Current or modern politics in the United States

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Are you aware that it took a 1968 Supreme Court decision to end legal housing discrimination in California?

As a side note, Donald Trump lost his first court battle over racist housing discrimination in 1973. Trump, just like his KKK sympathizer dad, didn't want to rent apartments in his buildings to African Americans, blowing the same racist dog whistles about "welfare queens" that have been part of the bread and butter of Republican politicians until today.


As another side note, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions - named after the President and a general of the treasonous Confederacy - was too racist to become a federal judge in the 1980ies.

[tsunamiSD]

Last Sunday's Union-Tribune had a book review in it by Timothy Smith, who wrote it for the Washington Post. The book is by Carol Anderson, and is called 'One Person, No Vote: Is Voter Suppression Destroying Our Democracy.' From the review, it sounds like some really ugly things have been going on.
Book Review

Today, I ran across this:

If someone can't access the Post book review I can scan the paper version and post that if the mods allow.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by tsunamiSD

Last Sunday's Union-Tribune had a book review in it by Timothy Smith, who wrote it for the Washington Post. The book is by Carol Anderson, and is called 'One Person, No Vote: Is Voter Suppression Destroying Our Democracy.' From the review, it sounds like some really ugly things have been going on.
Book Review

Today, I ran across this:

If someone can't access the Post book review I can scan the paper version and post that if the mods allow.

Very ugly things have been going on since the founding of the Republic.

The Founders decided to maintain slavery, and they also decided to give slave States congressional representation that included as population those slaves who couldn't vote. Article I, Section Two of the Constitution of 1787 reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

. . . so from the very start, our Republic has been in the business of giving slaveowners political power for those who they do not want to vote.

Its the poison at the heart of the American project-- a "free people", enslaving other people.

So getting black folks not to vote is as old as the United States.

[tsunamiSD]

In 2012, The Houston Chronicle endorsed Ted Cruz for the U.S. Senate. This time, guess what: For U.S. Senate: Beto O'Rourke

Voters don't send representatives to Washington to win popularity contests, and yet the bipartisan disdain the Republican incumbent elicits from his colleagues, remarkable in its intensity, deserves noting. His repellent personality hamstrings his ability to do the job.
"Lucifer in the flesh," is how Republican former House Speaker John Boehner described Cruz, adding: "I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life."
Lindsey Graham, Republican senator from South Carolina, famously said: "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you."

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by tsunamiSD

Last Sunday's Union-Tribune had a book review in it by Timothy Smith, who wrote it for the Washington Post. The book is by Carol Anderson, and is called 'One Person, No Vote: Is Voter Suppression Destroying Our Democracy.' From the review, it sounds like some really ugly things have been going on.
Book Review

Today, I ran across this:

If someone can't access the Post book review I can scan the paper version and post that if the mods allow.

How the effing hell can they make people go 50 miles to go get a driver's license? That's totally off the wall BS.

There's a little phrase in our declaration of independence that says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Being unalienable rights, and all that. I would say being able to freely get about on your own counts as an unalienable right.

I'm not one of those "sovereign citizen" types, but if this is really going on, it calls into question the validity of said government's authority to regulate motorized transport, period.

[tsunamiSD]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

How the effing hell can they make people go 50 miles to go get a driver's license? That's totally off the wall BS.

There's a little phrase in our declaration of independence that says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Being unalienable rights, and all that. I would say being able to freely get about on your own counts as an unalienable right.

I'm not one of those "sovereign citizen" types, but if this is really going on, it calls into question the validity of said government's authority to regulate motorized transport, period.

Here is another southern state where Republicans are pulling some shady and immoral (and maybe illegal) things:


Georgia put 53,000 voter registrations on hold, fueling new charges of voter suppression

These concerns mostly revolve around Brian Kemp, Georgia’s current secretary of state and the Republican candidate for governor. Kemp refusesto leave office before the election, prompting voting rights advocates, civil rights groups,and the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Stacey Abrams, to arguethat it’s inappropriate for the man in charge of voting systems in the state to continue to manage those systems while running for office. Kemp’s opponents argue that the pending applications prove he cannot be trusted to oversee the election.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

How the effing hell can they make people go 50 miles to go get a driver's license? That's totally off the wall BS.

There's a little phrase in our declaration of independence that says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Being unalienable rights, and all that. I would say being able to freely get about on your own counts as an unalienable right.

I'm not one of those "sovereign citizen" types, but if this is really going on, it calls into question the validity of said government's authority to regulate motorized transport, period.

You've got the causality backwards.

They can do it precisely _because_ of "sovereign citizen" types.

They're the folks who get pissed off at the idea of the Federal government intervening to make sure that states and counties treat people fairly.

At their most extreme, the "posse comitatus" types don't even recognize an authority higher than the county, and so if your county says "we have one voting booth a hundred miles away from you, from 1 AM to 3 AM" -- they don't think there's any higher authority that should be regulating that.

But at a less extreme level, you find that hostility to any Federal intervention to assure voting (or other) rights among every flavor of Republican. The Supreme Court recently voided the requirement that historically racist States "pre-clear" changes to their voting practices with the Department of Justice, under the Voting Rights Act-- which is now a shred of what it was.

[bowlinggreen]

^ "sovereign citizen" types hate the idea that they have to get permission to drive, and this is largely regulated at the state level. Though the federal government is now interfering by insisting that state licenses comply with their "Real ID" standard, you know, to fight terrorism.

Regardless of whether it is at the federal, state, county or local level, any government is still supposed to comply with the ideals embedded in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

It seems to me that those black folks without a local DMV have a case for a lawsuit to force the state to reopen local DMV offices, if they can find a lawyer to take the case.

With regards to your last paragraph, it seems there is still very much a mindset among republicans that only white males of substance should be allowed to vote. Which is quite hypocritical, since they have been the ones disenfranchising people of their "substance", including lots of white folks.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

^ "sovereign citizen" types hate the idea that they have to get permission to drive, and this is largely regulated at the state level. Though the federal government is now interfering by insisting that state licenses comply with their "Real ID" standard, you know, to fight terrorism.

Regardless of whether it is at the federal, state, county or local level, any government is still supposed to comply with the ideals embedded in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

-- and the only legal mechanism to enforce compliance with the Federal Constitution, if a State chooses not to follow it, are the Federal Courts and the power of the Federal government which the right wing has always hated.

The right has always taken the position "If Tennessee won't let you vote, that's a Tennessee problem, not a Federal problem".

And as for "having to get permission to drive" -- that's a valid State function, for the safety and well being of the nation. We've got roughly 35,000 auto fatalities per year, that's a lot of people getting killed.

The "driving's a right" notion is silly, its an activity that puts everyone else at risk, and there's no way for "sovereign citizens" to police drunk driving.

Again, we have a fantasy on the right that somehow things like a safe transportation system just "happen" by individual action-- this is crazy. A safe and reliable transportation system, whether individuals in cars, or planeloads of people, or light rail-- this all requires a competent and well regulated government.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The "driving's a right" notion is silly, its an activity that puts everyone else at risk, and there's no way for "sovereign citizens" to police drunk driving.

Well, if driving is merely a privilege, like drinking single-malt scotch or eating chocolate truffles, let's dial down production at all the refineries and produce only enough gasoline for emergency vehicles and public transport, and other fuels for agricultural, railroad and industrial equipment. Now let's wait a bit and see what happens to the economy.

Nothing good.

Given the unpleasant transformations from the society that we have now such an experiment would bring about, I think you would be hard pressed to argue it is not an inherent right for the people as a whole. Unless you are really into the Victorian lifestyle.

But by saying it is a privilege for the individual, we can turn driving "privileges" into an instrument of punishment, and social and economic oppression.

This is a classic example of doublethink, in which the powers that be have conned the people into thinking that a thing can be both one way and the other at the same time, depending on the whims of those handing out the "privileges".

As a purely practical matter, it is necessary to make sure those persons driving vehicles have the requisite skills to safely get about on the roads, but once you begin denying that "privilege" for political or other reasons, you give up the legitimacy of your authority, IMHO.