Citation needed.

For laws pertaining to elections, making it harder to vote for a predominantly black counties is racist according to many readings of the constitution. Why are you having such a hard time grasping that concept?

Because it keeps us here on the forum arguing with someone being obtuse about the situation instead of going out and actually doing something about it. He's winning. So much winning.

Maybe that mandatory voting thing the assembly woman in NY proposed isn't such a bad deal. Give out free ID's to take away republicans fraud crutch and fight the real fight which is them not wanting people to vote.

That's true, people like bahbahmickey don't actually believe what they're saying. It's a common theme of fascism. Their rhetoric is just an excuse for the policies they want to implement--voter suppression through discriminatory voter ID laws. They don't actually care about winning the debate. But they will still put their propaganda message out there, and it's important to counter it with the real facts as often as is necessary. Observers that really don't know any better often get fooled by the rhetoric bahbahmickey and others like him are spewing. It's a game to mickey though, the truth isn't really relevant at all.

-Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

what are you talking about?

you are the one claiming voter ID is racist

bahbah asked a handful of questions in a handful of ways. at no point did anyone itt claiming it is racist even attempt to articulate their reasoning as to how its racist. nobodys trying to articulate what makes a law racist. people even ducked giving their own definition of racism. every single question or attempt to engage in actual discussion and have people articulate an actual idea was side stepped. its just been empty claims and statements. even fake quotes

go ahead and prove me wrong. articulate actual thoughts to straight forward questions that anyone claiming racism should be able to answer. this applies to everyone claiming racism

-define racism as it relates to voter id law. if you cant do this, how can you claim racism?

-what is your criteria for calling any law racist?

-how does the voter id situation fit in to your criteria?

-what is the specific evidence that voter id is racist?

my magic 8ball is predicting more of the same

For a long time I was for them then I was against them for about 4-6 months and now I'm on the fence. The reason I was against them was because I drank some liberal kool-aid and started believing they were racist. I have since given it more thought and come to the conclusion they are not racist and I'm embarrassed for thinking they were.

It really shouldn't be that hard. You can't ask yourself why you think voter ID laws are racist and then ask yourself if there are other racist laws and what makes them racist?

Citation? I was asking you a question. I asked what makes a law racist and you said something about preventing some minorities from voting leading me to believe you either didn't understand my question or you don't think any possible law is racist unless it prevented someone from voting.

This is a very simple question. Why are you having such a hard time grasping that question?

We've all elaborated as to why this law is racist, but those things don't necessarily have everything in common with other laws that are racist (a good example would be crack cocaine sentencing vs normal cocaine sentencing, back when that was a thing), so it actually is hard to just come up with one definition that encompasses all racist laws.

What is this crack vs cocaine argument (my knowledge of drugs or drug laws is very limited)? I read some Wikipedia page on the 2010 bill, but it didn't really explain why this was racist.

I think giving me a few points of reference on what laws you think are racist will give me a better understanding on why you think some laws are racist and probably why I think you are wrong.

You are debating like an 8th grader at model un. You proposed what I guess is a hypothetical law which doesn't exist, which has multiple problems in it, with respect to violence, infringement on free speech, and of course racism. Want an answer to a problem that exists only in your head? I suggest marijuana.

lol @ you goofy for wasting time with these choads. The Repubs could come up with a law that says you're not allowed to vote if you have sickle cell, and these morons would be crowing about how it's obviously not racist because it doesnt even mention race and how many people have sickle cell anyway and what about mandatory vaccines isn't that real racism QED MAGA.

Crack cocaine was a "black" drug and cocaine wasn't. Crack got hit with far harsher mandatory sentences under the Reagan administration based on a number of fictions. I imagine this is the Wikipedia page you landed on, if you read the "Sentencing disparity and effects" section it outlines the history.

Look at my audience.

Forget about my hypothetical law. Forget about everything we have said and just answer my one simple question that I have now asked ~10 times that nobody has answered.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what it sounds like: The law in question was passed in 1986 right when crack (and powder?) was becoming popular. Law makers made crack crimes harsher than that of powder because they thought it was more addictive, closer associated w/ violent crime, & young ppl were more likely to do it. In '97, 11 years later, a study found crack & powder were equally bad for someone. I would hope we don't change laws based on one study, but I think this should have called for more studies done on the 2 drugs to verify their findings.

Having a higher rate of usage from one race for one drug than another equally bad drug that is sentenced harder is not proof of racism. If we knew law makers in 1986 knew crack was ingrained in AA communities & powder was in white communities and crack=powder then that would be racism, but those are some assumptions I can't go along with ye with what I have read so far about the issue (this isn't to say there aren't articles that detail out these things - I'm just saying I haven't seen it as I haven't read that much about it).

Everyone is right. Both sides are full of scumbags who just want to win elections and couldn't care less about the people.

Mickey, your constant refusal to acknowledge the fact that there is virtually zero voter fraud is the only real issue. We can literally grant you the whole "is it racist?" argument and instead say it's 'classist' or whatever and your whole argument for the laws is still a pile of horse****. In fact, it seems like your entire argument for the laws now rests on the notion about whether or not you're racist and that you're supporting bad legislation as some stubborn "I'll show them" piece.

Except one side is out to take care of everyone, and one side is focused on taking care of themselves. There is nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing about having social programs, but saying that the whole idea of providing programs for all citizens is literally only being done to 'win power' is just making a cynical statement for the sake of trying to sound profound.

When you know the drugs are equally bad and you know the laws are putting tons more black people in jail because of the sentencing disparity - at that point, yes, it is racist. You can quibble about whether Congress incorrectly thought they were doing the right thing in the 80s (personally, I imagine a lot of racial stereotypes fed into "oh no it's so addictive" and "oh no it's associated with crime", but I won't bother trying to convince you of that) but 20 years later, when you know that the law was built on falsehoods and still allow it to stand, that's unconscionable and absolutely racist.

I have acknowledged there is little voter fraud in the U.S. In fact in another thread here I have said the number of instances of voter fraud is on the same scale as the number of people who would vote but can't because they don't have an ID. Like I have said coming up with how many instances of either of these would be a huge guess, but I do think voter fraud is far more prevalent.

However, that has nothing to do with what I was arguing ITT. I am not here to support voter ID laws - just to point out how absurd it is to call them racist. Calling non-racist things racist is something pulling our attention away from the real racism.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the sides. Historical both sides have wanted to take care of everyone and it is only recently that liberals have looked to try to just focus on taking care of themselves. While Obama's war on the rich and his "class war fare" has been adopted by many uneducated liberals that doesn't mean this isn't a faze they are in and that the whole liberal party will continue to adopt it.

Not sure if you have noticed or not but the federal government is pretty slow to react to change. Usually people adapt the fastest, then small business, the large business, then state gov't and finally federal gov't.

And then two generations later, the bigots eventually get there.

LOL. You have not once, that I have seen, responded to the fact that the NC state legislature asked how black people voted and then specifically restricted those methods.