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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Gee, thanks. I think I will.

I'm guessing the bullshit is about to flow.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.)

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

What's it?

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

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.

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.

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

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

Jesus Christ. I give up.

TM

Merry Christmas!!!
 

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!

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

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.

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

The perception of a politicized DOJ.

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.

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

Fuck off.

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.

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.

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

Please
 

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

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

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?

Re: Please
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Are you talking about something I said?

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

Oh good, let's!

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.

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

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

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

I find it spellbinding that you think you have such a deep understanding of the inner workings of everyone's mind and their motives. What is even more absorbing is watching you force equivalency on the removal of a restriction on voting with that very same restriction. It's all so gripping.

This is completely and totally untrue. We are talking about voting, not approaches to governing or campaign promises. Republicans restrict voting. Democrats do not.

I'm not having this conversation with you again.

TM

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

"Party Apparatus," not Democrats in general. Neither party organization gives a fuck about much more than winning and preserving its power.

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

Calm down.

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

Calm down.

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

Fuck off.

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

Calm down. And listen to some post-Thanksgiving funk. The Nite-Liters with "Stuff-n-it." Get it? Stuff-n . . . stuffing? Get it? Calm down. The Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjH-qjxk9-c

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

Fuck off again.

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

That is the opposite of calming down.

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

I don't understand why my calming directive appears to be having the exact opposite of the intended effect. It's like this place is some sort of backwards world.

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

Since you're here anyway... "Nevermind the Bollocks, Here's Joe Corre: Idiot of the Decade"?