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

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Calm down.

Fuck off.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

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.

I see that you are trying to purchase a ticket to The Land of Fu. I know exactly what you're doing. The fact that we are even having a discussion about perceived DOJ neutrality and how white people might not be getting a fair shake when it comes to policing voter suppression says everything. I was formally calling you out on your bullshit and telling you to own the conversation you are pushing. Hypothetical my ass.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

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.

Yes of course. Your statement about how you'd be angry if another case like the Ike Brown one wasn't pursued isn't an indication of what is actually happening in your head.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

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.)

Great! Then why the hell are we discussing a case in which the DOJ actually addressed the suppression of white voting rights like that's a thing that needs attention? Why was the next point you made about the perception of the [uninformed, ignorant, dumbass] electorate that the DOJ isn't neutral?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Delete that photo or make it a link so that we can fix the margins.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

The perception of a politicized DOJ.

I don't have any idea what a non-politicized executive agency actually looks like. And I guess I've had 8 years of not particularly looking for politicization, but aside from the Clinton/Lynch meeting, what do you have in mind?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Delete that photo or make it a link so that we can fix the margins.

Not Bob at your service, you angry Yankee fan. But Major World le da Bienvenida Yoenis Cespedis

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

Let me get this straight.

In a country in which every voting system is run by whites to the advantage of whites and in which laws had to be passed to keep whites from disenfranchising minorities, the fact that prosecuting those laws in the actual and many cases in which whites successfuly disenfranchise minorities is looked upon as unfair because there is no focus on the effectively non-existent instances of whites being disenfranchised?

"When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Let me get this straight.

In a country in which every voting system is run by whites to the advantage of whites and in which laws had to be passed to keep whites from disenfranchising minorities, the fact that prosecuting those laws in the actual and many cases in which whites successfuly disenfranchise minorities is looked upon as unfair because there is no focus on the effectively non-existent instances of whites being disenfranchised?

"When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

Not every voting system. DOJ found that one case to bring in Mississippi.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Let me get this straight.

In a country in which every voting system is run by whites to the advantage of whites and in which laws had to be passed to keep whites from disenfranchising minorities, the fact that prosecuting those laws in the actual and many cases in which whites successfuly disenfranchise minorities is looked upon as unfair because there is no focus on the effectively non-existent instances of whites being disenfranchised?

"When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

TM

Please. He's saying all issues regarding voter suppression are required to be vetted equally in a colorblind manner, and this was not done. There is no sane, logical, unbiased way to read what you have into what he wrote.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

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.

Similarly, nowhere in any of my text that you cited did "increased tax revenues" appear.

These projects provide so much savings when done right they're easily afforded using a projection of zero increases in available tax dollars for a decade.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Please. He's saying all issues regarding voter suppression are required to be vetted equally in a colorblind manner, and this was not done. There is no sane, logical, unbiased way to read what you have into what he wrote.

What?

I do not know how I could possibly make this any fucking clearer. There are no instances of voter suppression occurring w/r/t white people (except, as Ty pointed out, the one that was handled*). The whole point of the VRA is to police states that suppress minority voters. If the only instances of voter suppression occur in one direction, then how the fuck does what you just wrote make any sense at all?

TM

*Let me guess your response: But we don't know about all the voter suppression of white people because the non-colorblind DOJ didn't investigate all the instances of white voter suppression!

FOH.

eta: I find it fascinating that you don't understand that I was agreeing with him based on what he wrote.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

True. But let's be brutally honest about why this is happening. Democrats want more bodies in the booths. Ninety percent of the party apparatus couldn't give a fuck about these peoples' rights. One can't help wonder how many "tough on crime" Ds suddenly supported felons' voting rights when they became a large enough statistical bloc to make a difference.

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

You think the "welfare mothers" gripe has left GOP circles? It's as strong as ever, morphed into, "My God... We can't give the damn country away to these moochers." I was being incredibly kind to equate the view to de Tocqueville's. When it's said, quite openly, it's usually offered in exactly the coarse fashion you might imagine.

And what kind of parties don't serve drinks? That's rhetorical, of course. If there's an answer somewhere, I'm about as interested in hearing it as I am in the best homeopathic cure for menstrual cramps.

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.

That's exactly what I was saying.

Except the desire for low information voters applies to both parties. They both want dependable, dependent cogs who'll predictably buy their bullshit and pull the levers for them. Are the Democrats a bit more kind to their low information voters? Yes. They offer them transfers and protections. The GOP just lies to its infantry.

But in the end, neither group offers the lumpen proletariat anything more than a hand job to ease the pain of their utterly fucked futures. And neither tells the poor sons of bitches the ability of govt to protect and provide for them all in the manner to which they've become accustomed is coming to an ugly conclusion sooner than expected.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What?

I do not know how I could possibly make this any fucking clearer. There are no instances of voter suppression occurring w/r/t white people (except, as Ty pointed out, the one that was handled*). The whole point of the VRA is to police states that suppress minority voters. If the only instances of voter suppression occur in one direction, then how the fuck does what you just wrote make any sense at all?

TM

*Let me guess your response: But we don't know about all the voter suppression of white people because the non-colorblind DOJ didn't investigate all the instances of white voter suppression!

FOH.

eta: I find it fascinating that you don't understand that I was agreeing with him based on what he wrote.

Technically, the application is supposed to be effected in a colorblind manner. That's all I read him or SEC to be saying. And that's all I said.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't have any idea what a non-politicized executive agency actually looks like. And I guess I've had 8 years of not particularly looking for politicization, but aside from the Clinton/Lynch meeting, what do you have in mind?

By *perceived* politicization, I guess I am more referring to the partisan echo chamber that infects both sides now. Not that the DOJ is itself problematic, but that no matter who is in control, the other side cannot acknowledge a single success of the other side or fault of their own. Regarding the current DOJ, a good portion of the country thinks of Fast & Furious, intentionally gunwalking to support an anti-second amendment agenda ("We need to brainwash people about guns"--Holder), contempt of Congress, BS executive privilege claims, and not handing over documents when they think of the DOJ, because that's what conservative media tells them about.

People (and I fully include myself in this) are increasingly only seeking out information that reinforces their own worldview. As to the report I linked, that information was splashed all over Drudge and on Fox News and presented like the reverse of Kanye's statements about Bush: "Obama Admin doesn't care about white people!" How do you think I found that report today on my first google search? I'm not saying it's right or true. It's the perception. I never read Breitbart, but since I started watching CNN, I feel like I am much more able to respectfully appreciate the viewpoints of others, especially when I disagree, although disassociating from the GOP probably helped in that regard as well. Trump wanting people to lose citizenship for burning a flag is as bad as the limitations on speech on many campuses due to the whiny sense of victimhood felt by Millennials.

I have recently read a few thoughtful pieces from Never Trumpers about how they take responsibility for fanning the flames of extreme partisanship that created the toxic environment and led to Trump.

Sorry, I know this is a little stream-of-consciousness and Sebby-esque. I am having a hard time figuring out the right words.

And on another topic, I have seen reports that Hillary may be keeping her options open for 2020. I cannot help but think it is a colossally bad idea for Dems, but would appreciate the thoughts of someone who actually likes her.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He's saying all issues regarding voter suppression are required to be vetted equally in a colorblind manner, and this was not done.

Are you talking about something I said?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

True. But let's be brutally honest about why this is happening.

Oh good, let's!

Democrats want more bodies in the booths. Ninety percent of the party apparatus couldn't give a fuck about these peoples' rights. One can't help wonder how many "tough on crime" Ds suddenly supported felons' voting rights when they became a large enough statistical bloc to make a difference.

Oh dear. You got the brutal part, but not the honest part. You're just making shit up about what (unidentified) motivates Democrats. If you want to make shit up, go for it, but don't pretend you're being honest.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Are you talking about something I said?

I was describing your translation/defense of what SEC said.