Hodad

I think the latter. Religion is inherently irrational, and so are its true believers. Any nuclear arsenal wielded as an extension of religious authority--the smiting hands of ill-conceived gods--cannot be trusted to play according to game theory. The "D" in MAD only concerns Earthly destruction, and that's not an effective deterrent to anyone who believes that they are taking direction from the creator of the universe.

We're shooting down our own drones at the border and our own planes in the Middle East. WTF is going on. @John Stone I'm seeing very little here to signal that this is driven by good intentions, or that Trump has ever done anything for reasons that weren't grounded in self interest. Even now, with troops at risk and civilian casualties he's talking about this like it's revenge for a personal grievance (Iran's attempted election interference).

He didn't forget. He's been "reminded" of the facts dozens of times. Trump (not Biden) is also the one who released 5000 Taliban fighters so they could reconquer the country. He simply gave a repressive theocratic regime Afghanistan, to the pain and suffering of the Afghan people, and now these same simps are going to pretend that Trump is heroically liberating the Iranian people from... an oppressive theocratic regime. Sure. WCM is just an absolutely shameless liar.

This reads with some implication of blame on Carney. The US and Canada have been fast friends, aligned and allied culturally, economically and militarily. Then, along comes Trump, mocking you culturally, attacking you economically, and threatening your sovereignty. The question isn't how could Carney look for new allies, it's how could he not? Do Canadian conservatives all suffer from battered spouse syndrome? When a partner betrays you so fundamentally, it's time to look elsewhere. This rift is tragic, but it's not Carney's fault, it's Trump's.

I think the media has made a big mistake. All this time they've been reporting on Trump's Board of Peace. I now suspect a homophonic transcription error. The accurate version is "Trump's bored of peace."

He knows it's false. But Trump said it so now he must repeat it as gospel. That's the nature of the cult.

Who are these Democrats? Can you produce such a quote? I'm sure you've seen whatever video the algorithm force feeds you in your bubble--a feedback loop that reinforces every stupid thought to have. Links. Quotes. Put up or shut up.

More evident in his coup attempt, his alienation of our allies, his trade wars, his dismantling of consumer protections, his attacks on voting rights, his dismantling of our education system, the destruction of environmental protections, his effort to reverse a century of medical progress--oh, and his masked goons terrorizing our cities and executing citizens in the streets. The little stuff. And at every turn selling us out to enrich himself and his cronies.

I'm not aware of any Democrats saying that Black Americans are dumb. You guys sure do like repeating that line though. I wonder why? And yes, we do know that non -citizen voting is virtually non-existent. Multiple states, multiple audits, multiple years examining every single vote. It's not happening. Sorry to dump on your fantasy world, but facts are facts.

The only Americans that Trump cares for are named Trump. Based on that technicality, you're correct.

Trump is not a conservative. He's a radical. He doesn't conserve or progress, he destroys.

It's free, universal pre-K, dummy. Nobody pays for it. It's right there in the name!🙄

You are such a buffoon. Non-citizen voting is virtually nonexistent. Nobody "needs" your imaginary votes. I am actually quite concerned about a cynical, corrupt government reinstituting Jim Crow style laws to target minority voters. It's unAmerican. It's fundamentally wrong. Two things that you have in common with those laws.

To successfully claim hypocrisy you'd have to establish an equivalency. And, of course, you cannot. Hence the comment. As a reminder, still complete asinine to claim that the Mayor is a hypocrite for following federal employment law. It's preposterous. Let that sink into your brain and then move on to a real topic. I think I've made very clear that I don't care what some randos say, and I care even less about what randos say after the comments are edited and curated to achieve a specific outcome. I can show you clips of conservatives waving Nazi flags at Trump rallies. Does that mean that Republicans are nazis? Is that just how you easily you roll, or are you selectively manipulable? I don't know whether it's age or intellect or education or what, but a lot of people out there do not seem to understand that not every idea is worthy of a platform. Just because people can publish something on social media does not mean that it's actually an idea worth sharing. Keep your algorithmic corruption to yourself, please. If I wanted to read the musings of random people I'd join the dumb platform myself. Again, even a cursory glance at history would tell you that's an insanely statement and aggressively ignorant. Republicans have attacked the Voting Rights Act with, literally, hundreds of cases of the decades. And this post-Trump SCOTUS is blowing massive holes in it with three major cases over the past 5 years. Those protections were created for a reason: to end Jim Crow era discriminatory practices. Republicans want them back. Let me guess, you found that "study" on Twitter? Dude, that's old news about bad science. The political science community debunked the analysis years ago. "200 political scientists signed a letter contesting the findings of the 2014 article. In this letter, they concluded that “the scholarly political science community has generally rejected the findings in the Richman et al. study, and we believe it should not be cited or used in any debate over fraudulent voting.”[2] Yet the scientific community had critiqued this article long before Trump had deployed it to credential his claims." The primary author, while not entirely dismissing the work, also claimed that it's being misrepresented. "This part I completely agree with. I’ve been trying to clarify the evidence for months as well. My study DOES NOT support Trump’s claim that millions of non-citizens voted in the 2016 election. My initial response was here and I have also pushed back against subsequent attempts to use that response to make somewhat more modest but still not data based claims." More importantly, you do not have to rely on methodologically sketchy surveys and projections. The states acutally audit voting. They literally analyze the actual votes. Extensively. And every single time voter impersonation is found to be virtually nonexistent. . -- Nationwide, records from a federal citizenship verification tool show that just 0.04% of voter verification cases are returned as noncitizens. Here are some Republican-led audits Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose flagged 521 cases of potential noncitizen voting between 2019 and September 2023. But an Ohio Capital Journal review found just one case in which a noncitizen was ultimately charged with voter fraud. The review noted that this was due to a combination of accidental registration and a lag in how the department of motor vehicles updates an individual’s citizenship status after naturalization. Utah performed a citizenship review of its entire voter registration list from April 2025 through January 2026. After a time-intensive, multi-step review of more than 2 million registered voters, they identified only one confirmed instance of noncitizen registration and zero instances of noncitizen voting. Georgia: In October 2024, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced that a citizenship audit of 8.2 million registered voters identified 20 noncitizens who had registered to vote. Of those 20 individuals, just nine had cast ballots in prior elections, most before Georgia implemented enhanced citizenship verification through the Department of Driver Services in 2012. The cases were referred to local prosecutors for investigation. No. I haven't said anything of the sort. That's the line you keep repeating.

Still no argument to make. Thanks for confirming my opinion.

I forgot. You're one of those not bright enough to formulate or respond to a thoughtful argument. I shouldn't have wasted the electrons. My bad.

Regular bait or jailbait?

Not sure what to make of this thread. Is West rooting for Trump to resign?

Lol. Check your OP. You literally premised this entire thread on the false equivalency between voting and employment ID requirements. That, and the thoroughly stupid implication that Mamdani was a hypocrite for following federal employment law. So, yes the "debate" is about why that comparison is nonsensical. Why your meme argument isn't a "gotcha" moment. WTF is Ami Horowitz and why do I care? You may be ignorant of the persistent Republican attacks on the Voting Rights Act. That's fine. Nobody knows everything. But you could remedy that in just a few minutes if you bothered to look. Instead you just wave your hands and pretend I'm making it up. Lazy. And yes, it is indeed racist to create laws that disproportionately impact and damage minorities. Particularly when that is the ONLY effect such laws will have. That's EXACTLY what the Jim Crow voting laws did: pick a trait that is correlated with minority/Black voters and then legislate around the trait while pretending it wasn't about racism.

Typically short-sighted response to smart policy. Regardless of the parent's immigration status, the kids live in the cities. They will go to the schools. They will be expected to function as contributing members of society. And in all of those things pre-k education pays massive dividends. Cities should govern for the reality in which they live, not cut their noses in service of ideological dogma. Make smart choices to get the best outcomes for the public.

Do you just not know what a straw man argument is? I challenged you to do a basic debate exercise of arguing the other perspective--because it's 100% clear from your lame memey "argument" that you've put zero thought into this. You couldn't manage it. Fine. But it's not a straw man argument to ask you to do some critical thinking. Look it up. Again, the only straw man argument is yours, completely fabricating the idea that people who oppose voter ID are making any commentary whatsoever on the intelligence of Black Americans. "We" didn't make that argument. You made it up and want to argue against that straw man. Lame. And I've got a news flash for you: comparing legislation to Jim Crow is, in no way, a commentary on Black Americans. It's a commentary on laws concocted by racists specifically to target and exclude minorities. Jim Crow laws didn't exist because Black people were dumb. They existed because of racists. You are welcome to speculate about why Black Americans are less likely to have ID. (Or, you could actually learn why by reading the really available research.) But regardless of the reasons, it's a fact that they are less likely, and it's wrong to disenfranchise those potential voters. And it's doubly wrong to disenfranchise them under the fig leaf of solving a non-existent voter impersonation "problem." We know what Republicans are doing. We know why they're doing it. The Jim Crow laws were undone by the Voting Rights Act in the 60s, and Republicans have relentlessly attacked that law in the courts for decades. Specifically so they could do more shit like this. Face it, there are no facts on your side. There is nothing to hide behind. You simply want fewer Black voters to turn out on election day because Black voters consistently break for Democrats.

Don't look now, but your big orange ldiot already destroyed half of it. So now the destruction outside matches the destruction inside.

Accepting this as your concession that no, you're not up to the task of critically examining the similarities and differences. You prefer to stick with memeing. Open wide, here comes the airplane! 1. The standards--legal, moral and practical--are necessarily different to infringe upon a constitutional right than to infringe upon other opportunities. Always has been. Always will. The entirety of American jurisprudence bears that out. So what lawmakers can "get away with" in the consequential compromise of liberty will be different. 2. Yes, you nitwit, people absolutely did object to the law on grounds of racial bias. Just because it Twitter didn't exist doesn't mean it didn't happen. Crack a book. Use the internet. Whatever it takes to learn something before you pontificate on the subject. 3. You need to prove eligibility to work in the same way that you need to prove eligibility to register to vote--both before participating in the actual activity. Same principle. 4. After demonstrating eligibility and registering, you can show up and work or show up and vote without further documentation. You don't need to produce ID after registering. That too is the same. 5. However, if you forget your ID when proving eligibility to work you can simply do it later. It is not a time bound process. Requiring ID to vote on the day of voting is a time bound process. There is just one point in tim--one opportunity--to exercise your constitutional right, and it should not be infringed upon unless there is very good cause. That is different. 6. There are wildly different cost/benefit analyses. Taking a job provides a strong and ongoing financial incentive to break the law. There is virtually no reward for attempting voter impersonation fraud--and very high risk. There's another difference. 7. Employment (due to federal income taxation) is within the purview of the federal government. Whereas the states are constitutionally responsible for creating their own respective election laws. That's a difference. 8. We know for a fact that many undocumented immigrants were lying about eligibility and affecting impersonations to secure work and wages, therefore a corrective law can bejustified and we all trade away some liberty to pass that corrective law. In contrast, we know for a fact that voter impersonation fraud is virtually nonexistent. There is no problem to solve, and therefore there is no justification for a law that will disenfranchise even a small number of Americans on voting day. That's plenty for now, but that last one is the kicker. When you now for a fact that you are going to disenfranchise some American, when there is no problem to solve and no upside to the disenfranchisement, it reveals that ulterior motives are in play. Finally, the idea that nonwhites are not smart enough or too poor to get IDs the only strawman in this conversation. "We" didn't say that. You a-holes made that up. What we did say is that it's an observable demographic fact that marginalized people--including minorities--are less likely to have ID. Regardless of why you think that is (whatever racist reasons you keep claiming) the facts are the facts. And when you're cheering for a law that you know will disproportionately disenfranchise those people and secure us nothing in return, it's clearly racial targeting. That's the motive. Because of the demographic alignment between the parties, you think the disenfranchisement will hurt Democrats more than Republicans. That's the selfish, cynical, vile upside to this whole thing for you. It's the exact same "thining" that drives Republican controlled states to continually reduce polling places in predominately Black districts--because many people can't or won't wait in line for 6 hours to vote. You can lie and strawman as much as you like, but facts are facts. You're trying to sell us a VERY false equivalency. It's dumb. Not as dumb as trying to blame the mayor of NYC for a federal law, but still pretty dumb. And I'm not buying.

Jeebus, I know you saw a meme on Twitter that implied that showed you a false equivalency and you swallowed it whole, but try to think it through. I9 requirements date back to the Reagan era immigration reform and were specifically created as a response to undocumented Mexican laborers. OF COURSE people called it racist. That indeed was part of the motive, though there are practical concerns as well. But that's like 40 years ago. Mamdani wasn't even born yet.🙄 Beyond that, access to a job and to a constitutional right are two very different things. Do you really need me to list the ways these scenarios are very different--from motives to execution to outcome. Why don't you quit meming and take a shot? Make your best argument for why the employment and voting situations are not very similar. Think it through and surprise yourself. Or, you know, just post more crap from Twitter. It's a (mostly) free country.

Apparently you've never heard Trump speak. It's constant word salad--and likely the only kind of salad to pass through his cake hole.