|
|
Post by ManAboutTown on Feb 6, 2021 13:53:13 GMT 14
I agree that in the past, voter suppression did exist. But that is history and today, anyone who is eligible to vote and wants to vote has no reason not to do so. As a matter of fact, voting today is so easy, even some dead people vote! Take a two hour drive down to New Orleans on Election Day. They have buses for people who don't have means of transportation to get to a polling place. As far as the whole library grant debacle, I'd be ok with it as long as there's no biased activism involved. In today's political climate, that is a hard thing to do on either side. If someone wants to talk about voting rights, talk about voting rights and its history. But don't add the typical "here is what I think about it" spiel in the presentation. It takes away from the actual history lesson. People on the right want status quo. People on the left want revenge. The majority of people in the middle get stuck living in a cacophony of teenage bickering. |
|
|
|
Post by BabbForHeisman on Feb 7, 2021 3:54:59 GMT 14
Finally catching up on this as I didn’t know anything about the situation. To me, it boils down very simply. We can all agree that voting rights have been heavily suppressed in the past. There is, however, debate about how much voting rights are suppressed today. Luckily, we have data. And I’m not going to spew it here, but there is an entire mountain of data to prove that voting rights aren’t nearly as equitable as people would have you believe.
But the bigger picture issue here is that there is an effort to invalidate a view point. You are basically telling a group of people that their viewpoint is not allowed to be heard unless someone who disagrees with them is also given equal time. It’s an attempt at invalidating and suppressing an opinion. This all fits into the pattern of how minority views are handled. And it’s not good.
|
|
|
|
Post by ULvictory on Feb 7, 2021 5:49:21 GMT 14
Finally catching up on this as I didn’t know anything about the situation. To me, it boils down very simply. We can all agree that voting rights have been heavily suppressed in the past. There is, however, debate about how much voting rights are suppressed today. Luckily, we have data. And I’m not going to spew it here, but there is an entire mountain of data to prove that voting rights aren’t nearly as equitable as people would have you believe. But the bigger picture issue here is that there is an effort to invalidate a view point. You are basically telling a group of people that their viewpoint is not allowed to be heard unless someone who disagrees with them is also given equal time. It’s an attempt at invalidating and suppressing an opinion. This all fits into the pattern of how minority views are handled. And it’s not good. You’re seeing the same thing on social media with censorship of certain opinions. I think a history lesson on voting rights is fine. Present the data and talk about what might be the shortcomings of voting today compared to the past with that data. The problem that I have is the activism that follows it becomes manufactured which weans away from what’s supposed to be presented. That’s where the part of the two sides comes in. |
|
|
|
Post by ULvictory on Feb 7, 2021 5:50:52 GMT 14
Take a two hour drive down to New Orleans on Election Day. They have buses for people who don't have means of transportation to get to a polling place. As far as the whole library grant debacle, I'd be ok with it as long as there's no biased activism involved. In today's political climate, that is a hard thing to do on either side. If someone wants to talk about voting rights, talk about voting rights and its history. But don't add the typical "here is what I think about it" spiel in the presentation. It takes away from the actual history lesson. People on the right want status quo. People on the left want revenge. The majority of people in the middle get stuck living in a cacophony of teenage bickering. It’s all an emotional, theatrical soap opera. The problem is that we the people are stuck footing the bill for it. |
|
cajunaxe
Member
Here living in Paradise!
Posts: 193
|
Post by cajunaxe on Feb 7, 2021 9:29:20 GMT 14
Absolutely! I have no problem with allowing Mr. Foster to speak, had they invited someone from the minority community that did not share all of his opinions. But from what I understand, this option was not offered by the Library or considered. A fair and balanced discussion is something we should all thrive for in the end. A “fair and balanced” discussion has not been offered to the minority parties involved... pretty much ever. This is the height of hypocrisy. Where have all the “fair and balanced” warriors been all these years? Even so, if the arguments are so “far left” and ridiculous, why so much anger (which is really fear) and animosity over them? At worst, it’s a bit of wasted time for free. At best, it’s a funded history lesson on a topic that is woefully under taught. What question are you talking about? You mean your lecture on how discussions aren't fair and balanced? Yes, you are correct there is no fair and balanced in the discussion when it comes to minorities, but just the opposite of your view of recent history. What balanced conversation is taking place on college campuses across this country in the safe zones and where people that don't share the same victims syndrome are invited to speak? Where is the balance view in the Congressional Black Caucas? They don't exist in most cases, so excuse me when I dismiss your lecture on hypocrisy on the subject. Mr. Foster is welcome to speak where he wants, but when it comes to public facilities it should be in an atmosphere where an exchange of ideas from both views is encouraged and nurtured. If those that don't want to have a discussion that includes an exchange of ideas from both sides, they are welcome to host that event at a private facility. There's no fear hear buddy about hearing the other side, it's been heard numerous times. When it comes to the use of government funded facilities, the standard should be the same across the board with equal access for all as long is it allows others that may not agree to also participate. |
|
cajunaxe
Member
Here living in Paradise!
Posts: 193
|
Post by cajunaxe on Feb 7, 2021 9:32:15 GMT 14
People on the right want status quo. People on the left want revenge. The majority of people in the middle get stuck living in a cacophony of teenage bickering. It’s all an emotional, theatrical soap opera. The problem is that we the people are stuck footing the bill for it. Yes, emotional theatrics plays well for either side. Some are just more skilled at it. |
|
|
|
Post by ManAboutTown on Feb 8, 2021 4:18:12 GMT 14
A “fair and balanced” discussion has not been offered to the minority parties involved... pretty much ever. This is the height of hypocrisy. Where have all the “fair and balanced” warriors been all these years? Even so, if the arguments are so “far left” and ridiculous, why so much anger (which is really fear) and animosity over them? At worst, it’s a bit of wasted time for free. At best, it’s a funded history lesson on a topic that is woefully under taught. What question are you talking about? You mean your lecture on how discussions aren't fair and balanced? Yes, you are correct there is no fair and balanced in the discussion when it comes to minorities, but just the opposite of your view of recent history. What balanced conversation is taking place on college campuses across this country in the safe zones and where people that don't share the same victims syndrome are invited to speak? Where is the balance view in the Congressional Black Caucas? They don't exist in most cases, so excuse me when I dismiss your lecture on hypocrisy on the subject. Mr. Foster is welcome to speak where he wants, but when it comes to public facilities it should be in an atmosphere where an exchange of ideas from both views is encouraged and nurtured. If those that don't want to have a discussion that includes an exchange of ideas from both sides, they are welcome to host that event at a private facility. There's no fear hear buddy about hearing the other side, it's been heard numerous times. When it comes to the use of government funded facilities, the standard should be the same across the board with equal access for all as long is it allows others that may not agree to also participate. You’ve once again missed the entire point. |
|
cajunaxe
Member
Here living in Paradise!
Posts: 193
|
Post by cajunaxe on Feb 8, 2021 9:42:11 GMT 14
What question are you talking about? You mean your lecture on how discussions aren't fair and balanced? Yes, you are correct there is no fair and balanced in the discussion when it comes to minorities, but just the opposite of your view of recent history. What balanced conversation is taking place on college campuses across this country in the safe zones and where people that don't share the same victims syndrome are invited to speak? Where is the balance view in the Congressional Black Caucas? They don't exist in most cases, so excuse me when I dismiss your lecture on hypocrisy on the subject. Mr. Foster is welcome to speak where he wants, but when it comes to public facilities it should be in an atmosphere where an exchange of ideas from both views is encouraged and nurtured. If those that don't want to have a discussion that includes an exchange of ideas from both sides, they are welcome to host that event at a private facility. There's no fear hear buddy about hearing the other side, it's been heard numerous times. When it comes to the use of government funded facilities, the standard should be the same across the board with equal access for all as long is it allows others that may not agree to also participate. You’ve once again missed the entire point. Actually I did, I just choose not to live in the past. Pushing a narrative from 40 or 50 years ago only feeds the victimization syndrome although very little of it applies today. |
|
|
|
Post by oldriver on Feb 8, 2021 13:35:59 GMT 14
Existing today. District lines that suppress one side or the other. Polling locations set up to minimize voters ability to get to polls, esp in rural counties/parishes. Both not only can suppress specific votes but creates super majority white or black districts that can ignore the minority in the district.
I have no problem with anyone giving any talk. I can elect to go or not. I can listen and decide if the presentation is valid or not and I can ask questions if I care to. Glad T-Joe is having it at UL. Hope it will be streamed. I would go just to hear it. Not ready for prime time but another two weeks, look out Dragos.
Of course, if we believe that those going to libraries are idiots, I guess we need to feed them pablum- just data no opinion.
As one of my Engr faculty buds said, “Just because someone thinks the world is flat, that doesn’t mean it might be.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunter 2024 Trump-Prison 2021 on Feb 12, 2021 8:38:25 GMT 14
You’ve once again missed the entire point. Actually I did, I just choose not to live in the past. Pushing a narrative from 40 or 50 years ago only feeds the victimization syndrome although very little of it applies today. Imagine thinking that voter suppression is a thing of the past. Imagine thinking that even if voter suppression ended 40 or 50 years ago, that everything is ok now. Imagine that shirt. I'm not sure how some people do not drown every time they drink water. |
|
|
|
Post by iamjaybirdwalker on Feb 12, 2021 9:34:57 GMT 14
Actually I did, I just choose not to live in the past. Pushing a narrative from 40 or 50 years ago only feeds the victimization syndrome although very little of it applies today. Imagine thinking that voter suppression is a thing of the past. Imagine thinking that even if voter suppression ended 40 or 50 years ago, that everything is ok now. Imagine that shirt. I'm not sure how some people do not drown every time they drink water. I don't always agree with you, but you are spot on with this one. |
|
|
|
Post by berryjaldwin on Feb 12, 2021 11:03:34 GMT 14
Actually I did, I just choose not to live in the past. Pushing a narrative from 40 or 50 years ago only feeds the victimization syndrome although very little of it applies today. Imagine thinking that voter suppression is a thing of the past. Imagine thinking that even if voter suppression ended 40 or 50 years ago, that everything is ok now. Imagine that shirt. I'm not sure how some people do not drown every time they drink water. Teaching history is fine. Can you point to a place in America where adult citizens who are registered to vote have been prevented from doing so? Punk?? |
|
cajunaxe
Member
Here living in Paradise!
Posts: 193
|
Post by cajunaxe on Feb 12, 2021 13:00:31 GMT 14
Imagine thinking that voter suppression is a thing of the past. Imagine thinking that even if voter suppression ended 40 or 50 years ago, that everything is ok now. Imagine that shirt. I'm not sure how some people do not drown every time they drink water. Teaching history is fine. Can you point to a place in America where adult citizens who are registered to vote have been prevented from doing so? Punk?? These are people vested in the Leftist victim mentality. If you can't show that major hurdles exist for minority voters across the country. all you need to do is proclaim it as much as possible and vast numbers of people believe it. This is why you can hear the commercials on locally owned minority stations in Lafayette and Baton Rouge proclaim during the election cycles that Republicans will burn their churches down, keep them in failing schools ,etc. Victimization plays well for some of these organizations and many white liberals. It's better to keep people ignorant and angry, then actually educate them on the realities of what is happening in Washington DC and their own state capitals. |
|
|
|
Post by BabbForHeisman on Feb 12, 2021 13:17:10 GMT 14
Teaching history is fine. Can you point to a place in America where adult citizens who are registered to vote have been prevented from doing so? Punk?? These are people vested in the Leftist victim mentality. If you can't show that major hurdles exist for minority voters across the country. all you need to do is proclaim it as much as possible and vast numbers of people believe it. This is why you can hear the commercials on locally owned minority stations in Lafayette and Baton Rouge proclaim during the election cycles that Republicans will burn their churches down, keep them in failing schools ,etc. Victimization plays well for some of these organizations and many white liberals. It's better to keep people ignorant and angry, then actually educate them on the realities of what is happening in Washington DC and their own state capitals. Part of the problem is that everything tends to be an all-or-nothing labeling game. People on the left label things as voter suppression. People on the right do exactly what you do in the post above. In reality, there is a more complex pattern to it that doesn't fit either of the talking points. If you require a government ID to vote, does it impact minority voters more than white voters? Yes. Statistically, that is an indisputable fact. But by calling that voter suppression, you are addressing the symptom of the problem rather than the root. Why don't some have IDs? What makes it more difficult or undesirable for them to get government issued IDs? That's the root of the problem. On top of that, are voting district lines equal? Are polling locations equal? That's another topic, but the key message is that it's possible to have a fact-based discussion about it without anyone playing the victim card. |
|
cajunaxe
Member
Here living in Paradise!
Posts: 193
|
Post by cajunaxe on Feb 12, 2021 14:12:31 GMT 14
These are people vested in the Leftist victim mentality. If you can't show that major hurdles exist for minority voters across the country. all you need to do is proclaim it as much as possible and vast numbers of people believe it. This is why you can hear the commercials on locally owned minority stations in Lafayette and Baton Rouge proclaim during the election cycles that Republicans will burn their churches down, keep them in failing schools ,etc. Victimization plays well for some of these organizations and many white liberals. It's better to keep people ignorant and angry, then actually educate them on the realities of what is happening in Washington DC and their own state capitals. Part of the problem is that everything tends to be an all-or-nothing labeling game. People on the left label things as voter suppression. People on the right do exactly what you do in the post above. In reality, there is a more complex pattern to it that doesn't fit either of the talking points. If you require a government ID to vote, does it impact minority voters more than white voters? Yes. Statistically, that is an indisputable fact. But by calling that voter suppression, you are addressing the symptom of the problem rather than the root. Why don't some have IDs? What makes it more difficult or undesirable for them to get government issued IDs? That's the root of the problem. On top of that, are voting district lines equal? Are polling locations equal? That's another topic, but the key message is that it's possible to have a fact-based discussion about it without anyone playing the victim card. Statistically, that is indisputable? Once you make such proclamations there isn't much left on the table to discuss. Which statistics are your referring to and which organization has published them? The statics that I have read deal with the cost of voter IDs and access. So my questions is, how is it that many of those same people have to show identification for Medicaid Benefits, CHIPS, Social Security Disability Benefits, Food Stamps and other government benefits? You can not receive those benefits without proper identification. If cost is a factor, why is it that my mother in her 80's, on a fixed income and seldom drives can afford to buy it? Because she is white? If it's affordability, the State and Local Governments can address it by income levels. just like it is done for all government benefits. As for District lines equal, weren't they redrawn to meet Civil Rights Concerns and are monitored by the Federal Government? The answer to that question is yes. So redistricting has been done and redone, based upon government mandate. So exactly how much more should we redistrict for 15% of the population? And what about those non-minorities in those districts? Are they allowed to be disenfranchised because of past immoral acts? You don't correct immoral acts with simply imposing them again because of the past. There has to be some area of agreement to alleviate past transgressions without imposing so-called acceptable immoral policy corrections. You see there are no more disputable statistics, or facts in your discussion. Just wrong, or right based upon what you believe is undisputable statistics. Is it possible to have a fact-based discussion when one party believes it has all the facts and truth, and the rest of us should start from that premise? |
|
