you fuckin' assholes for fifty years and we're
not going to stop now. We're just going to find a different way to do
it.""
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/18/project_veritas_exposes_organized_voter_fraud_on_a_massive_scale.html#!

2016 ...
"Caught on Tape: Democratic Election Official Admits, 'There is a Lot
of Voter Fraud'"
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/10/12/nyc-election-commissioner-i-think-theres-a-lot-of-voter-fraud-n2230958

"Former Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich Calls Voter Fraud a
'Time-Honored Tradition' "
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/11/06/former-dem-governor-admits-democratic-voter-fraud-is-widespread-and-real-n2579632

Etc.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-13 04:23:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 12:17:21 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:57:35 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:41:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I
regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’
what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion
of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it
emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The
word “our” implies another of progressivism’s modern
virtues, inclusion. But that, as they themselves would
say, is a false narrative. When progressives refer to
“our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to
share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re
out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I
question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the
paywall. Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself
reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new.
Progressives are confident that their beloved causes are
by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs
of progressives is by definition a manifestation of social
Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true
Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that
an accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has
become a routine political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San
Francisco. At one time admission to Lowell High school was
based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students.
Along came Progressivism and Black numbers were radically
boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids,
sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the
school half Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along
came the resurgent progressivism of 2020/21. Academic
merit is forgotten and San Francisco's pre-eminent
academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a
triumph of Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation
of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes
of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost
epitome of Democracy, but in the end what could be less
representative of democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and
Castro? How far from those ideals are the members of the
"Squad"?
The only thing other than Trump the video said was accused of
being a threat to our democracy was voter suppression. The
video is correct about that accusation, but I agree that both
Trump and voter suppression
are threats to our democracy. Nonetheless, the larger claim
that accusations of "threats to our democracy" are now
routine remain unsupported.
I agree on Trump. As for voter suppression, I suppose you are
referring to various proposed ID requirements. Sorry, but I
see an ID requirement as fraud suppression.
1) The government aggressively goes out of its way to get people
registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have
driver's licenses. We should be able to have many more people
registered to vote and to automatically issue IDs at the same
time.
2) No excuse mail-in voting (like in California) is the norm.
Drop boxes are plentiful.
3) Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
4) People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for
failing to vote. In some states, voters are purged from the
rolls for failing to vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A
nondescript post card (easily ignored) is sent to them asking
if they still live at their address. If there is no response,
the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the government
should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
I would add early voting on weekends for people who are not
easily excused from work or making election day a national
holiday for national elections.
Early voting should be seven days a week.
That works for me!
And you had 8 years of Obama and 4 years of a Democrat House under
Trump to make your case.
And Obama only had the Congress for about 18 months and HR 4, passed
by the House was never considered in the Republican Senate thanks to
McConnell. Face it, the Republicans do not want everyone to vote.
What was in HR 4?
Post by Johnny
It's not the government's responsibility to get people to vote. The
people that want to vote will do what's necessary to vote.
Each state makes its own rules about voting, so what you and Josh want
is not going to happen.
In that case, no voter ID.
In my case, yes voter ID. (-8
Only if the four items mentioned above go along with it.
Post by El Castor
2016 ...
"Democratic Operative Explains Voter Fraud: We've Been Busing People
In For Fifty Years"
"In the second video from James O'Keefe's Project Veritas Action
series on the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign, Democratic party
operatives explain in detail how to successfully commit voter fraud on
a massive scale. In the video, Democratic politico Scott Foval, who
was fired after the release of Part 1 of this series, admits that the
Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years.
Related Video: Obama: Trump Needs To "Stop Whining" About A Rigged
Election
"It's a very easy thing for Republicans to say they're bussing people
in," Foval says in the video. "Well you know what? We've been bussing
people in to deal with you fuckin' assholes for fifty years and we're
not going to stop now. We're just going to find a different way to do
it.""
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/18/project_veritas_exposes_organized_voter_fraud_on_a_massive_scale.html#!
2016 ...
"Caught on Tape: Democratic Election Official Admits, 'There is a Lot
of Voter Fraud'"
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/10/12/nyc-election-commissioner-i-think-theres-a-lot-of-voter-fraud-n2230958
"Former Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich Calls Voter Fraud a
'Time-Honored Tradition' "
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/11/06/former-dem-governor-admits-democratic-voter-fraud-is-widespread-and-real-n2579632
Etc.
El Castor
2021-02-13 05:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 12:17:21 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:57:35 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:41:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I
regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’
what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion
of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it
emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The
word “our” implies another of progressivism’s modern
virtues, inclusion. But that, as they themselves would
say, is a false narrative. When progressives refer to
“our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to
share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re
out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I
question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the
paywall. Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself
reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new.
Progressives are confident that their beloved causes are
by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs
of progressives is by definition a manifestation of social
Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true
Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that
an accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has
become a routine political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San
Francisco. At one time admission to Lowell High school was
based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students.
Along came Progressivism and Black numbers were radically
boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids,
sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the
school half Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along
came the resurgent progressivism of 2020/21. Academic
merit is forgotten and San Francisco's pre-eminent
academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a
triumph of Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation
of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes
of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost
epitome of Democracy, but in the end what could be less
representative of democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and
Castro? How far from those ideals are the members of the
"Squad"?
The only thing other than Trump the video said was accused of
being a threat to our democracy was voter suppression. The
video is correct about that accusation, but I agree that both
Trump and voter suppression
are threats to our democracy. Nonetheless, the larger claim
that accusations of "threats to our democracy" are now
routine remain unsupported.
I agree on Trump. As for voter suppression, I suppose you are
referring to various proposed ID requirements. Sorry, but I
see an ID requirement as fraud suppression.
1) The government aggressively goes out of its way to get people
registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have
driver's licenses. We should be able to have many more people
registered to vote and to automatically issue IDs at the same
time.
2) No excuse mail-in voting (like in California) is the norm.
Drop boxes are plentiful.
3) Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
4) People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for
failing to vote. In some states, voters are purged from the
rolls for failing to vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A
nondescript post card (easily ignored) is sent to them asking
if they still live at their address. If there is no response,
the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the government
should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
I would add early voting on weekends for people who are not
easily excused from work or making election day a national
holiday for national elections.
Early voting should be seven days a week.
That works for me!
And you had 8 years of Obama and 4 years of a Democrat House under
Trump to make your case.
And Obama only had the Congress for about 18 months and HR 4, passed
by the House was never considered in the Republican Senate thanks to
McConnell. Face it, the Republicans do not want everyone to vote.
What was in HR 4?
Post by Johnny
It's not the government's responsibility to get people to vote. The
people that want to vote will do what's necessary to vote.
Each state makes its own rules about voting, so what you and Josh want
is not going to happen.
In that case, no voter ID.
In my case, yes voter ID. (-8
Only if the four items mentioned above go along with it.
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.

Mail-in balloting by request only.

Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
2016 ...
"Democratic Operative Explains Voter Fraud: We've Been Busing People
In For Fifty Years"
"In the second video from James O'Keefe's Project Veritas Action
series on the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign, Democratic party
operatives explain in detail how to successfully commit voter fraud on
a massive scale. In the video, Democratic politico Scott Foval, who
was fired after the release of Part 1 of this series, admits that the
Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years.
Related Video: Obama: Trump Needs To "Stop Whining" About A Rigged
Election
"It's a very easy thing for Republicans to say they're bussing people
in," Foval says in the video. "Well you know what? We've been bussing
people in to deal with you fuckin' assholes for fifty years and we're
not going to stop now. We're just going to find a different way to do
it.""
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/18/project_veritas_exposes_organized_voter_fraud_on_a_massive_scale.html#!
2016 ...
"Caught on Tape: Democratic Election Official Admits, 'There is a Lot
of Voter Fraud'"
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/10/12/nyc-election-commissioner-i-think-theres-a-lot-of-voter-fraud-n2230958
"Former Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich Calls Voter Fraud a
'Time-Honored Tradition' "
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/11/06/former-dem-governor-admits-democratic-voter-fraud-is-widespread-and-real-n2579632
Etc.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-13 16:17:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).

And two more items:

Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.

People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
El Castor
2021-02-13 18:07:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
islander
2021-02-13 18:51:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an issue
for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you in
pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can be done
on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent ID? If
states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or other such
identification of residence ought to suffice.
El Castor
2021-02-13 20:04:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an issue
for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you in
pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can be done
on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent ID? If
states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or other such
identification of residence ought to suffice.
I wouldn't want to make getting an ID unreasonable, but let's be
honest, this all comes down to a Republican fear of fraud as well as
an assumption that lower class Democrat voters will lack the
motivation or intelligence to take the necessary steps to enroll.
Democrats, on the other hand fear that fraud will become more
difficult, and they share the Republican belief that their lower class
constituents will lack the intellectual ability or desire to take the
steps necessary to vote.
Johnny
2021-02-13 21:03:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:04:49 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post
office. Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way
to get people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is
on poor communities where people are much more likely not to have
driver's licenses. We should be able to have many more people
registered to vote and to automatically issue IDs at the same
time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when
registering to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections
without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately
operated drop box services and mail balloting are both easily
subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official
government drop boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they
are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing
to vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for
failing to vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post
card (easily ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live
at their address. If there is no response, the voter is taking
off the rolls. Instead, the government should aggressively find
out what happened (did they really move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an
obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an
issue for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you
in pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can
be done on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent
ID? If states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or
other such identification of residence ought to suffice.
I wouldn't want to make getting an ID unreasonable, but let's be
honest, this all comes down to a Republican fear of fraud as well as
an assumption that lower class Democrat voters will lack the
motivation or intelligence to take the necessary steps to enroll.
Democrats, on the other hand fear that fraud will become more
difficult, and they share the Republican belief that their lower class
constituents will lack the intellectual ability or desire to take the
steps necessary to vote.
That's is exactly right, and it's not the government's responsibility
to motivate those people, or send someone to their house to see if they
have moved.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-14 00:10:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an issue
for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you in
pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can be done
on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent ID? If
states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or other such
identification of residence ought to suffice.
I wouldn't want to make getting an ID unreasonable, but let's be
honest, this all comes down to a Republican fear of fraud as well as
an assumption that lower class Democrat voters will lack the
motivation or intelligence to take the necessary steps to enroll.
Democrats, on the other hand fear that fraud will become more
difficult, and they share the Republican belief that their lower class
constituents will lack the intellectual ability or desire to take the
steps necessary to vote.
It's about Republican fears that the more people who legitimately vote,
the harder it will be for the GOP to win. That's why Republicans oppose
every measure designed to make it easier for people to vote (early
voting, DMV voter registration, mail-in voting, plentiful drop boxes,
making it harder to purger people from the rolls).
El Castor
2021-02-14 05:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 16:10:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an issue
for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you in
pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can be done
on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent ID? If
states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or other such
identification of residence ought to suffice.
I wouldn't want to make getting an ID unreasonable, but let's be
honest, this all comes down to a Republican fear of fraud as well as
an assumption that lower class Democrat voters will lack the
motivation or intelligence to take the necessary steps to enroll.
Democrats, on the other hand fear that fraud will become more
difficult, and they share the Republican belief that their lower class
constituents will lack the intellectual ability or desire to take the
steps necessary to vote.
It's about Republican fears that the more people who legitimately vote,
the harder it will be for the GOP to win. That's why Republicans oppose
every measure designed to make it easier for people to vote (early
voting, DMV voter registration, mail-in voting, plentiful drop boxes,
making it harder to purger people from the rolls).
Voting requirements would apply equally to Republicans and Democrats.
Why should equality work in the favor of Republicans?
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-14 16:04:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 16:10:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an issue
for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you in
pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can be done
on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent ID? If
states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or other such
identification of residence ought to suffice.
I wouldn't want to make getting an ID unreasonable, but let's be
honest, this all comes down to a Republican fear of fraud as well as
an assumption that lower class Democrat voters will lack the
motivation or intelligence to take the necessary steps to enroll.
Democrats, on the other hand fear that fraud will become more
difficult, and they share the Republican belief that their lower class
constituents will lack the intellectual ability or desire to take the
steps necessary to vote.
It's about Republican fears that the more people who legitimately vote,
the harder it will be for the GOP to win. That's why Republicans oppose
every measure designed to make it easier for people to vote (early
voting, DMV voter registration, mail-in voting, plentiful drop boxes,
making it harder to purger people from the rolls).
Voting requirements would apply equally to Republicans and Democrats.
Why should equality work in the favor of Republicans?
Republicans have been more proactive in getting themselves registered
and to the polls in the face of barriers.
El Castor
2021-02-14 17:08:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 08:04:28 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 16:10:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an issue
for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you in
pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can be done
on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent ID? If
states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or other such
identification of residence ought to suffice.
I wouldn't want to make getting an ID unreasonable, but let's be
honest, this all comes down to a Republican fear of fraud as well as
an assumption that lower class Democrat voters will lack the
motivation or intelligence to take the necessary steps to enroll.
Democrats, on the other hand fear that fraud will become more
difficult, and they share the Republican belief that their lower class
constituents will lack the intellectual ability or desire to take the
steps necessary to vote.
It's about Republican fears that the more people who legitimately vote,
the harder it will be for the GOP to win. That's why Republicans oppose
every measure designed to make it easier for people to vote (early
voting, DMV voter registration, mail-in voting, plentiful drop boxes,
making it harder to purger people from the rolls).
Voting requirements would apply equally to Republicans and Democrats.
Why should equality work in the favor of Republicans?
Republicans have been more proactive in getting themselves registered
and to the polls in the face of barriers.
So we need a voting process that is somehow designed to favor
Democrats?
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-14 17:22:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 08:04:28 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 16:10:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an issue
for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you in
pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can be done
on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent ID? If
states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or other such
identification of residence ought to suffice.
I wouldn't want to make getting an ID unreasonable, but let's be
honest, this all comes down to a Republican fear of fraud as well as
an assumption that lower class Democrat voters will lack the
motivation or intelligence to take the necessary steps to enroll.
Democrats, on the other hand fear that fraud will become more
difficult, and they share the Republican belief that their lower class
constituents will lack the intellectual ability or desire to take the
steps necessary to vote.
It's about Republican fears that the more people who legitimately vote,
the harder it will be for the GOP to win. That's why Republicans oppose
every measure designed to make it easier for people to vote (early
voting, DMV voter registration, mail-in voting, plentiful drop boxes,
making it harder to purger people from the rolls).
Voting requirements would apply equally to Republicans and Democrats.
Why should equality work in the favor of Republicans?
Republicans have been more proactive in getting themselves registered
and to the polls in the face of barriers.
So we need a voting process that is somehow designed to favor
Democrats?
Democracy works best when elected officials are chosen by a majority of
all citizens. Thus, we should have a voting process that gets the most
citizens to the polls whether or not it incidentally favors one party or
the other.
El Castor
2021-02-14 18:27:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 09:22:43 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 08:04:28 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 16:10:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an issue
for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you in
pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can be done
on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent ID? If
states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or other such
identification of residence ought to suffice.
I wouldn't want to make getting an ID unreasonable, but let's be
honest, this all comes down to a Republican fear of fraud as well as
an assumption that lower class Democrat voters will lack the
motivation or intelligence to take the necessary steps to enroll.
Democrats, on the other hand fear that fraud will become more
difficult, and they share the Republican belief that their lower class
constituents will lack the intellectual ability or desire to take the
steps necessary to vote.
It's about Republican fears that the more people who legitimately vote,
the harder it will be for the GOP to win. That's why Republicans oppose
every measure designed to make it easier for people to vote (early
voting, DMV voter registration, mail-in voting, plentiful drop boxes,
making it harder to purger people from the rolls).
Voting requirements would apply equally to Republicans and Democrats.
Why should equality work in the favor of Republicans?
Republicans have been more proactive in getting themselves registered
and to the polls in the face of barriers.
So we need a voting process that is somehow designed to favor
Democrats?
Democracy works best when elected officials are chosen by a majority of
all citizens. Thus, we should have a voting process that gets the most
citizens to the polls whether or not it incidentally favors one party or
the other.
Sorry if some Democrats are poorly motivated and not very smart, but
we need a system that first and foremost ensures a minimum of fraud,
as well as ample opportunity to vote.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-14 22:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 09:22:43 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 08:04:28 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 16:10:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an issue
for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you in
pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can be done
on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent ID? If
states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or other such
identification of residence ought to suffice.
I wouldn't want to make getting an ID unreasonable, but let's be
honest, this all comes down to a Republican fear of fraud as well as
an assumption that lower class Democrat voters will lack the
motivation or intelligence to take the necessary steps to enroll.
Democrats, on the other hand fear that fraud will become more
difficult, and they share the Republican belief that their lower class
constituents will lack the intellectual ability or desire to take the
steps necessary to vote.
It's about Republican fears that the more people who legitimately vote,
the harder it will be for the GOP to win. That's why Republicans oppose
every measure designed to make it easier for people to vote (early
voting, DMV voter registration, mail-in voting, plentiful drop boxes,
making it harder to purger people from the rolls).
Voting requirements would apply equally to Republicans and Democrats.
Why should equality work in the favor of Republicans?
Republicans have been more proactive in getting themselves registered
and to the polls in the face of barriers.
So we need a voting process that is somehow designed to favor
Democrats?
Democracy works best when elected officials are chosen by a majority of
all citizens. Thus, we should have a voting process that gets the most
citizens to the polls whether or not it incidentally favors one party or
the other.
Sorry if some Democrats are poorly motivated and not very smart, but
we need a system that first and foremost ensures a minimum of fraud,
as well as ample opportunity to vote.
I have proposed a system of both Voter ID and ample opportunity to vote.
El Castor
2021-02-14 23:54:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 14:14:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 09:22:43 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 08:04:28 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 16:10:44 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an issue
for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you in
pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can be done
on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent ID? If
states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or other such
identification of residence ought to suffice.
I wouldn't want to make getting an ID unreasonable, but let's be
honest, this all comes down to a Republican fear of fraud as well as
an assumption that lower class Democrat voters will lack the
motivation or intelligence to take the necessary steps to enroll.
Democrats, on the other hand fear that fraud will become more
difficult, and they share the Republican belief that their lower class
constituents will lack the intellectual ability or desire to take the
steps necessary to vote.
It's about Republican fears that the more people who legitimately vote,
the harder it will be for the GOP to win. That's why Republicans oppose
every measure designed to make it easier for people to vote (early
voting, DMV voter registration, mail-in voting, plentiful drop boxes,
making it harder to purger people from the rolls).
Voting requirements would apply equally to Republicans and Democrats.
Why should equality work in the favor of Republicans?
Republicans have been more proactive in getting themselves registered
and to the polls in the face of barriers.
So we need a voting process that is somehow designed to favor
Democrats?
Democracy works best when elected officials are chosen by a majority of
all citizens. Thus, we should have a voting process that gets the most
citizens to the polls whether or not it incidentally favors one party or
the other.
Sorry if some Democrats are poorly motivated and not very smart, but
we need a system that first and foremost ensures a minimum of fraud,
as well as ample opportunity to vote.
I have proposed a system of both Voter ID and ample opportunity to vote.
OK then, fine with me.

Johnny
2021-02-13 20:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 10:51:23 -0800
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post
office. Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way
to get people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on
poor communities where people are much more likely not to have
driver's licenses. We should be able to have many more people
registered to vote and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when
registering to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections
without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately
operated drop box services and mail balloting are both easily
subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government
drop boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in
California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing
to vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for
failing to vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post
card (easily ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at
their address. If there is no response, the voter is taking off
the rolls. Instead, the government should aggressively find out
what happened (did they really move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an
obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an
issue for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you
in pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can be
done on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent ID?
If states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or other
such identification of residence ought to suffice.
Remember when you were 16 and got a driver's license? Didn't you have
to provide a birth certificate with the name of the hospital and the
doctor? A driver's license was proof of citizenship.

Now that the country is flooded by illegal aliens, and soon to be
asylum seekers, and states like California issue them licenses, I doubt
they ask for birth certificates anymore.

This is what happens when our government doesn't control the border and
only allow people to enter legally. It makes life difficult for
American citizens.
islander
2021-02-14 00:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 10:51:23 -0800
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post
office. Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way
to get people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on
poor communities where people are much more likely not to have
driver's licenses. We should be able to have many more people
registered to vote and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when
registering to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections
without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately
operated drop box services and mail balloting are both easily
subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government
drop boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in
California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing
to vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for
failing to vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post
card (easily ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at
their address. If there is no response, the voter is taking off
the rolls. Instead, the government should aggressively find out
what happened (did they really move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an
obligation.
It really needs to be easy to get an ID. Since citizenship is an
issue for voting, proof of citizenship can be difficult/expensive.
Interestingly, if you have a passport, your address is added by you
in pencil so that it can be changed if/when you move. If that can be
done on a passport, why is it not possible to issue a permanent ID?
If states really want to know where you live, a utility bill or other
such identification of residence ought to suffice.
Remember when you were 16 and got a driver's license? Didn't you have
to provide a birth certificate with the name of the hospital and the
doctor? A driver's license was proof of citizenship.
Now that the country is flooded by illegal aliens, and soon to be
asylum seekers, and states like California issue them licenses, I doubt
they ask for birth certificates anymore.
This is what happens when our government doesn't control the border and
only allow people to enter legally. It makes life difficult for
American citizens.
That was far too long ago for me to remember the details. I don't
recall that it was a problem. I do recall hitting one of the pylons in
the parking part of the test.

What I do recall is the hassle getting an "enhanced" driver license in
Washington state and a proof of citizenship was required. It cost me
$30 to get a certified birth certificate. Fortunately, I remembered
where I was born and I was the only one of my siblings that was born in
a hospital. I have no idea if they would be able to get a birth
certificate if they were still alive. In any case, $30 is an effective
poll tax for some people, if their parents did register their birth.

These barriers to voter registration are intentional and intended
primarily at keeping the poor from voting, IMV.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-13 19:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
A nondescript post card is designed to be unnoticed.
El Castor
2021-02-14 05:41:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:50:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 08:17:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:23:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
State or federal ID required -- issued by the state or post office.
Misuse -- a serious criminal offense.
Fine, as long as the government aggressively goes out of its way to get
people registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have driver's
licenses. We should be able to have many more people registered to vote
and to automatically issue IDs at the same time.
Post by El Castor
Mail-in balloting by request only.
OK, so long as that request can be done once (including when registering
to vote) and applies in all subsequent elections without further request.
Post by El Castor
Drop boxes -- US Postal Service mail boxes only. Privately operated
drop box services and mail balloting are both easily subject to fraud.
I agree with a combination of Postal and other official government drop
boxes so long as they are plentiful (like they are in California).
Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for failing to
vote. In some states, voters are purged from the rolls for failing to
vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A nondescript post card (easily
ignored) is sent to them asking if they still live at their address. If
there is no response, the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the
government should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
Aggresively? I don't want to seem argumentative, but 4 years and a
letter or postcard seems ample. Voting is a right, not an obligation.
A nondescript post card is designed to be unnoticed.
OK, so use a red envelope.
islander
2021-02-13 14:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:57:35 -0800
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:41:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 08:10:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:26:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I
regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’
what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion
of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it
emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The
word “our” implies another of progressivism’s modern
virtues, inclusion. But that, as they themselves would
say, is a false narrative. When progressives refer to
“our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to
share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re
out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I
question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political
argument.
I'm a former subscriber, but now must also endure the
paywall. Possibly because of a glitch, I found myself
reading the whole thing
and hoped the link would work, but it didn't. Sorry about that.
The idea put forth in the article is nothing new.
Progressives are confident that their beloved causes are
by definition right and just.
Thus, a cause universally supported by the shared beliefs
of progressives is by definition a manifestation of social
Democracy so
questioning it is not only a sin, it's an affront to true
Democracy.
What evidence does the article present for their claim that
an accusation of being a "threat to our democracy" has
become a routine political argument.
Post by El Castor
There is currently a manifestation of this in San
Francisco. At one time admission to Lowell High school was
based on academic merit. The
school body was dominated by Asian and White students.
Along came Progressivism and Black numbers were radically
boosted. Asian parents
seeing their children displaced by far less qualified kids,
sued, won,
and admissions returned to academic merit, making the
school half Asian and less than 1.8% Black. Then along
came the resurgent progressivism of 2020/21. Academic
merit is forgotten and San Francisco's pre-eminent
academic high school is back to an admission
system that must disregard academic qualifications, a
triumph of Progressive Democracy.
That's got nothing to do with the claim that an accusation of being a
"threat to our democracy" has become a routine political argument.
Watch the video that accompanies the article. The extremes of the Left
have always claimed to represent "the people", the utmost
epitome of Democracy, but in the end what could be less
representative of democracy than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and
Castro? How far from those ideals are the members of the
"Squad"?
The only thing other than Trump the video said was accused of
being a threat to our democracy was voter suppression. The
video is correct about that accusation, but I agree that both
Trump and voter suppression
are threats to our democracy. Nonetheless, the larger claim
that accusations of "threats to our democracy" are now
routine remain unsupported.
I agree on Trump. As for voter suppression, I suppose you are
referring to various proposed ID requirements. Sorry, but I
see an ID requirement as fraud suppression.
1) The government aggressively goes out of its way to get people
registered to vote and get them IDs. The focus is on poor
communities where people are much more likely not to have
driver's licenses. We should be able to have many more people
registered to vote and to automatically issue IDs at the same
time.
2) No excuse mail-in voting (like in California) is the norm.
Drop boxes are plentiful.
3) Early voting in person is also offered for weeks before election day.
4) People are not so easily removed from the voter rolls for
failing to vote. In some states, voters are purged from the
rolls for failing to vote in as little as 2 to 4 years. A
nondescript post card (easily ignored) is sent to them asking
if they still live at their address. If there is no response,
the voter is taking off the rolls. Instead, the government
should aggressively find out what happened (did they really
move).
I would add early voting on weekends for people who are not
easily excused from work or making election day a national
holiday for national elections.
Early voting should be seven days a week.
That works for me!
And you had 8 years of Obama and 4 years of a Democrat House under
Trump to make your case.
And Obama only had the Congress for about 18 months and HR 4, passed
by the House was never considered in the Republican Senate thanks to
McConnell. Face it, the Republicans do not want everyone to vote.
What was in HR 4?
Post by Johnny
It's not the government's responsibility to get people to vote.  The
people that want to vote will do what's necessary to vote.
Each state makes its own rules about voting, so what you and Josh want
is not going to happen.
In that case, no voter ID.
HR 4 was an attempt to correct the problem that led to the SCOTUS repeal
of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This was the part of
the 1965 act that prevented states from instituting discriminatory rules
in their voting practices. The problem with the 1965 Act was that it
was limited to southern states and did not solve the problem of
discrimination in the northern states. HR 4 sought to correct that
problem by defining rules that would apply to all states.
islander
2021-02-11 14:56:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question the
claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine political
argument.
Frankly, I have heard the phrase (or one similar) used on both sides.
It is a bumper sticker that is used to further divide the country
without going into the many issues that might be resolved with an
emphasis on what constitutes benefit to the general public.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-11 16:10:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The following WSJ piece is very interesting, and I regret to say has
the ring of a very unpleasant truth.
"Who’s a Threat to ‘Our Democracy’?
When progressives single out threats to ‘our democracy,’ what they
mean is their democracy" ...
"Not long ago, hardly anyone used the apocalyptic notion of a threat
to “our democracy” as a political argument. Suddenly, it emerged among
progressives as a routine term of political art. The word “our”
implies another of progressivism’s modern virtues, inclusion. But
that, as they themselves would say, is a false narrative.
When progressives refer to “our democracy,” what they mean is their
democracy. To be a member of their democracy, one has to share their
beliefs. If you’re not in, you’re out. And if you’re out, they may
come after you for being a threat to democracy."
more ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-a-threat-to-our-democracy-11612998812?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
The article is behind a paywall. From your introduction, I question
the claim that "threat to our democracy" has become a routine
political argument.
Frankly, I have heard the phrase (or one similar) used on both sides. It
is a bumper sticker that is used to further divide the country without
going into the many issues that might be resolved with an emphasis on
what constitutes benefit to the general public.
With the exception of Trump (who deserves the moniker), I haven't heard
it used.
Loading...