I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Weren't the New Black Panthers limited to Philly and Baltimore? How many GOP votes did they prevent? I'd wager fewer than attendance at next week's Leif Garret show at the West Springfield Off-Track Betting Lounge (Upstairs).

But you have a DOJ where a bunch of people think (as evidenced by them saying it) that the Voting Rights Act doesn't protect the voting rights of white people. The reaction to Ike Brown was the exception that proved the rule see this around page 78-82 or so:

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/Commission...11-23-2010.pdf

And of course they didn't directly prevent many votes, but to Trump voters, I can see how it appears like unequal enforcement.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This response is extremely random in that it doesn't seem to be connected to anything.

TM

Um, it was in response to your assertions about all the voter suppression the Trump DOJ would cause. Pointing out that many Trumpers see getting even as just fine, in that Holder's DOJ only cared about protecting the voting rights of certain groups, which are generally not in the Trump demographic.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is not hyperbole. The GOP is going to game it like we've never seen before.

But in fairness, so were the Democrats. I agree with letting felons back onto the voting rolls, but that was a naked play for new votes. And immigration reform would only create more D voters.

Your capacity to try to see things evenly is bottomless. You are equating removing people from the voting rolls for no reason other than the fact that they vote Democrat to removing an arbitrary restriction on voting, which limits a person's ability to exercise a fundamental right for the rest of their lives. The two things are not comparable.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You can say that the R's efforts are vile, as suppression is intended to keep people from exercising rights, while the D's efforts are aimed at being more inclusive.

Gee, thanks. I think I will.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And no one can argue with that proposition.

I'm guessing the bullshit is about to flow.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

However, it does remain a fact that both parties were seeking to retain control by procedural means. It just happens that one's doing some serious cheating, while the other was just trying to pack the rolls.

No. This is absolutely wrong. Setting up a law that removes one's right to vote is a way of suppressing the vote. Removing that restriction is not a way of packing the fucking rolls. It is reducing suppression.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've heard the R's actions in this regard justified as avoidance of tyranny of a low information majority.

Have you heard that? Are "many people saying?" Did you hear it at a cocktail party?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This seems ironic given the typical Trump voter in Sticksville, but I can understand a bit of it. I think it was de Tocqueville who said that eventually democracy falls on its face because the sector of the population voting based on promises of transfers to it from the treasury becomes impossible to defeat.

I'm not sure what you understand, but it seems to me that Republicans love low information voters as long as they vote for them. Low information voters who don't must be purged.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Um, it was in response to your assertions about all the voter suppression the Trump DOJ would cause. Pointing out that many Trumpers see getting even as just fine, in that Holder's DOJ only cared about protecting the voting rights of certain groups, which are generally not in the Trump demographic.

Yes, except that you are conflating two completely different things. And the act of that conflation carries with it the false equivalence that they are anywhere near the same level. Voter intimidation and voter suppression are not the same thing. And I believe the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation you are referring to amounts to like 2 guys standing on the corner somewhere. Voter suppression is state-sponsored voter purging.

Your effort to compare the two while keeping yourself neutral by mentioning Trump voters' intent at evening things up is just stupid. Own your bullshit argument. Don't act like the voting public is getting its revenge for Eric Holder's selective prosecution.

TM

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yes, except that you are conflating two completely different things. And the act of that conflation carries with it the false equivalence that they are anywhere near the same level. Voter intimidation and voter suppression are not the same thing. And I believe the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation you are referring to amounts to like 2 guys standing on the corner somewhere. Voter suppression is state-sponsored voter purging.

Your effort to compare the two while keeping yourself neutral by mentioning Trump voters' intent at evening things up is just stupid. Own your bullshit argument. Don't act like the voting public is getting its revenge for Eric Holder's selective prosecution.

TM

I admit that I, personally, am offended by the proposition, by whomever it is made, that only rights of minorities and non-English speakers are worthy of protection. If there were another case as egregious as Ike Brown, and the DOJ declined to prosecute, I would be pretty pissed.

OTOH, I sincerely wish that the DOJ could act in a reasonably non-partisan way on *both* sides. It has fostered a lot of the division in this country and the insurgence of the burn it all down crowd. I am no fan of the federal government generally, but I think a neutralish DOJ would go a long ways to alleviating the mistrust of government.

Yeah, I think Sessions will be suck, he got his job by sucking up to Trump. But I don't think that the Lynch/Bill Clinton meeting on the tarmac to discuss "grandchildren" did much to increase perceptions of the office of the Attorney General either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

But you have a DOJ where a bunch of people think (as evidenced by them saying it) that the Voting Rights Act doesn't protect the voting rights of white people. The reaction to Ike Brown was the exception that proved the rule see this around page 78-82 or so:

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/Commission...11-23-2010.pdf


And of course they didn't directly prevent many votes, but to Trump voters, I can see how it appears like unequal enforcement.

The attention paid to the New Black Panther Party and this case helps to illustrate and explain why so many Trump voters feel that discrimination against whites is a bigger problem than discrimination against non-whites.

eta: Not that you seem to care what DOJ was thinking, but I read the complaints from Coates and perceive that DOJ officials did not think that whites don't have voting rights, but were consciously changing the enforcement priorities from the Bush Administration, a very different thing. (I am more familiar with the inner workings of DOJ than most people are, and if I had a dollar for every time I heard a staff lawyer complain that they knew better than a political appointee who making a decision, I'd be rich. Most of those beefs get the attention they deserve, but if you are a white guy and complain that minorities aren't protecting whites, you can get all the attention you want.)

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

One of the things you have to do in building in an area where the party has been weakened and lost seats is make sure you have someone running for every seat. It's only by running campaigns that you identify the people willing to work together for the next campaign. The sacrificial lamb candidacies don't need people who will win, they need people who care, and out of those campaigns come the people who win the next time.

It doesn't need to be you. But building in the Southeast, the Southwest, and Texas need to be really big priorities.

I am actually thinking of running. On this last ballot, both the local state rep and state senator in my district ran unopposed.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

An important distinction between Trump's and Hillary's infrastructure plans is that Trump is proposing P3 projects. Risk is largely on the developer, financing is private, repaid over time through tax revenues. If you're going to do infrastructure cost effectively, removing govt from the process as much as possible, this is the best way to do so.

I spent years doing financing deals, where the local governmental or state agency would float a bond issue, to be repaid through in creased tax revenues. In almost no case did the "increased tax revenues appear to cover the opportunity cost and the local subsidy afforded by tax-free financing.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

OTOH, I sincerely wish that the DOJ could act in a reasonably non-partisan way on *both* sides.

What's the other side? Do you think there's a lot of repression of white voters happening without any enforcement?

Sure, white people's voting rights should be protected too (although I'll leave open whether the Voting Rights Act does that, because I don't know). I just don't think they are under any significant threat.

It has fostered a lot of the division in this country and the insurgence of the burn it all down crowd.

What's it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I admit that I, personally, am offended by the proposition, by whomever it is made, that only rights of minorities and non-English speakers are worthy of protection. If there were another case as egregious as Ike Brown, and the DOJ declined to prosecute, I would be pretty pissed.

Unsurprisingly, no one at DOJ has actually said that in public, and instead what you have is the hearsay of what in other contexts might be called a disgruntled employee.

OTOH, I sincerely wish that the DOJ could act in a reasonably non-partisan way on *both* sides. It has fostered a lot of the division in this country and the insurgence of the burn it all down crowd. I am no fan of the federal government generally, but I think a neutralish DOJ would go a long ways to alleviating the mistrust of government.

I genuinely would like to understand how DOJ "fostered a lot of the division in this country" because I don't get it, and I tend to take that accusation kinda personally.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I genuinely would like to understand how DOJ "fostered a lot of the division in this country" because I don't get it, and I tend to take that accusation kinda personally.

I was going to joke that sometimes they don't listen to me, and then realized that it hasn't really happened.

Okay, so there was one time in a disagreement over the proper application of the federal sentencing guidelines, but that's about it.

FTC, on the other hand...

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I admit that I, personally, am offended by the proposition, by whomever it is made, that only rights of minorities and non-English speakers are worthy of protection.

This is a bullshit proposition that you just made up in your head (although to be fair, maybe you didn't just make it up, maybe it lives there). I have never ever heard anyone say anything close to this. And your sensitivity to this pretend issue leads me to believe you are one of those people who eschews discussing the daily discrimination of minorities in this country in favor of a robust discussion of reverse discrimination. Considering the fact that almost half of white America and the vast majority of Republicans think it's more prevalent than the discrimination minorities actually face daily, you're probably right at home.

In fact, I can't even believe we are discussing instances of white people's votes being suppressed given (i) the conditions under which that could happen and (ii) what is actually happening in this country. But I suppose this is where we are.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

If there were another case as egregious as Ike Brown, and the DOJ declined to prosecute, I would be pretty pissed.

Right. But it did. Wouldn't it be fucking grand if you thought about vote suppression as a general thing (and not just something that needs attention when it affects people who look like you) and you were pissed about it occurring anywhere? I suppose that's just too much to ask.

I wonder how pissed you'd be if minorities controlled the three branches of government and dominated every fucking political institution in this country.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

OTOH, I sincerely wish that the DOJ could act in a reasonably non-partisan way on *both* sides. It has fostered a lot of the division in this country and the insurgence of the burn it all down crowd. I am no fan of the federal government generally, but I think a neutralish DOJ would go a long ways to alleviating the mistrust of government.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. What is your definition of "neutral?" If there are 1 million instances of illegal voter suppression on one side and 6 on the other, I'm guessing a neutral DOJ would take on 6 cases for each side?

Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Yeah, I think Sessions will be suck, he got his job by sucking up to Trump. But I don't think that the Lynch/Bill Clinton meeting on the tarmac to discuss "grandchildren" did much to increase perceptions of the office of the Attorney General either.

Jesus Christ. I give up.

TM

[Icky Thump]

Http://media.nj.com/mets_main/photo/...d5d8daf63f.jpg

Edited by the Not Bobster to fix the margins. By the way, Icky, Not Bob is also happy about the signing. More Major World commercials, please!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is a bullshit proposition that you just made up in your head (although to be fair, maybe you didn't just make it up, maybe it lives there). I have never ever heard anyone say anything close to this.

She didn't make it up. If you read the interim report that she linked to, from page 78, you will see that it refers to a Washington Post article quoting an anonymous DOJ staffer as saying:

"There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section's job to protect white voters," the lawyer said. "The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized."

It also quotes testimony from a former DOJ staffer, Coates, saying that he did not believe that someone senior to him at DOJ, King, "supports equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act". Not that she (King) said this, but that he (Coates) believed it.

It further quotes Coates and another DOJ staffer about an Obama political appointee at DOJ, Fernandes, as follows:

Ms. Fernandes responded by telling the gathering there that the Obama administration was only interested in bringing traditional types of Section 2 cases that would provide equality for racial and language minority voters. And then she went on to say that this is what we are all about or words to that effect....

Ms. Fernandes reiterated that directive in another meeting held in December 2009 on the subject of federal observer election coverage, in which she stated to the entire group in attendance that the Voting Section's goal was to ensure equal access for voters of color or language minority.

Coates in particular described this as hostility to race-neutral enforcement of voting rights laws. I quoted what the report actually said because I don't think that is the best interpretation of the evidence in, or even a particularly fair one, but obviously it is a politically useful one, and in some circles it is accepted as the truth.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Adder

What's it?

The perception of a politicized DOJ.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Right. But it did. Wouldn't it be fucking grand if you thought about vote suppression as a general thing (and not just something that needs attention when it affects people who look like you) and you were pissed about it occurring anywhere? I suppose that's just too much to ask.


TM

Calm down.

I would think that you would be literate enough to indicate that my use of the subjunctive case is an indication that I was making a hypothetical proposition. It is also necessarily an acknowledgment that the Ike Brown case *was* prosecuted. I fail to see how you can conclude based on a statement that if a prosecution of circumstances similar to specific named event of voter suppression, were not to be prosecuted, that I don't give a crap about any kind of voter suppression. And someone needs a Leap to Conclusions Mat to then assume that it means I do not acknowledge that there is systemic racism in a million small ways, just because of the sole example of what was *one* particularly egregious case of reverse racism, that was in fact prosecuted.

Heck, every single case of fraud that I know about from the presidential election was a dumbass Trump voter who tried to vote multiple times because he said to. And now we are in a situation where Gary Freaking Johnson is the only candidate not bitching about the election results. I absolutely believe that voter suppression is a bigger issue than voter fraud. And I agree that we need to re-evaluate felon voting rights or think about the consequences before making changes like reducing early voting days. And the DOJ should go after changes to laws that do have the intent or effect of suppressing the vote, and not encouraging the adoption of such rules (that will ultimately hurt the GOP anyway. I tend to agree that the GOP base is dying off, and they need to diversify, and Trump/Sessions is a move in the exact opposite direction if they want the party to survive. The future supply of angry white people is limited.)

And Ty, I hear you about what statements in the DOJ get publicity. Point taken.