Harris mentions democracy as the biggest national security threat.

[Kooky]

I think its telling.

Why do you think it is telling, and what is it telling?

 

[Revoltingest]

I've noticed how they have really got it in for Kamala Harris. No doubt it is because she is a black and a woman.

Just as you had in for Trump....those damnable
white older men! Does this rationale work?

 

[Kooky]

Just as you had in for Trump....those damnable
white older men! Does this rationale work?

You really need to get a specialist to look at that knee, given how much it has been jerking lately.

 

[Revoltingest]

You really need to get a specialist to look at that knee, given how much it has been jerking lately.

So as usual, you're perfectly fine with racism, ageism, &
sexism, just as long as it's against old white men. Got it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Seriously, it's almost painful to watch.

Your red rubber nose perfectly complements your
support for baseless accusations of racism & sexism.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The title of the article is misleading and intentionally quote-mines Harris' words in isolation of the context. Here's the point she actually made:

Kamala Harris says the threat to US democracy keeps her up at night

After the January 6 insurrection attempt and Trump's baseless claims of election fraud, I agree that American democracy seems to be at risk.

I'm not a fan of Kamala Harris, but people should at least criticize her actual words instead of taking them out of context for dramatic effect.

It's not surprising that the title of the article is misleading (and intentionally quote-mining Harris' words and take her words out of context), because The New York Post is a right-wing pundit, with mixed factual reporting (New York Post - Media Bias/Fact Check).

 

[Father Heathen]

That remains to be seen.

No, it doesn't. Are you really trying to downplay the pathetic conspiracy theory that claimed the election was stolen, which ignited the embarrassing insurrection attempt of Jan 6th? You can flail and stammer "but, but, but the democrats..." all you want but the GOP has proven to be nothing but Trash ever sense it bent a knee to Trump.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, it doesn't. Are you really trying to downplay the pathetic conspiracy theory that claimed the election was stolen, which ignited the embarrassing insurrection attempt of Jan 6th? You can flail and stammer "but, but, but the democrats..." all you want but the GOP has proven to be nothing but Trash ever sense it bent a knee to Trump.

That remains to be seen.

 

[Father Heathen]

That remains to be seen.

Does wallowing in willful ignorance give a sense of security and comfort like a warm blanket? Is it about protecting and preserving pride or identity? Why cling to a narrative that's clearly out of sync with reality? What's up?

 

[Ponder This]

Polls show that the general public overwhelmingly supports liberal policies. They even support most Democratic policies.

Polls show most people support Voter ID.
Polls also show most people oppose non-citizen voting.

Voter fraud is a manufactured "problem," created and promoted by the Republicans to create support for voter suppression -- which is the real problem.
There is no statistically significant voter fraud. Voter suppression, on the other hand, is massive.

Why should I believe that "massive numbers" of U.S. citizens are not permitted to vote?
Also do you believe that non-citizens should vote? If so, why?

 

[exchemist]

Polls show most people support Voter ID.
Polls also show most people oppose non-citizen voting.



Why should I believe that "massive numbers" of U.S. citizens are not permitted to vote?
Also do you believe that non-citizens should vote? If so, why?

No you should believe there are systematic ways of making it difficult for certain groups to vote. Like demanding identity documents such as driving licences or passports, when poor people may have neither. Or like ensuring there are very few polling stations in a given area and then - incredibly - passing a law to make it criminal to provide food or drink to people waiting in line to vote.

 

[Valjean]

Polls show most people support Voter ID.
Polls also show most people oppose non-citizen voting.

It's not the ID per se that liberals oppose. Its:
1. the differential access to the ID. Acquiring an ID can be expensive and onerous. Many people lack transportation. Many are media or informationally isolated. Many don't have the documents -- like birth certificates -- needed to get an official ID. Many are impoverished.
2. Forms of acceptable ID. Each state is different, and laws change frequently. Social Security cards, student IDs or Medicaid cards may be unacceptible, while a gun license may be acceptable.

Non-citizen voting, ie: voter fraud, is not a statistically significant problem, despite the fake news to the contrary,

Why should I believe that "massive numbers" of U.S. citizens are not permitted to vote?

Have you followed the news or read the studies on voter suppression?

Also do you believe that non-citizens should vote? If so, why?

In what elections? Federal elections? -- nobody supports this. Local school board members or Solid waste directors? Maybe. Depends.

 

[Valjean]

You quesion voter suppression? These are only about the last year or so:
Fourteen states have enacted 22 new laws making it harder to vote - CNNPolitics
Map: See where lawmakers have introduced bills that would make it harder to vote - CNNPolitics
Voting Laws Roundup: July 2021

These are only the recent restrictions. Remember the slew of new restrictive legislation rolled out after the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act was repealed back in 2013?

 

[Twilight Hue]

You quesion voter suppression? These are only about the last year or so:
Fourteen states have enacted 22 new laws making it harder to vote - CNNPolitics
Map: See where lawmakers have introduced bills that would make it harder to vote - CNNPolitics
Voting Laws Roundup: July 2021

These are only the recent restrictions. Remember the slew of new restrictive legislation rolled out after the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act was repealed back in 2013?

Maybe it would be best to go back to landowners or pay a poll tax like it used to be.

Having a vested interest in this country would be a top priority for making things better overall because there is more at stake due to such investments and get rid of the casual mindset of people devoid of investment and commitment.

Just a thought.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He came here with an article that he hoped would make Harris look worse, when it should have been obvious that it would elicit the kind of negative response that it did - exactly the opposite of the intended effect.

I point this out to the people who start threads to promote a religious belief and end up making themselves and their religion look worse. They come to unbelievers skilled in critical thinking, who disagree with their conclusions about gods. They demonstrate poor reasoning skills and poor judgment, and effectively reconfirm in the minds of those who do think critically and who have come to different conclusions so doing that they made the correct choice not following in the footsteps of the person who concluded differently.

This is the same. Somebody presents something intended to make others agree who presently disagree, and unwittingly accomplishes the opposite, although I doubt that it is possible for me to disagree more than I did already with mainstream American conservative opinion before visiting this thread.

I'm not sure the purpose of this thread - or similar threads about gods - was to persuade. @Twilight Hue can confirm, of course, but I think it may be shaping up exactly as intended.

It's occurred to me that proselytizing by groups like JWs is probably more about retaining existing members than it is about recruiting new ones. The fact that their message - and they themselves - get rejected so often helps to reinforce that the only place they'll be truly accepted is their church and congregation, and this makes them less likely to leave, since converting to some other religion would mean giving up their one place of comfort and acceptance.

I've also heard some theists - presuppositionalists, generally - say that their arguments aren't as much about persuasion as about condemnation. They think that people who haven't accepted their beliefs aren't going to be convinced - they're "seduced by Satan"/aren't "the elect"/whatever - but when the day of judgment comes, the fact that they were given "the truth" will mean that their punishment will be just.

I get a hint of both of these approaches in @Twilight Hue 's posts.

I wouldn't be surprised if he creates threads like these knowing they'll get a negative reaction, which he can then use to say "yep - those libs are still libs! That's not the place where I belong, but I rubbed their faces in their position a bit" and then retreat back to whatever other forum or subreddit he feels more at home in.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm not sure the purpose of this thread - or similar threads about gods - was to persuade. @Twilight Hue can confirm, of course, but I think it may be shaping up exactly as intended.

It's occurred to me that proselytizing by groups like JWs is probably more about retaining existing members than it is about recruiting new ones. The fact that their message - and they themselves - get rejected so often helps to reinforce that the only place they'll be truly accepted is their church and congregation, and this makes them less likely to leave, since converting to some other religion would mean giving up their one place of comfort and acceptance.

I've also heard some theists - presuppositionalists, generally - say that their arguments aren't as much about persuasion as about condemnation. They think that people who haven't accepted their beliefs aren't going to be convinced - they're "seduced by Satan"/aren't "the elect"/whatever - but when the day of judgment comes, the fact that they were given "the truth" will mean that their punishment will be just.

I get a hint of both of these approaches in @Twilight Hue 's posts.

I wouldn't be surprised if he creates threads like these knowing they'll get a negative reaction, which he can then use to say "yep - those libs are still libs! That's not the place where I belong, but I rubbed their faces in their position a bit" and then retreat back to whatever other forum or subreddit he feels more at home in.

I really appreciate all the presupposition put into this. It's quite intricate and creative in the making to say the least. Well done.


The intent of course, from post one, is to point out the freudian slip on Harris's commentary that occurred here as in regard to her true underlying views and feelings, obscured by a facade of concern and redress and putting it out for commentary and responses which turned out very well I might add.

Personally, I don't think she is anywhere near a supporter of democracy. She just doesn't give a hoot unless it's of course about herself, her power, her wealth, and career.

It's pretty standard fare.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I really appreciate all the presupposition put into this. It's quite intricate and creative in the making to say the least. Well done.


The intent of course, from post one, is to point out the freudian slip on Harris's commentary that occurred here as in regard to her true underlying views and feelings, obscured by a facade of concern and redress and putting it out for commentary and responses which turned out very well I might add.

But to what end?

 

[Valjean]

Maybe it would be best to go back to landowners or pay a poll tax like it used to be.

Having a vested interest in this country would be a top priority for making things better overall because there is more at stake due to such investments and get rid of the casual mindset of people devoid of investment and commitment.

Just a thought.

No objection here, but consider: Were the people happier, more prosperous, and secure during periods of restricted voting? Aren't tyrants and dictators heavily invested in their countries, as well? Don't the Ku Klux Klan, Proud Boys and Q anon consider themselves strong patriots, strongly invested in their country?


Historically, when have we seen similar situations, and when have we seen a leadership "class" focused more on the interests of the rich than the people?

How did that work out? Those who forget history........

 

[Ponder This]

No you should believe there are systematic ways of making it difficult for certain groups to vote. Like demanding identity documents such as driving licences or passports, when poor people may have neither. Or like ensuring there are very few polling stations in a given area and then - incredibly - passing a law to make it criminal to provide food or drink to people waiting in line to vote.

It's not the ID per se that liberals oppose. Its:
1. the differential access to the ID. Acquiring an ID can be expensive and onerous. Many people lack transportation. Many are media or informationally isolated. Many don't have the documents -- like birth certificates -- needed to get an official ID. Many are impoverished.
2. Forms of acceptable ID. Each state is different, and laws change frequently. Social Security cards, student IDs or Medicaid cards may be unacceptible, while a gun license may be acceptable.

Voter ID is free (as opposed to other forms of ID). Would you have people pay to acquire ID to vote? Surely not.

The reality is that there aren't massive numbers of people who can't get Voter ID.

In what elections? Federal elections? -- nobody supports this.

It's good to know that you don't support it. Make sure that those pushing voter reform know it.

 

[exchemist]

Voter ID is free (as opposed to other forms of ID). Would you have people pay to acquire ID to vote? Surely not.

The reality is that there aren't massive numbers of people who can't get Voter ID.



It's good to know that you don't support it. Make sure that those pushing voter reform know it.

How do people get this free voter ID?