EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 28, 2017 10:42:42 GMT -5
Just because you feel it doesn't make you a bad person, doesn't make it right either. If roles were reversed I think it would make you feel pretty bad. If you were the person being viewed in that manner it would probably make you feel unaccepted, or like a stranger in your own country. Now repeat that everyday of your life and it has to be frustrating. That being said There's a yuuuuge, bigly difference between your average citizen having these thoughts, and the leader of the most powerful government in the world directing policy based on those sentiments. There are an estimated 20 million illegals in this country, many of which are in labor-intensive jobs. I have no problem wondering if those I see are legal or illegal. If that offends you, that's your problem. Are you trying to portray me as some sort of a bigot with regards to "others"? FYI my wife is of Mexican (and other) descent, my dear son-in-law is an American born of Mexican immigrants, and I have a beloved, very dark skinned, adopted grandson from Guatemala. I live my acceptance of all and owe no one an apology for wondering if someone is illegal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 13:30:24 GMT -5
Just because you feel it doesn't make you a bad person, doesn't make it right either. If roles were reversed I think it would make you feel pretty bad. If you were the person being viewed in that manner it would probably make you feel unaccepted, or like a stranger in your own country. Now repeat that everyday of your life and it has to be frustrating. That being said There's a yuuuuge, bigly difference between your average citizen having these thoughts, and the leader of the most powerful government in the world directing policy based on those sentiments. There are an estimated 20 million illegals in this country, many of which are in labor-intensive jobs. I have no problem wondering if those I see are legal or illegal. If that offends you, that's your problem. Are you trying to portray me as some sort of a bigot with regards to "others"? FYI my wife is of Mexican (and other) descent, my dear son-in-law is an American born of Mexican immigrants, and I have a beloved, very dark skinned, adopted grandson from Guatemala. I live my acceptance of all and owe no one an apology for wondering if someone is illegal. Ok the number is nowhere close to 20 million, more like 11 million and 40% of that are Asian.. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/Hmm.. All I was doing was asking you to do is put yourself in their shoes and to try and be empathetic to those people. Why are you being defensive and why is that offensive to you? Pretty amazing you're pretending to be the victim here.. The fact you have minorities in your family is irrelevant tbh. Their presence doesn't change the fact It's still wrong to prejudge people based on look and occupation. I don't think you would want them treated that way... Back on topic do you think it's ok for Trump to direct policy or start a tax payer funded investigation based on the story he shared above? Is there anything wrong with that?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 28, 2017 19:26:50 GMT -5
YaBoy, I cannot picture myself in your shoes as a minority, nor can you picture yourself in my shoes as a Caucasian. I made a simple statement that, in view of the fact there are many, many illegals in this country, when I looked at a worker mowing lawns or doing construction work I wondered if some might be illegals. And you labeled me a bigot, though you have now edited it out. I am through with you. This conversation is over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 19:58:20 GMT -5
YaBoy, I cannot picture myself in your shoes as a minority, nor can you picture yourself in my shoes as a Caucasian. I made a simple statement that, in view of the fact there are many, many illegals in this country, when I looked at a worker mowing lawns or doing construction work I wondered if some might be illegals. And you labeled me a bigot, though you have now edited it out. I am through with you. This conversation is over. That's an absurd post stop pearl clutching and making things up. I've been very carefull choosing my words. I never called you a bigot, what post did I edit that did according to you and what did it say? Lol.. You're playing the victim card because you think you're being thought of as a bigot and defending assuming others are illegal based on their look and occupation. You said if that perception offends them thats their problem. So according to your logic wouldn't this be your problem not mine? Pretty funy Ed you've been randomly taking shots at my posts for months, I finally engage you and you claim victim and run away.... You can always try to put yourself in someone's shoes it's not hard you just have to be willing to do it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 20:02:28 GMT -5
"Extreme Vetting"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 12:21:41 GMT -5
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,668
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Feb 5, 2017 12:38:05 GMT -5
He really lives in a fantasy world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2017 12:00:57 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 16:31:03 GMT -5
Beyond bizarre at this point...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2017 10:52:48 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,143
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 12, 2017 12:43:03 GMT -5
Stephen Miller, Duke '07 -- just another reason to hate Duke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 17:25:45 GMT -5
Shocker.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 10:33:58 GMT -5
Icymi: Potus created an Election "Integrity" Group this week through Executive Order: __ Vice chair of the "Election Integrity" group repeatedly backed Trump's unfounded claim that millions voted illegally cnn.it/2pFAgK6___ Kris Kobach, Vice Chair of #Trump's voter fraud commission, was successfully sued four times for voter suppression ____ I'm sure this lady will be given a call.... A more accurate name would be the "voter suppression group"...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 11:45:54 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 21, 2017 18:24:53 GMT -5
“A fair examination of the record shows that no state does a better job discouraging voters from going to the polls than New York.” “Yet Democrats and voting-rights advocates have tended to see voter suppression almost entirely as a red state problem, with minority voters as the target. As a result, they have focused their energy on resurrecting the section of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. But that section required only nine (mostly red) states and various counties that had racially discriminatory voting laws in the 1960s to seek approval by the Justice Department before making changes to their election laws and procedures. It did nothing to force states like New York out of the dark ages.” www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-18/voter-suppression-in-deep-blue-new-york
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on May 21, 2017 18:41:48 GMT -5
“A fair examination of the record shows that no state does a better job discouraging voters from going to the polls than New York.” “Yet Democrats and voting-rights advocates have tended to see voter suppression almost entirely as a red state problem, with minority voters as the target. As a result, they have focused their energy on resurrecting the section of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. But that section required only nine (mostly red) states and various counties that had racially discriminatory voting laws in the 1960s to seek approval by the Justice Department before making changes to their election laws and procedures. It did nothing to force states like New York out of the dark ages.” www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-18/voter-suppression-in-deep-blue-new-yorkCan I just ask - did you bother to actually read this article? The claims in this article are that NY's voting is worse than NC's (where the courts have said that the GOP intentionally tried to disenfranchise African Americans specifically) because : - not enough early voting - independents not eligible for primaries - NC had a higher percentage of voters than NY, article makes no examination of NC as a swing state - number of affidavit ballots thrown out with no context (were a larger percentage of affidavit ballots thrown out in NY than other states? was it because voters didn't prove their eligiblity?) None of these are actual voter suppression. This article actually argues that NC discriminated against African Americans intentionally, it just doesn't seem to care much about it.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 22, 2017 8:02:44 GMT -5
“A fair examination of the record shows that no state does a better job discouraging voters from going to the polls than New York.” “Yet Democrats and voting-rights advocates have tended to see voter suppression almost entirely as a red state problem, with minority voters as the target. As a result, they have focused their energy on resurrecting the section of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. But that section required only nine (mostly red) states and various counties that had racially discriminatory voting laws in the 1960s to seek approval by the Justice Department before making changes to their election laws and procedures. It did nothing to force states like New York out of the dark ages.” www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-18/voter-suppression-in-deep-blue-new-yorkCan I just ask - did you bother to actually read this article? The claims in this article are that NY's voting is worse than NC's (where the courts have said that the GOP intentionally tried to disenfranchise African Americans specifically) because : - not enough early voting - independents not eligible for primaries - NC had a higher percentage of voters than NY, article makes no examination of NC as a swing state - number of affidavit ballots thrown out with no context (were a larger percentage of affidavit ballots thrown out in NY than other states? was it because voters didn't prove their eligiblity?) None of these are actual voter suppression. This article actually argues that NC discriminated against African Americans intentionally, it just doesn't seem to care much about it. Insultingly you ask if I had read the article. Did you? No matter your spin, the article says that no state does a better job of discouraging people from voting than New York. Of course all of New York's motives are pure but not those ignorant Southerners.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 22, 2017 9:36:20 GMT -5
Can I just ask - did you bother to actually read this article? The claims in this article are that NY's voting is worse than NC's (where the courts have said that the GOP intentionally tried to disenfranchise African Americans specifically) because : - not enough early voting - independents not eligible for primaries - NC had a higher percentage of voters than NY, article makes no examination of NC as a swing state - number of affidavit ballots thrown out with no context (were a larger percentage of affidavit ballots thrown out in NY than other states? was it because voters didn't prove their eligiblity?) None of these are actual voter suppression. This article actually argues that NC discriminated against African Americans intentionally, it just doesn't seem to care much about it. Insultingly you ask if I had read the article. Did you? No matter your spin, the article says that no state does a better job of discouraging people from voting than New York. Of course all of New York's motives are pure but not those ignorant Southerners. Yes, the article does say that. And I think NY should change its rules. But NY doesn't do things that primarily disadvantage one class of persons, and to the extent it does, it's actually disenfranchising mostly democratic voters on average. Limiting participation in primaries doesn't disenfranchise one group or another. Early voting rules and affidavit ballots largely result in suppressed Democratic turnout (statistically speaking). So, yes, if you take the article at face value, NY discourages tons of people from voting due to its arcane rules. But how is it spin to say that enacting laws designed to keep specific people from the polls is worse?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on May 22, 2017 10:06:52 GMT -5
Insultingly you ask if I had read the article. Did you? No matter your spin, the article says that no state does a better job of discouraging people from voting than New York. Of course all of New York's motives are pure but not those ignorant Southerners. I disagree with pretty much only one word you've written here - it's not "insultingly" (I seriously question whether you read the article), it's "ignorant". The NC GOP (or Alabama, or Texas, etc) isn't ignorant when they're trying to disenfranchise black voters. Ignorant means you lack awareness. They absolutely know what they are doing and are doing it with intent - don't take my word for it, that's what the courts have decided. The thesis of the article seems to be this though : "A more effective approach to guaranteeing voting rights for all Americans would treat all states equally, by setting minimum access standards and barring states from falling -- or remaining -- below them." Big government conservatism to try to protect and obfuscate systemic discrimination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 10:59:12 GMT -5
The Supreme Court struck down two congressional district maps in North Carolina Monday, holding that the state had engaged in an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
|
|