Ted Cruz Accuses ********s Of 'Jim Crow 2.0' Voting Proposals

[Rockin']

.........Rockin'

[Fists_of_Fury]

[Citizen Koba]

Whelp Ted is kinda right, if you make it easier for more people to vote then it inevitably means that the ********s will benefit... Lindsay Graham identified the GOPs problem accurately a decade ago

The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.

Which is, of course, the reason why the right infosphere constantly manufactures and reproduces scare stories aiming to convince their consumers that they are under attack from a seething tide of ******* filth and contamination coming to take everything they worked for. It is a very delibarately designed propaganda campaign with the aim of making people scared and making them angry. This is the base that Cruz (and others in the GOP) are attempting to engage with and their words fall on well tilled soil.

The problem here is that Cruz is making an obscene comparison between laws that are attempting to make the US more ********ic (ie engaging more eligible voters in the ********ic process) and laws that made the country less ********ic by excluding people from the voting process in a way that was deliberately discriminatory. His complaint is actually that if everyone gets to vote then the **********s will be excluded from power in perpetuity, not that the ******** proposals are fundamentally un********ic or discriminatory by nature, just that they don't benefit him and his ilk. I would suggest that the answer would be for his party to change their platform to make it more appealing to a wdier range of voters if that is their issue, y'know, like other parties have always done. . adapt to the times.

There should be no real debate here, it's clear both parties are looking to change voting legislation for pragmatic rather than ethical reasons (ie because they improve their electoral chances) - the difference is that whereas some red states are aggressively trying to reduce the number of votes cast in a discriminatory fashion, the ********s benefit most from greater participation and thus more accurate representation of the wishes of the population.

He's a twisty ****er though, Mr Cruz, I'll give him that, literally turned the issue upside down and accused the accusers, solid tactics. Very Goebbelsian. Speaks pretty well too, with real conviction, can see why people would buy it if they're not inclined to question the legitimacy of what he's actually saying.

[GhostofDempsey]

Whelp Ted is kinda right, if you make it easier for more people to vote then it inevitably means that the ********s will benefit... Lindsay Graham identified the GOPs problem accurately a decade ago



Which is, of course, the reason why the right infosphere constantly manufactures and reproduces scare stories aiming to convince their consumers that they are under attack from a seething tide of ******* filth and contamination coming to take everything they worked for. It is a very delibarately designed propaganda campaign with the aim of making people scared and making them angry. This is the base that Cruz (and others in the GOP) are attempting to engage with and their words fall on well tilled soil.

The problem here is that Cruz is making an obscene comparison between laws that are attempting to make the US more ********ic (ie engaging more eligible voters in the ********ic process) and laws that made the country less ********ic by excluding people from the voting process in a way that was deliberately discriminatory. His complaint is actually that if everyone gets to vote then the **********s will be excluded from power in perpetuity, not that the ******** proposals are fundamentally un********ic or discriminatory by nature, just that they don't benefit him and his ilk. I would suggest that the answer would be for his party to change their platform to make it more appealing to a wdier range of voters if that is their issue, y'know, like other parties have always done. . adapt to the times.

There should be no real debate here, it's clear both parties are looking to change voting legislation for pragmatic rather than ethical reasons (ie because they improve their electoral chances) - the difference is that whereas some red states are aggressively trying to reduce the number of votes cast in a discriminatory fashion, the ********s benefit most from greater participation and thus more accurate representation of the wishes of the population.

He's a twisty ****er though, Mr Cruz, I'll give him that, literally turned the issue upside down and accused the accusers, solid tactics. Very Goebbelsian. Speaks pretty well too, with real conviction, can see why people would buy it if they're not inclined to question the legitimacy of what he's actually saying.

There's a big part of the problem right there, you take Graham's comment out of context and prescribe to the idea that all white ********** voters are angry. That they don't consider policies that affect the economy, employment, health care, crime, world peace, immigration, education and other issues. You've already dismissed the other side in your opening comment, so why would anyone bother reading the other four paragraphs? Cruz and the rest of the party want very reasonable voting laws, ones that have worked for hundreds of years. Show an ID to prove who you are, and stop the corrupt ballot harvesting and mail-in vote nonsense. We need to go back to having an "election day" not an "election week" so one party can steal an election with fraudulent votes.

[Citizen Koba]

There's a big part of the problem right there, you take Graham's comment out of context and prescribe to the idea that all white ********** voters are angry. That they don't consider policies that affect the economy, employment, health care, crime, world peace, immigration, education and other issues. You've already dismissed the other side in your opening comment, so why would anyone bother reading the other four paragraphs? Cruz and the rest of the party want very reasonable voting laws, ones that have worked for hundreds of years. Show an ID to prove who you are, and stop the corrupt ballot harvesting and mail-in vote nonsense. We need to go back to having an "election day" not an "election week" so one party can steal an election with fraudulent votes.

I don't actually say that at all, but threat and uncertainty predisposes humans to conserve or defend what they have and make us more averse to risk and more resistant to change... it's basic psychology that can be seen even in infants. Funny thing is you're more than willing to comment on how the 'MSM' influences and brainwashes people with '*******' ideas so you must accept the broader principle that media manipulation works. Why on earth then would you assume than ************* are in some way immune to similar types of manipulation?

Anyways... Agree or disagree - to ensure maximum representation of the wishes of the population ********ic government should make every possible effort to get the legitmate input of as large a section of the electorate as possible?

You're no idiot, Ghost, you must understand political parties aren't people. They don't have ethics, don't have values, they are simply machines, vehicles for generating votes or winning power and their representatives say whatever they have to say in pursuit of that end or they don't last long within that party... the **********s are pushing for voter supression because it's more likely to result in them getting power, if they would benefit from making voting easier that's what they would be campaigning for. Similarly if the ********s thought that voter suppression was more likely to get them re-elected then that's what they would be campaigning for. That is a simple reality... difference between us is that I support the principle whereas you support the party... if it was the ********s that were advocating for less democracy then I would be critcising them instead. Can you honestly say the same?

And if you got some actual proof of widespread election fraud that would stand up in court of law I suggest you oughta be campaigning with your last breath to make sure it gets heard rather than wasting your time arguing with old fools like me on a boxing site....