Voter Suppression: GOP's War with Democracy

[Chap]

Earth to effing stupid. Nothing says black people "can't vote " Her right or ability to vote wasn't denied, it was suppressed, making it difficult for her. Why don't you humor us and take a stab at addressing the anti-democracy philosophy of the GOP instead of derailing eith your usual red herring quips and word games.

Because he is not really here to do anything much. apart from "derailing [with his] usual red herring quips and word games".

For some reason Dr Shades thinks that kind of thing is OK. I tend to be of a different opinion.

[Binger]

Earth to effing stupid. Nothing says black people "can't vote " Her right or ability to vote wasn't denied, it was suppressed, making it difficult for her. Why don't you humor us and take a stab at addressing the anti-democracy philosophy of the GOP instead of derailing eith your usual red herring quips and word games.

Because he is not really here to do anything much. apart from "derailing [with his] usual red herring quips and word games".

For some reason Dr Shades thinks that kind of thing is OK. I tend to be of a different opinion.

We were talking about voter suppression until you started talking about fish, wordle and moderators.

Here is a fish.

[K Graham]

Not even sure why some Republicans get offended when we tell them their voter suppression efforts are anti-Democracy. I mean, several among their ranks have already stated their antipathy for democracy, claiming that the USA isn't a democracy at all.

On FOX noise, Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., epic moron, claims America is not a Democracy, and that the filibuster protects us from becoming one.

Senator Mike Lee (R) from Utah tweeted Oct 7, 2020: "We're not a Democracy."

According to Eric Levitz of New York magazine’s Intelligencer:

"These days, American conservatives love few phrases more than “we’re a republic, not a democracy.” In almost all cases, this statement is a non sequitur. In contemporary political discourse, “democracy” is defined as a system of representative government in which lawmakers are subject to popular elections.... Typically, Republicans invoke America’s status as a “republic” to justify the arbitrary structural advantages that our archaic constitutional framework happens to award their party. When Democrats ask why the vote of an American who lives in Wyoming should count for orders of magnitude more than the vote of one who lives in California, Republicans reply, ‘Because we’re a republic not a democracy.” Never mind that population disparities between states were nowhere near as large at the time of the founding as they are today, or that there is no theory of republican governance that advises giving the residents of one arbitrarily bounded territory more voting power than the residents of another. No logic is necessary: Like a sorcerer’s spell, one can intone “we’re a republic, not a democracy” and poof—every counter-majoritarian institution that benefits your political party, be it a gerrymandered legislative map, the Electoral College, or a felon disenfranchisement law, is magically transformed from a legal reality of dubious legitimacy into a noble safeguard of American liberty.

In his assessment of Lee’s statement that the country isn’t a democracy, author and Vox journalist Ian Millhiser tweeted that while the senator Lee was “accurate,” the “problem is that Republicans celebrate the fact that our system believes that some voters should count more than others rather than trying to fix it.”

[Binger]

Not even sure why some Republicans get offended when we tell them their voter suppression efforts are anti-Democracy. I mean, several among their ranks have already stated their antipathy for democracy, claiming that the USA isn't a democracy at all.

On FOX noise, Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., epic moron, claims America is not a Democracy, and that the filibuster protects us from becoming one.

Senator Mike Lee (R) from Utah tweeted Oct 7, 2020: "We're not a Democracy."

According to Eric Levitz of New York magazine’s Intelligencer:

"These days, American conservatives love few phrases more than “we’re a republic, not a democracy.” In almost all cases, this statement is a non sequitur. In contemporary political discourse, “democracy” is defined as a system of representative government in which lawmakers are subject to popular elections.... Typically, Republicans invoke America’s status as a “republic” to justify the arbitrary structural advantages that our archaic constitutional framework happens to award their party. When Democrats ask why the vote of an American who lives in Wyoming should count for orders of magnitude more than the vote of one who lives in California, Republicans reply, ‘Because we’re a republic not a democracy.” Never mind that population disparities between states were nowhere near as large at the time of the founding as they are today, or that there is no theory of republican governance that advises giving the residents of one arbitrarily bounded territory more voting power than the residents of another. No logic is necessary: Like a sorcerer’s spell, one can intone “we’re a republic, not a democracy” and poof—every counter-majoritarian institution that benefits your political party, be it a gerrymandered legislative map, the Electoral College, or a felon disenfranchisement law, is magically transformed from a legal reality of dubious legitimacy into a noble safeguard of American liberty.

In his assessment of Lee’s statement that the country isn’t a democracy, author and Vox journalist Ian Millhiser tweeted that while the senator Lee was “accurate,” the “problem is that Republicans celebrate the fact that our system believes that some voters should count more than others rather than trying to fix it.”

Has GQ or The Atlantic said anything about this? Just wondering. I think this is a subject that is best told using anonymous sources. The more anonymous they are, definitely the better. Way better.

[Moksha]

For some reason, Dr. Shades thinks that kind of thing is OK. I tend to be of a different opinion.

Tolerance to differing opinions is a virtue, but I doubt that applies to those whose purpose is to F with the process.

[Res Ipsa]

Right on cue, here comes the derailing moron with his idiotic statements that have nothing to do with anything said in the OP. You know, with all the rules listed in the official rules, you'd think the forum would benefit from at least one rule preventing people from constantly hijacking threads. This is the only forum I know of that has absolutely no restrictions on trolls.

Once again I will humbly suggest that, when you are the OP, you don't broaden the scope of your thread by responding to trolling. When you are the OP, I look to you for the scope, including which posts you respond to. When you respond as the OP to trolling, you broaden the scope of your thread.

Better yet, make use of the SSP kingdom that folks clamored for. On-topic is more strictly enforced there.