Report: Mueller is Ready to Deliver his Key Findings - Polidicks

No you fucking aren't. It's the only reason you're here.

oh shit dude I forgot being open minded and thinking critically meant immediately throwing your own beliefs into the trash because someone else told you to man I'm so bad at this

I disagree. You would have to be really blind to believe that, as opposed to the rest of history, instability is entirely down to the actions of one party starting on one very recent date that conveniently coincides with your dramatic loss of power. You are at best describing a spark on the powder keg. I have rarely read of political instability that wasn't down to sources outside of party politics. Politics is where they overtly manifest. Instead, I think the instability is due to different parts of society diverging in the stakes they have in change, which is complicated by how change is increasingly driven by a few in the market and government because of this modern trend for the integration of society and then subsequent concentration of power. That change is a necessary part of staying relevant in today's intensely competitive, debt-driven global economy, which means change is increasingly broad and totalizing as we chase eternal growth and long-term sustainability. What we do to adapt in this race to the bottom reaches all parts of society and down to all aspects of individual life. Great instability in the short-term is caused by great conflict in what people want out of the long-term, the ability to democratically compromise is complicated by just how unequal modern society is. That inequality is unevenly distributed across its many divisions like class, city-countryside, sex, generation, and race/ethnicity. Those divisions help reveal fundamental differences in values and lead to great ideological conflict, while the uneven recovery, erosion of the middle class dream, squeeze on the traditional family model, fatigue with the implications of our foreign policy, norms and ways of life being made more antiquated by material change and then subject to cultural debate, etc. create battlegrounds for this to be fought out. As a result, it looks to me like liberals feel they have to defend an enduring permanent revolution and expansion of democracy that started in the 1860s, 1930s, or 1960s, it always varies based on who you ask, while conservatives are circling the wagons around an idealized way of life, which is under economic and thus cultural and political siege, that holds a complex society together. Russia only comes in later to exploit disillusionment with exactly the same forces it's been struggling against that made it reject liberalism, which is why it aids the dissident right and left. I think the answer is much more basic. The right and the left are fighting over today's heights of political and economic power, which is unlike anything we've seen in history, while instability associated with much more dynamic economy revolutionizing our society has uprooted many things we've taken for granted. The lack of certainty mixed with the number of things up for ideologues to grab shapes this great conflict over what our society should look like just a few decades from now. Contrast this with the conditions we evolved in, where generations lived more or less the same way with minimal divisions and there were no large market actors, institutions, and government that had the power to shape much of society and therefore be fought over. I get the impression of a power vacuum that reveals fundamental divisions in our society that were always there, not a grand conspiracy to subvert democracy.

I assume you're talking about the investigation described in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/19/georgia-governor-race-voter-suppression-brian-kemp Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing in there showing that they were purged under false pretenses. According to the article, Georgia's system works as follows: "registered voters who have not cast ballots for three years are sent a notice asking them to confirm they still live at their address. If they don’t return it, they are marked inactive. If they don’t vote for two more general elections after that, they are removed from the rolls. Georgia removed more than 534,000 voters that way in 2016 and 2017. Using databases employed by commercial mailing firms, analysts commissioned by Palast’s group found that 334,134 of those citizens actually still live at the address they registered." Did those 334,134 people both get sent and return the notice? If so, then yes, you would be totally right in claiming that they were removed under false pretenses. If they were sent the notice, but didn't return it,, then they were removed 100% according to the set policy in Georgia. Based on this article, we don't know the answer to that yet. When we do know, then we can make claims about "false pretenses," but until then it's simply baseless assertion. They may have very well been following the normal policy by removing anyone who didn't return the notice. These types of things are what make this incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to discuss. You push the claims WAY further than there's any evidence for and then insult anyone who disagrees.

As Long As It's Legal, I Can't Apply Critical Thought To Whether Or Not It Is Just™

If they're following a set policy that has been in place for a decade, then it's a little hard to say they're purging them on "false pretenses." You can disagree with the policy, but that's a completely different thing.

Technical legality is and always has been the baseline for what's right and proper, of course. Hundreds of thousands of voters are being purged, but they didn't respond to a postcard so it's all good. And who cares if polling stations in poor and minority areas are being closed en masse all around the country? They can just go to the small handful that are still open, stand in line for eight hours, and vote, so technically they are able to vote. And who cares if tens of thousands of Native Americans are having their ability to vote pulled away from them? They can just move off the reservations so they can have mailing addresses. What's the big deal?

I just have to comment how much I love the fact that a fairly infamous conservative poster here rated this baby. You're spelling right out exactly what the issues are but apparently because it serves his political interests you're just a baby despite the fact that all of these actions you're describing go against everything this country stands for. I really don't get how people can so blatantly court authoritarian and fascist tactics while simultaneously claiming they support democracy and seemingly honestly believing that they do. Did you actually read BDA's post? Cause it's kinda hard to see pointing out and condemning blatant voter suppression as being an "absolute fanatic" unless you're mentally disabled. I could be mixing it up with another state but I'm pretty sure Georgia is the state where the asshole in charge of that stuff is also the Republican Congressional candidate. So it's quite difficult to see it as anything other than false pretenses. The fact someone can be in a position where such a blatant conflict of interest comes into play and is still allowed to run is completely unacceptable.

Nobody should be getting purged from the voter rolls under any circumstances. Who gives a fuck if someone hasn't voted for a couple elections?

I assume it's to catch people who have moved out of state, died, etc. The same investigation also found that ~200,000 weren't living at their previous address. Many had moved out of state, died, etc. Again, you want to argue that it's a bad policy, then fine, but that's not at all the same thing as saying they're being removed out of deception.

congratulations sgman, you've successfully proven wrong all the people saying that what's going on is bad because it's illegal now if only we could just find some of them

They are being purged by the candidate who they would, in general, be voting to remove from office. His claims on why they are being removed are false in and of themselves. Everything else is bullshit technicalities, and I think you're well aware of that. Furthermore: what we're discussing is voter suppression. Regardless of whether or not you think that the hundreds of thousands of voters being purged from the registries are technically being "deceived," you've still got hundreds of thousands of people being purged from the voter registries. I'm not engaging in yet another debate over semantics with you, since that seems to be your default argumentative fallback when you don't know how to defend the core subject.

That was BDA's original claim. He said Georga purged them on false pretenses, which means they purged them on a basis different than what was claimed, making it illegal.

What do you have to say about the fact that most of the people purged are black or poor aka more likely to vote Democrat? Or the fact that the incumbent running for reelection is in charge of the office that handles voter registration? Do you suspect a conflict of interest?

SG are you physically capable of political debate without boiling down the entire discussion into pedantic bullshit like this? We're discussing the purging of hundreds of thousands of people (across the country: millions) from voter registries, and the hill you're choosing to die on is what the definition of "false" is?

It's legal to get around global trade regulations by declaring other countries a threat to the security of your nation. That doesn't mean when Trump declares Canada a national security threat he isn't doing so under false pretenses, just that he has a defensible legal pretext. No one here is arguing that there doesn't exist a defensible legal pretext for voter suppression. This pathetic motte and bailey shit is getting really old.

I don't think there's any evidence that those purged are mostly black. I assume you're, instead, talking about this: "Lawsuits have also charged that Kemp blocked the registrations of 50,000 would-be voters, 80% of them black, Latino or Asian, because of minor discrepancies in the spelling or spacing of their name. Another suit targeted the state’s most diverse county after it rejected an unusually large number of absentee ballots." (From the same article I cited before) Honestly, I'm not sure what to think without more information. Could it be flat out racism? Sure, that's possible. The explanation given by Kemp is that a certain group that does voter registrations in predominantly black areas did an extremely poor job verifying accuracy of those applications. Is that possible? Sure it is. Please also note that Georgia allows people having their application held for this reason to cast a provisional ballot while it's fixed. (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/georgia-voting-rights-brian-kemp-stacey-abrams_us_5bbe435fe4b0876edaa4d908) So it's not like they're being prevented from voting.

You're just shrugging your shoulders and saying "gee I dunno" when hundreds of thousands of people are being removed from the rolls, which will have an effect on a tight race. You didn't answer my other question: is there a conflict of interest, and are you perfectly okay with how this has been handled? It's undeniable that this is throwing up unnecessary hurdles that will depress the vote. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're a hack. You wouldn't be so unsure and indifferent if this was a Democratic governor targeting Republican-leaning voters.

What's the alternative? It's literally his job to put those laws into practice.

I was looking for a "yes" or "no."

Sorry, but life often isn't that clearcut.

Yeah, I mean, it isn't like it's even possible to figure out the voting habits of political or minority groups. I mean what, do you think that someone would really go out and request voter information broken down by race? And then use that information(which we all know doesn't exist) to create policy that's specifically tailored to deter those groups from voting? It's a shame that totally never happened

Especially when you're purposefully being obtuse and evasive...

Don't expect anybody to be willing to engage in a serious debate if you can't answer a simple yes or no question.

Brain Kemp is the fucking Secretary of State, the role that by and large is in charge of elections and Kemp is also running for said elections. Using his SoS powers he is selectively removing voting capabilities from individuals in districts that by no mere coincidence for some reason happens to be right before the election period. This is objectively a conflict of interest and he should have immediately resigned from his role as Secretary of State to ensure a fair and honest race but no, he didn't. He purged voters before his own election which is authoritarian as fuck.

That seems like a total non-sequitur. 1) The case you mentioned is one of many that are still in the process of being legally determined. That one specifically didn't go the Supreme Court because of the legal confusion within the state, itself. The SC clearly stated that they weren't making a stand one way or the other. It will be interesting to follow the arguments in the very similar case coming from Texas. 2) The possibility of racism isn't at all the same as establishing racism.

It's literally not a false dichotomy. There either is a conflict of interest or there isn't one. If you can't answer yes or no then give me your unique perspective instead of dancing around the question.

If the office is following normal procedure, the same thing they do every year, then no, it's not a conflict of interest because he's not taking any specific action. It gets even more complex, though. Let's say he stepped down during the election and his next in command did the normal yearly purges. How is that any different?

“Is there any way to get a breakdown of the 2008 voter turnout, by race (white and black) and type of vote (early and Election Day)?” a staffer for the state’s Republican-controlled legislature asked in January 2012. “Is there no category for ‘Hispanic’ voter?” a GOP lawmaker asked in March 2013 after requesting a range of data, including how many voters cast ballots outside their precinct. And in April 2013, a top aide to the Republican House speaker asked for “a breakdown, by race, of those registered voters in your database that do not have a driver’s license number.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/inside-the-republican-creation-of-the-north-carolina-voting-bill-dubbed-the-monster-law/2016/09/01/79162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44213b6c7751 You can pivot all you fucking want, dude. The reality is, not only is it not "far fetched" that they'd know about the different voting habits of different demographics and use that knowledge to create policy that suppresses those voters, they did it. I don't understand how anyone can stand to spend their time making excuses for these worms. I don't know whether to feel pity or disgust.

Nothing unique are you fucking serious? Did you even remotely comprehend what I just said? Kemp is actively running in the race for governor while undergoing his Secretary of State duties which involves overseeing the election he is running for.