Hodad

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.

Again, whether it is or it isn't, it would have nothing to do with the mayor of NYC. 💡

No, you didn't. You thought it would be clever to say. It isn't. Rather, it just highlights gaps in your knowledge and thinking. The requirement to show ID to get a job has nothing to do with the mayor of NYC. It's a federal law. Ignorant people like the OP think that this is some kind of hypocrisy on the part of the mayor, when it's a federal requirement.

He didn't tell "black people" that. Someone on Twitter told you that he told black people that, and you are apparently very easy to manipulate and fell for it immediately. Manufactured outrage, totally phony Dickens shared his perspective on the conversation in a social post on Monday, writing, "Take it from someone who was actually in the chair asking the questions: context matters more than a headline." He said the two were discussing Newsom's academic struggles, including his SAT performance. "That wasn't an attack on anyone," he said. "It was a moment of vulnerability about his own journey." "We've gotten so used to loud, chest-pounding politics that when someone speaks about shortcomings, people try to twist it into something else," Dickens said. "Let me be clear though. This is Atlanta. We don't need anyone to tell us when to be offended. And history has shown ... when we are, you'll know." Newsom's office said the governor has made similar remarks about his SAT scores and dyslexia "for years, including with Charlie Kirk and dozens of other audiences."

He's a disaster--and a hypocrite--because he's following existing labor and employment laws? I provided a detailed reply in the other thread, but the net-net is that this is a completely imaginary hypocrisy. Dumb.

Not sure why you would describe this as "Lib" anything. Republicans are the undisputed kings of deficit spending. Have been since Reagan. 🤷‍♂️ Trump's dead set on being #1 at something. This could be his category.

I can never tell whether you guys post this crap cynically, knowing that it's bullshit but hoping that it's politically effective, or whether you just got suckered. There is not equivalency here. There are no hypocrisies here. A. These are not volunteers. They are paid labor. It's a job. B. Proof of employment eligibility is a federal requirement, not a state requirement or a city requirement. C. You have to provide proof eligibility to register to vote. You have to provide proof of eligibility when you apply for the job. That's the same. D. You you not need to provide ADDITIONAL proof of eligibility when you show up to vote. You don't have to provide ADDITIONAL proof of eligibility every time you show up to work. In both cases, the eligibility is already established. That's the same. E. A job shoveling snow is not a right. Voting is a right. Though they do, in fact, have very similar standards of verification, you shouldn't expect that it's necessary or reasonable that they do. Standard could differ because they are different beasts. If you got suckered by this meme, you should try to employ some critical thinking. If you are just being cynical, be better.

What's the point here? This is still a thread founded on lies. What's the end game to debating fiction?

He went on to say: "I just want to put it all out there. I'm not, you know, I'm not trying to impress you, I’m just trying to impress upon you, I’m like you. I’m no better than you. You know, I’m a 960 SAT guy.” He added: “You’ve never seen me read a speech, because I cannot read a speech…I haven’t overcome dyslexia. I’m living with it.”

I'm sorry that you don't know what those words mean, but it's certainly a fixable situation. Crack open a book--preferably two. The first being a dictionary, the second being history. He is both racist and a burgeoning fascist. Indeed, he checks nearly every box for fascism, and is trying to check the rest. You've been shown ample evidence of both. It's not that you can't see it. You simply agree with it and so defend it. I didn't do anything except call a spade a spade. And no amount of your bleating will change that reality.

That's the kind of access a half-billion dollar "investment" in Trump's crypto scam buys. Self before country, every time.

Nah, he's verifiably both of those things. You can blame whoever you like. Nobody is very concerned about your half-baked accusations. If Trump doesn't want to be called those names, he shouldn't embody those traits with his behavior. Easy peasy. Unfortunately, that's simply his nature, and it collects voter support from people like you, so he has no cause for change.

🤣He fought it vocally, at every turn, for many months. But it passed the legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support and a veto-proof majority. Of course he signed it. He had already lost. It wasn't a victory signing, it was surrender.

You could blame the individual. You could blame Trump for actually being racist and fascist. But instead you want to blame those who have pointed out bad behavior as bad behavior. Par for the course from the "party of personal responsibility."🙄

No, "we" didn't. That's just another of your crackhead fantasies, completely fictional.

^^Proof that heavy drinking destroys memory. Conservatives were the primary drivers of the Epstein narrative before Trump took office. Some of them had the decency to still be concerned about it after he was elected. Here's just a smattering. Fox News (Jan 2024): “Jeffrey Epstein list: Names of associates soon to be made public” New York Post (Jan 2024): “Epstein docs: Bill Clinton identified as 'Doe 36'” The Daily Wire (June 2024): “Trump Jr.: Biden Administration Is Hiding The Epstein List To Protect Pedophiles” Breitbart News (Dec 2023): “GOP Sen. Marsha Blackburn Demands Release of Epstein Flight Logs” The Daily Caller (Feb 2024): “DeSantis Challenges Biden To Release All Jeffrey Epstein Docs” Townhall (Jan 2024): “The Epstein Files: Why Did the DOJ Wait This Long?” New York Post (Nov 2023): “Senate Judiciary GOP members subpoena Epstein flight logs”

I am honestly shocked. This sad incarnation of the Supreme Court has done everything possible to enable and protect Trump--unthinkable decisions that overturn fundamental precedent. I expected them to continue to let him run roughshod over every constitutional principle on the road to dictatorship. I wonder what exactly was the breaking point on this one. I want the backstory.

I don't need your insane fantasies or your projection, so ignoring that section. Trump is often accused of racism because he has a long history of doing and saying racist shit. I suspect that you're not unaware of this (as it's so widely known) but rather that you aren't bothered by it simply because you agree with it. In addition to homophobia and misogyny, you also seem to be an unrepentant and proud racist. However, you agreeing with his racist tweets does not mean that they don't exist or that they are not racist. They do and they are. His history is rather well documented.

Yet another example of why we need to teach critical thinking in schools. Your post is literal nonsense. It doesn't say anything or mean anyting. I think your brain is like an old rum cake at this point: soaked in cheap booze and well past its "best by" date. Maybe when you sober up you can try to jump start the old girl and string together a cogent argument? Maybe?

As always, yes, it has a political perspective, but it's also clever, funny and a meticulously researched piece of journalism. I was aware of the DHS origin story and the recent surge of funding, but I was not aware of the full scope of what it covers now or how the resources have been shifted around.

He is a stable genius after all. Who could have recognized that being buddies with a sex trafficking child molester is a potential political problem? I like that your idea of "pushing to clean these guys up" is putting the #1 Epstein enabler, Acosta--literally the reason that Epstein and his friends were still taking girls--in his cabinet. Was Trump's 4D chess move to deprive Epstein of an ally by elevating said ally to Secretary of Labor? GTFO.