Is that innuendo, or hyperbole?
Hey, Sweet Sweetback said heād be back to collect some dues!
2 Likes
I wanted to say this, I know itās true in Canada, but honestly, I could imagine widescale voter fraud in the US, so I wasnāt ready to speculate. Though as I said above, if there is massive voter fraud, it would probably be done by partisan (which would read ācorruptā in any other country) election officials who could actually single-handedly make a difference to outcomes, not by a conspiracy of millions of people who, in many cases, would probably worry that such a scheme was a ruse to arrest/deport them.
1 Like
Well, I think when people talk about voter fraud (at least here, in the US), they mean individuals voting illegally. But you could extrapolate that out to mean things like partisan election officials rigging the vote somehow. But I think thatās become part of the partisan language itself - voter suppression means the state, or those working for the state, finding ways to supress votes, often via state laws aimed at curbing voter fraud - it tends to be used by Dems/progressives against republicans (though this is the more likely scenario and happens across party lines, Iād suspect). In contrast, voter fraud has come to mean people voting illegally, and tends to come from the right. The language itself weāre using to talk about this, then has really become partisan in and of itself, which is interesting if you think about it (but deeply depressing if you think about it too much).
2 Likes
If democrats and republicans meet in the street can they even understand what the other is saying? Like, for example, if a republican walks into a Chicago Starbucks, can they even order a coffee?
1 Like
You know, Iām starting to think that no, they canāt. Itās insane how partisan things are. And frankly, I do think the democrats (who I am slightly more sympathetic to and likely to vote for) have done their part in creating this environment. There have been times in US history when things have been deeply partisan before, but Iād say only before the Civil War was it really this bad (and to be fair, in the 1850s, it was much worse then it is now)ā¦ There really isnāt much the two sides can come to an agreement on anymore. Well, except spending on the military on foreign wars. They line right the fuck up for that shit, leaving like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders to say no (and maybe the random tea partier, but thatās only because itās Obama doing it). Maybe it just seems that way because the so-called liberal consensus of the postwar era is still unraveling?
2 Likes
Proof?
1 Like
Because Fox News.
1 Like
Actually, I figure it is coded language for black and latino voters (as well as other minorities). It is pretext speech for actions that result in the disenfranchising of minority voters largely led by Republican officials in order to shore up a degrading Republican vote count.
2 Likes
Neither. There are things they do that should be illegal, but arenāt.
Because they werenāt Black Panthers and they werenāt scaring anyone.
5 Likes
So back to e-mail. I donāt know about you, but to put it simply why isnāt there a rule that official business be conducted on official e-mail. I know it is nuts and no one will follow it but at least then there is a definitive legal case. I know that I am not allowed to conduct business using my personal e-mail by my companyās rules. Seems like the government should have the same kind of rule.
The fact that it went on for four years is also amazing to me, you would think that someone setting up the āsecure blackberryā would have noticed. I think that this is an issue for all parties and peoples.
1 Like
Agreed, I think thatās part of it, race certainly plays a role, but I think itās far more complicated in that they donāt see it as race, but interest groups. They assume that all African Americans and Latinos have similar interests (ignoring things like Cuban-American backing of the republicans who they assume will have a harder line on Cuba, etc). I think a fair number of republicans donāt see themselves as thinking in those terms. I mean, they are probably delusional, but there it is.
I think folks invented the phrase āCheck your privilegeā for this situation.
1 Like
Unfortunately, using that phrase can only be effective when youāre talking to someone who has some idea of what privilege is and what checking it might mean.
EDIT: ā¦ and cares.
3 Likes
Well, (and @albill) this gets back to the notion that we (meaning the American public) just donāt have basic agreements on the definition of things. For most conservatives, Iād suspect that racism is donning a klan robe, and once you get those types out of the way, youāre gold. For liberals/progressives, itās about a deeper system of oppression. But, Iām unsure how we can move forward, if we canāt agree on what racism means. [edited to add] And of course, we all live inside our own little bubbles, and we are constantly having our worldview reinforced in any number of ways.
What is it for the actual minorities?
(Iām a white guy so I donāt presume to say.)
Well, I think even that depends on oneās political orientation, no? I donāt think that Condeleeza Rice would define these things in the same way as Al Sharpton, right? And part of that is related to their own experiences in their lives and how they view the key to understanding the world and how it should work as being either more individualistic or being systemic. Iām sure many conservatives, black or white, would probably argue that if you get the racist out of the way in Ferguson, you donāt need to do much more, while a progressive, black or white, would continue to push for deeper systemic changes.
1 Like
Here in Oakland, Iāve never met a Black Republican so I wouldnāt know.
1 Like
