President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Why? To register to vote, I had to provide a government issued ID (my DL) and another form of ID that proves citizenship (my passport). To obtain my passport, I had to provide my original birth certificate (which wasn't given back to me until they mailed my passport), DL, and a foreskin sample. I was then mailed a voter card. I only vote by mail because I'm not reetarded, but i
So you're able to provide those 2 forms of ID no problem to register, but the suggestion is it then becomes difficult to provide those 2 forms when going to vote? The onerism. That's a weird difficulty to all of a sudden encounter.
I'm sure housenuts still believes that in 2020 Trump was discouraging MAGAs from voting by mail because of security, not because he tried to interfere with mailed votes and to claim rigged afterwards.
Trusting GOP's intentions for security at this point is so ridiculous that I have hard time taking it seriously
So you're able to provide those 2 forms of ID no problem to register, but the suggestion is it then becomes difficult to provide those 2 forms when going to vote? The onerism. That's a weird difficulty to all of a sudden encounter.
1) Many people keep sensitive documents in a safe deposit box at the bank
2) It's redundant and reetarded
Note well that if requiring five proofs of citizenship (or whatever) benefited Democrats, the Dems would be on their 'Voter Security' high-horse.
Yes: Both Sides!
Note well that if requiring five proofs of citizenship (or whatever) benefited Democrats, the Dems would be on their 'Voter Security' high-horse.
Maybe, but the Constitution says every citizen gets to vote. You have to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote; ergo, you just need to provide proof of identity to cast a vote.
Note well that if requiring five proofs of citizenship (or whatever) benefited Democrats, the Dems would be on their 'Voter Security' high-horse.
Yes: Both Sides!
Why is it you guys always assume that if your side do it, it's obvious everyone does it too?
Why is it you guys always assume that if your side do it, it's obvious everyone does it too
It's called copium.
Just like when they said bOtH sIdEs would do it with the supreme court appointment (Garland) in Obama's final year, but both sides never had before nor after.
It's not both sides. Sorry, it's just not.
Note well that if requiring five proofs of citizenship (or whatever) benefited Democrats, the Dems would be on their 'Voter Security' high-horse.
Yes: Both Sides!
The Democrats were the ones that passed the civil rights acts, despite the fact that they relied heavily on the racist southern* vote. So are we really so sure that both sides would do it?
Both sides do suck its just one side is kind of ineffective and smarmy while the other side is ghoulish beyond repent
Why is it you guys always assume that if your side do it, it's obvious everyone does it too
The biggest reason is because this is the kind of thing that the Democrats actually did for decades.
Many southern states (which were completely controlled by the Democrat Party) had laws that required voters to pass a 'literacy test' before you would be allowed to vote.
The purpose was to keep uneducated black folks from voting.
(Note well that the Democrats were well ahead of David Sklansky on that idea!)
The Democrats were the ones that passed the civil rights acts, despite the fact that they relied heavily on the racist southern* vote. So are we really so sure that both sides would do it?
The civil right act, *for the portions that address private behavior*, was a violent, authoritarian and unconstitutional piece of fascist legislation.
Right of association is absolute and unalienable, it's incredible it exists the possibility for the state to regulate who you can freely decide to associate with in business or otherwise.
That's weird because the portion forcing states to follow the constitution is absolutely crystal clear necessary so it's the rare act which includes both horrific disgusting indefensible policies, and extremely necessary ones.
The Democrats were the ones that passed the civil rights acts, despite the fact that they relied heavily on the racist southern* vote. So are we really so sure that both sides would do it?
Both sides have done it! It's called HISTORY!
Interesting Factoid: A higher percentage of REPUBLICAN senators voted for the Civil Rights Act than DEMOCRAT senators!
The civil right act, *for the portions that address private behavior*, was a violent, authoritarian and unconstitutional piece of fascist legislation.Right of association is absolute and unalienable, it's incredible it exists the possibility for the state to regulate who you can freely decide to associate with in business or otherwise.That's weird because the portion forcing st
lmao the civil rights act was fascist is certainly a take. you sound like one of those rabid lefties that call everything they don’t like fascism. it’s boring to even respond to because you’re just emoting.
Both sides have done it! It's called HISTORY!
Speaking of history: A higher percentage of REPUBLICAN senators voted for the Civil Rights Act than DEMOCRAT senators iirc.
It doesn’t matter because it needed support from the white house in order to pass.
This would also sort of buttress my point that Dems are able to put aside their interests in order to do what’s best for Americans.
lmao the civil rights act was fascist is certainly a take. you sound like one of those rabid lefties that call everything they don’t like fascism. it’s boring to even respond to because you’re just emoting.
It's the normal take of the American libertarian party, maybe you just don't know that.
The state has NO say on who you interact with and you should always without exception being free to hire, fire, rent, sell, and so on with anyone ant anytime (and refuse to do that with anyone at anytime) for any reason without ever, no exception, having to justify it to third parties.
It's completely unconstitutional for the state to enter that arena.
And btw SCOTUS in 1883 fully agrees with the above, striking down all of the civil right of 1875 act parts that addresses private entities (8-1 vote).
In due time if the court stays as it is or improves to the right, the folly of the state being allowed to tell people who they can hire or rent their houses to will be canceled
It's the normal take of the American libertarian party, maybe you just don't know that.The state has NO say on who you interact with and you should always without exception being free to hire, fire, rent, sell, and so on with anyone ant anytime (and refuse to do that with anyone at anytime) for any reason without ever, no exception, having to justify it to third parties.It's co
Yes, libertarians tend to sound like rabid lefties with their proclamations. The right recognizes this, that’s why there are very few actual libertarians involved in any level of politics.
It tends to be very unpopular to call every normal governance fascist/authoritarian.
And the SC also codified into law many things that libertarians should hate at the time, like state-mandated segregation laws. There’s just no way to allow people to use our infrastructure to do racism with their business without implicitly codifying racism. That’s the argument behind the expansion of the interstate commerce law. If you allow racist businesses, you’re a racist country. That’s how it plays out in practice regardless of the libertarian’s hypothetical norms.
Yes, libertarians tend to sound like rabid lefties with their proclamations. The right recognizes this, that’s why there are very few actual libertarians involved in any level of politics.It tends to be very unpopular to call every normal governance fascist/authoritarian.And the SC also codified into law many things that libertarians should hate at the time, like state-ma
Not sure you got the memo but libertarians delivered the election to Trump in 2024 (and maybe 2 Senate seats to the GOP but that's not obvious).
They got Ross pardoned day one, crypto normalized, and now they are waiting for stable coin normalization.
It is not "normal governance" to make private discrimination illegal in a country where that power doesn't exist for the federal government.
As I said the civil right act of 1964 (the second one) was needed for the provisions regarding states (because the 14a is crystal clear about that), while for private entities the 1883 decision was simply perfect and the constitution hasn't changed in that topic since then so that's the precedent which should stay until the constitution is amended.
The biggest reason is because this is the kind of thing that the Democrats actually did for decades.Many southern states (which were completely controlled by the Democrat Party) had laws that required voters to pass a 'literacy test' before you would be allowed to vote.The purpose was to keep uneducated black folks from voting.(Note well that the Democrats were well ahead of Da
The irony here is that the democrats were the conservatives then.
Both sides have done it! It's called HISTORY!
Interesting Factoid: A higher percentage of REPUBLICAN senators voted for the Civil Rights Act than DEMOCRAT senators!
Yes, again when republicans were more liberal and democrats were more conservative. You really do need to learn history before you talk about it.
Both sides have done it! It's called HISTORY!
Interesting Factoid: A higher percentage of REPUBLICAN senators voted for the Civil Rights Act than DEMOCRAT senators!
Don't know if that's true but if it is, today's republicans are nothing like yesterday's.
Don't know if that's true but if it is, today's republicans are nothing like yesterday's.
It's only true because the ideologies of the two parties basically reversed. A basic primer:
https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideolo...
Not sure you got the memo but libertarians delivered the election to Trump in 2024 (and maybe 2 Senate seats to the GOP but that's not obvious).They got Ross pardoned day one, crypto normalized, and now they are waiting for stable coin normalization.It is not "normal governance" to make private discrimination illegal in a country where that power doesn't exist for the federal g
Huh? Being an important voting block doesn’t mean your ideas are popular. The far left is an important voting block too. I don’t see how that responds to my point about people in government.
As I said the civil right act of 1964 (the second one) was needed for the provisions regarding states (because the 14a is crystal clear about that), while for private entities the 1883 decision was simply perfect and the constitution hasn't changed in that topic since then so that's the precedent which should stay until the constitution is amended.
Precedent only matters until it doesn’t. The Roberts court has agreed with past courts that a decision can be overturned even if it’s well-established precedent if there is sufficient justification from other points of interest to the court.
Precedent is only used when people agree with the precedent at this point. Hence you saying that it was “perfect”.
By the way, the civil rights act doesn’t at all prevent private discrimination in terms of individuals, it simply implicates commerce as being interstate because there’s no way for businesses that operate in only one state to never be implicated by interstate commerce. If you’re a mom and pop restaurant off the freeway, guess what, without the interstate freeway there you would never survive, even if you never serve someone out of state due to transportation and federal upkeep.
It's only true because the ideologies of the two parties basically reversed. A basic primer:
https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideolo...
The idiots always conveniently forget about the party flip when referencing certain historical positions.
