Oregon governor signs sweeping automatic voter registration into law

[garbon]

At any rate, what's the issue even if it was as DSB says. Johnny will get a postcard on how to opt out of registering to vote in Oregon - though if he is putting that Oregon is his state of residence, should he really be voting in NJ anyway?

[Eddie Teach]

The most exciting part is the additional fodder the Republicans are giving us for concluding that they are a bunch of racist assholes.

Trying to get back on Seedy's good side?

[Berkut]

The most exciting part is the additional fodder the Republicans are giving us for concluding that they are a bunch of racist assholes.

Trying to get back on Seedy's good side?

I don't think he has one...

[garbon]

I assumed I was on his good side when he bough and expensed my dinner.

[Berkut]

Racist might be a little extreme, a better way to put it would be "anti-democracy assholes without an even token respect for any kind of principles beyond partisanship".

[derspiess]

Glad you've settled down and are speaking in more reasonable terms

[Berkut]

Glad you've settled down and are speaking in more reasonable terms

Well, to be fair, THIS particular law and opposition to it is not necessarily racist, but Republican consistent opposition to laws that would allow more minorities to vote isn't directly racist, but it is certainly racist lite, in that they are perfectly happy trying to setup the system so that minorities are less likely to vote. That isn't racism per se, but it is probably a distinction without much of a difference.

The entire thing is a fine example of how so few people, AGAIN, give a shit about actual liberty or any kind of principles beyond partisanship. You cannot possibly argue that you have principles that enshrine liberty, freedom,  and democracy, but you also support laws intended to keep people you fear won't vote your way from voting.

[derspiess]

Well, to be fair, THIS particular law and opposition to it is not necessarily racist, but Republican consistent opposition to laws that would allow more minorities to vote isn't directly racist, but it is certainly racist lite, in that they are perfectly happy trying to setup the system so that minorities are less likely to vote. That isn't racism per se, but it is probably a distinction without much of a difference.

The entire thing is a fine example of how so few people, AGAIN, give a shit about actual liberty or any kind of principles beyond partisanship. You cannot possibly argue that you have principles that enshrine liberty, freedom,  and democracy, but you also support laws intended to keep people you fear won't vote your way from voting.

And you've become Seedy-lite. 

Assuming you're making reference to Voter ID laws, is it inherently racist to support such laws?  Can one just think maybe it's a good idea to establish more rigid identification requirements for someone to vote? 

[Valmy]

And you've become Seedy-lite.

Eh he feels particularly strongly on this issue.

But this is hilarious since Seedy denounced him recently for his racist views.

Assuming you're making reference to Voter ID laws, is it inherently racist to support such laws?  Can one just think maybe it's a good idea to establish more rigid identification requirements for someone to vote?

No it is not inherently racist. It just happens that the reason the laws are going in is because somebody thinks it is a good political strategy, not out of some belief in prevention of voter fraud. Those dead people in Chicago need to be heard.

[derspiess]

Eh he feels particularly strongly on this issue.

But this is hilarious since Seedy denounced him recently for his racist views.

Seedy influences through intimidation.

[Valmy]

Seedy influences through intimidation.

Meh Berkut was saying this in the exact same way when we originally had this discussion way back in....whenever it was the voter ID laws went into effect.

[frunk]

Seedy influences through intimidation.

Meh Berkut was saying this in the exact same way when we originally had this discussion way back in....whenever it was the voter ID laws went into effect.

I think there's a big difference between a voter ID law that's passed at a time well away from a major election, and one on the eve of the presidential election.  If there's plenty of time for people to get the documentation/registration done to the new requirements then that's a better situation than saying "oops, sorry, just passed a law, you can't vote even though you could before".

[derspiess]

I think there's a big difference between a voter ID law that's passed at a time well away from a major election, and one on the eve of the presidential election.  If there's plenty of time for people to get the documentation/registration done to the new requirements then that's a better situation than saying "oops, sorry, just passed a law, you can't vote even though you could before".

That's fair.

[LaCroix]

when does the eve of presidential elections begin?

[Berkut]

Well, to be fair, THIS particular law and opposition to it is not necessarily racist, but Republican consistent opposition to laws that would allow more minorities to vote isn't directly racist, but it is certainly racist lite, in that they are perfectly happy trying to setup the system so that minorities are less likely to vote. That isn't racism per se, but it is probably a distinction without much of a difference.

The entire thing is a fine example of how so few people, AGAIN, give a shit about actual liberty or any kind of principles beyond partisanship. You cannot possibly argue that you have principles that enshrine liberty, freedom,  and democracy, but you also support laws intended to keep people you fear won't vote your way from voting.

And you've become Seedy-lite. 

Assuming you're making reference to Voter ID laws, is it inherently racist to support such laws?  Can one just think maybe it's a good idea to establish more rigid identification requirements for someone to vote? 

In theory, of course. Sure, one could support all kinds of laws for all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.

In practicality, when it is pointed out that in fact there is no actual problem "more rigid identification" needs to address, and the actual practical effect is to simply keep black people from voting so much, then no, I don't accept that there is a legitimate reason to support such laws - at least not once the actual facts become clear.

One could, in theory, support laws that demand that people be able to read, and that isn't racist. In theory.

Once someone points out that the reality is that Jim Crow laws are only used to deny black people the right to vote, and in fact that is the entire intent of the law, and then someone still insists on supporting said laws, even if they claim that there reasons are not about race but about the "theory" behind the law...I don't accept their claim anymore, since they are clearly just using the "theory" to justify the practical - racist - effect.