You're right- maybe you didn't fall into a rhetorical trap. You are actually just a gaslighting piece of shit, I think.
Here it seems that you are agreeing with my fundamental argument
Of course I am. How many times did you have to read it to realize that?
I'd think the part where I said: "No question about it." would probably have been enough.
The question is about magnitude, because this discussion stems from a claim of absurd fucking magnitude which you have attached yourself to.
While there is not really enough room in a Slashdot discussion to cover a subject like this in detail, I would argue that this is highly dubious. I would refer you to the eight box law, the 1895 constitution of South Carolina, the 1890 constitution of Mississippi, the "Mississippi plan", constitutional changes in Louisiana, the "Redemption plan", etc. South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana had majority black populations after the Civil War, yet elected representatives in Congress and heavily influenced Presidential elections. See also the "Solid South". The simple fact is that South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana had majority black populations after the Civil war but somehow voted solidly against the interests of the majority of the population up until at least 1965. It seems disingenuous to just pretend that voter suppression was not happening and that it did not have a real effect.
Ya- you're very much right to call me out on my use of "hasn't ever".
In the post-Reconstuction South where Black voter percentage dropped from 90% to 9%, or in some cases, near zero- ya, that absolutely impacted Federal elections.
For my part, I was referring to modern soft voter suppression- not the hard voter suppresion of the post-Reconstruction South. But since I didn't explicitly state that, I accept your criticism.
I've read it multiple times and, though it is a bit run-on, it seems clear. I will break it down. When Trump lost the election, there were fake slates of "electors", proven election sabotage, recounts by bizarre organizations (Cyber Ninjas? Really?), an assault on Congress, numerous elected and appointed government officials making a huge amount of noise, calling for the execution of their enemies, etc., etc. for years right up until the present day. Meanwhile, the buzz about voter suppression in the recent election is largely muted and mostly just individuals complaining on the Internet with very few public officials even weighing in. Comparing the scale of activity from one to the other is no contest.
Fake electors is a media term, intended to vilify.
This has happened, historically. The correct term is an alternate slate of electors.
These electors on their own are powerless. It is for the Congress to select, or not.
The Compromise of 1877 sets the stage for this.
While I consider the alternate slate downright dirty pool, it's not this evil fucking scheme you're trying to make it out to be.
The electors themselves become meaningless unless the Congress decides to accept them. I'll grant you that it's definitely threading the needle through a loophole in our electoral system. But not one that hasn't been tried before, without accusations of "stealing the election with fake electors". Probably since then, unlike now, they understood how the system worked.
You're talking about three Democratic senators lodging a perfectly legal ceremonial objection and comparing it to a President in public ordering his Vice President to illegally violate his constitutional duty (unlike the Senators who are actually allowed to voice objections, the Vice President has no authority to do anything other than state facts in that situation), oh, and also a mob attacking the building and trying to kill him?
I made no such comparison. I said Republicans, not "The President".
I'd love for you to point out where I justified that piece of shit.
The problem here, as I pointed out is that you have a clear bias. You claim that the two parties are equal in this sort of thing when that is clearly nonsense. However, even if we pretend that they are equal in this behavior, your position is that should sway votes away from the Democrats towards the Republicans. So your position is one of Republican impunity and Democrat culpability. From my perspective and, I would argue, any rational perspective, any pretensions you have to neutrality are nonsense and you are displaying a clear bias.
What a load of bullshit.
I did not claim equality- I claimed that those who throw stones should be careful not to do so from glass houses.
To put it more simply, your argument appears to be X and Y are just as bad as each other and therefore everyone should favor X and shun Y. Even aside from my argument that X is clearly worse, your argument makes no sense even if we grant the proposition that X and Y are as bad as each other.
Another load of bullshit.
X and Y have bad features in common. Attempts at reducing voter turnout at times when it suits them is among them.
Never once did I claim everyone should favor X and shun Y, particularly because in this case, I vote reliably Democrat, and given the current dangers to the Republic, I think that's the only rational option.
Your problem, is that you see any criticism of your side as endorsement of the other.
And that is a problem. A fucking dangerous one.
