It would probably be pointless to mention the fact that multiple DFL controlled jurisdictions have at least floated the idea, as well as mentioning that the question as asked in perfectly valid.
If you'd read the question, you'd have noticed that no claim was made.
Now, if you're making that one should support ones claims, I agree, and I await you setting an example in this regard.
You make a habit of posting these vague references to... SOMETHING, as if people will just accept your charges as "evidence" of "DNC corruption..." and that probably works for people without the intelligence or integrity to try to figure out what in the hell you're talking about.
In looking into your vague allegations, all I can find are charges that don't hold up to scrutiny.
But by all means, CITE SOMETHING. Explain what you're talking about instead of making vague aspersions against a whole group of people. Slander and false attacks fall into the "thou shalt not..." category (indeed, those who take part in that sort of shit aren't part of the realm of God, the bible says...). It doesn't help that you make the charges vague as to allow yourself some weasel room to, you know, be weaselly.
Dan, do you understand that the little squiggly thing at the end indicates that a question is being asked?
Do you understand that a question is not a statement or a claim, or slander, or a false attack?
Do you understand that a question is not an “allegation” or a “charge”?
If the post is too vague for you, why waste your time commenting? Why not comment in a more substantive way on other posts?
Theses are all rhetorical questions, I don’t expect answers , not that I really ever expect answer, but these questions are not intended to be answered.
Why would you cite some mythic prohibition that was only intended for the Hebrew theocracy cited taken from a piece of literature you believe to be substantially inaccurate? If the Bible isn’t a rule book, why would you cite as rule as if it is binding?
Three of the above reference mostly local elections. That would be a start for Dems if they got passed any legal issues. California, for example, requires citizenship for all statewide elections, but apparently that hasn't been enforced. Should this become more common, how much longer before federal elections included illegals voting as well?
Dan can whine all he likes. He can likely provide some link that he believes will end the discussion in his favor. I doubt it would mitigate the facts related in the links above.
Because, in part, the conservative movement today - especially conservative/fundamentalist evangelical types - has become a fake news/false claim haven way too often. I see it over and over on FB and other places "Here's a bit of unsourced 'news...' Clinton ate babies! She wants to forcibly abort your babies and start a restaurant serving YOUR DEAD BABIES that SHE MURDERED... AND PROFIT FROM IT!"
That sort of brainlessly false hysteria is what way too many conservatives are doing these days. Making vague, unsupported and generally false claims under the guise of memes or "questions" that have implications.
It is a form of slander and false witness.
Now, IF all people were rationally and merely laughed off such repeated nonsense from a few isolated fear mongers, that would be one thing. But we now (thanks largely to white evangelical conservatives) have a fear monger in office who fans the flames of passing on false claims and people are buying into it.
"The media is the enemy of the state!"
"Liberals want to abort already birthed babies!"
"The Democrats are getting non-citizens to vote for them!"
And on and on.
I'm saying that this nonsense is dangerous to a free republic and should stop, or at least stop being mainstreamed.
Now, given that probably no one comes here, it IS a good question to ask why I bother. I guess I am concerned that someone might be reading your intimations and false claims and slander and adding your "question" to the larger body of stupidly false claims that conservatives have come to drink like so much plastic cup communion Kool Aid.
"It would probably be pointless to mention the fact that multiple DFL controlled jurisdictions have at least floated the idea, as well as mentioning that the question as asked in perfectly valid."
“Last year, Portland Mayor Ethan Strimling and Councilor Pious Ali co-sponsored a proposal to allow legally present non-citizens to cast ballots for City Council, school board and other city elections.”
The mayor of Somerville, Joseph Curtatone, recently asked the city’s Board of Aldermen to approve a home rule petition that would grant voting rights to non-citizen residents in municipal elections. In so doing, Somerville joins the list of Massachusetts cities -- Brookline, Amherst, Cambridge, Newton and Wayland -- in considering such proposals, which will require a new state law to approve these measures.
Massachusetts is not alone. Just last November, Montpelier, Vermont, made a similar move; as have at least 11 towns in Maryland. Several cities, including New York, Chicago and San Francisco, already permit non-citizens to vote in school board elections.“
Supported.
You think that mininterpreting a bunch of anonymous “conservative evangelical types” on social media is some sort of magical proof.
I note that you couldn’t actually provide actual examples, but had to concoct distorted, extreme, fake examples, to make your point. It’s like you think that responding with expletive filled rants, fake examples, and personal/ad hom attacks will somehow make the problem you perceive better. Because there’s no one on the left engaging in fake news”, not a single person would do that. But you give them a pass. Why not focus on the log in your own (side’s) eye?
You’ll note that both Art and I have support the “claim”, while once more you haven’t.
Once again. It’s a question, not an allegation. If you need remedial grammar help, I’ll provide links for you.
“The Washington suburb of College Park, Md., on Tuesday became the largest U.S. city to allow noncitizens to cast ballots in municipal elections after a divided City Council vote that reflected the nation's heated and emotional debate over illegal immigration.
Unlike most other states, Maryland allows towns and cities to decide for themselves who can vote in local elections. In recent years, Hyattsville, Mount Rainier, Takoma Park and several smaller towns have extended that privilege to noncitizens. College Park, home to about 32,000 and the University of Maryland's flagship campus, will join them starting in 2019.“
“n recent years, a concerted effort has been gathering force to allow new immigrants to the United States to vote without becoming citizens. It is being mounted by an alliance of liberal (or progressive, if you prefer) academics and law professors, local and state political leaders most often associated with the Democratic Party or other progressive parties like the Greens, and community and immigration activists. They are working in tandem to decouple the legal standing to vote from American citizenship.
As a result of these efforts, there are several municipalities in the United States that currently allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Moreover, legislation to allow non-citizens to vote has been introduced in a number of states and localities including Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and New York City.
Advocates of non-citizen voting advance many arguments for their initiatives. They point out that non-citizen voting was, at one time, allowed in a number of early American states and territories and that it is currently allowed in other Western democracies. They argue that it is only fair to allow non-citizens to vote since they shoulder many of the responsibilities of citizens, like paying taxes, but are not formally represented. And, they say, allowing non-citizens to vote will have civic value as a training ground for the responsibilities of citizenship.”
On the subject of Facebook memes, I routinely question right-leaning memes...asking the poster if he researched the suggestion before posting...so as to separate ourselves from the many lefty memes that are more often than not, false or misleading. With that in mind, I've never seen any that come anywhere near the level of ludicrous nonsense that Dan here tries to insist are common. As I indicated at my blog on the subject, Dan engages in fake news himself.
This is particularly true when he speaks of Trump. Indeed, there's nothing false about any of the following he used in support of his position:
"The media is the enemy of the state!"
"Liberals want to abort already birthed babies!"
"The Democrats are getting non-citizens to vote for them!"
As I explained in my post on the subject, as well as in comments at his blog that he eventually deleted, Trump didn't say "the media" is the enemy of the people (not "state"), but clearly referenced specific elements of the media who attack him relentlessly without regard to accuracy.
Liberals have opposed bills and proposals seeking to treat abortion survivors as any other injured person or "wanted" child would be.
We've already proven the Dem desire to allow non-citizen voting.
I frequently fact check memes by my conservative friends because I don’t want to see them blindly post false information, like my liberal friends do.
In this case, we have demonstrated that Dan is wrong. The problem is that he’s also been allowed to drive the discussion away from the question that was asked, towards his attempts to divert to other things.
I suspect that he’ll not acknowledge that he’s been demonstrably wrong, but will attempt to continue his diversions.
Was that so hard? Reference SOMETHING SPECIFIC instead of the vague charges you so often make, leaving people wondering, "What in the hell is he talking about?"
"Had the measure been approved, the College Park city clerk would have created a supplemental voter list that would include noncitizens who meet other qualifications to vote in the city, such as being 18 years old and not being registered to vote elsewhere. The changes would have gone into effect for the next round of city elections in 2019.
Federal law only prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, according to the city. It does not prohibit cities or states from allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections."
Like that.
I had not heard of this and it makes a huge amount of sense to me. IF you are a permanent resident somewhere, being a contributing neighbor/resident in a city with an interest in city policies, it seems entirely reasonable to me that you could vote in local elections.
But that is an aside. Thank you for supporting the vague claim - eventually- with some specifics.
As I made clear in the beginning of this conversation... "But by all means, CITE SOMETHING."
That's all I'm stating to do, IF you want to be taken as something more than a troll.
In THIS case, you at least have some facts behind the vague allegations.
I'm going to point out the obvious. In you last comment, not only did you fail to mention that your claim was false and that you were wrong, but you also actually agree that non citizens should be allowed to vote.
I'm also going to point out the reality that my post, did not include a claim of fact, it was (and still is) a question.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept that a question doesn't need to be "supported". Perhaps you just choose assholery for fun.
Finally, I'd suggest that for you to be taken as more than a troll and a harborer of trolls, that you take your own advice and support the claims you make.
Your inability to acknowledge the fact the you were wrong, and to try to turn your failure on me, speaks volumes.
I do appreciate the fact that you now support foreign nationals interfering on US elections.
It's not really a defense to say that only federal law bars non-citizens from voting. It is also not a defense to say that because a non-federal entity supports non-citizens from voting in local elections that they would necessarily object to them voting in federal elections as well. I would consider one to lead to the other, particularly without any explanation for why one would be allowed and not the other.
The question that caused all this doesn't specify what jurisdictions. When Dan got his panties in a wad, I accurately pointed out that some jurisdictions are moving toward non citizen voting. Dan failed to engage his brain before he typed and now can't admit he was wrong.
I also agree with you that this is a liberal strategy to start this at the local level, then to use that as a springboard to implement it on the state and national level.
I'll be more precise and say that I can't read their minds (as if it would be stimulating reading), but we've heard their "slippery slope fallacy" defense often enough to know that regardless of what they say now, we can see the evil potential of their "well-intended" proposals, even if they sincerely don't mean to inflict harm. Illegals voting locally will be used to justify illegals voting everywhere on every level.
20 comments:
I've seen many memes on Facebook referencing this disconnect.
Have you seen any memes talking about the stupid leave false claim behind those stupidly false question?
Google. Type in "Democrats allow immigrants to vote fact check."
It would probably be pointless to mention the fact that multiple DFL controlled jurisdictions have at least floated the idea, as well as mentioning that the question as asked in perfectly valid.
If you'd read the question, you'd have noticed that no claim was made.
Now, if you're making that one should support ones claims, I agree, and I await you setting an example in this regard.
You make a habit of posting these vague references to... SOMETHING, as if people will just accept your charges as "evidence" of "DNC corruption..." and that probably works for people without the intelligence or integrity to try to figure out what in the hell you're talking about.
In looking into your vague allegations, all I can find are charges that don't hold up to scrutiny.
But by all means, CITE SOMETHING. Explain what you're talking about instead of making vague aspersions against a whole group of people. Slander and false attacks fall into the "thou shalt not..." category (indeed, those who take part in that sort of shit aren't part of the realm of God, the bible says...). It doesn't help that you make the charges vague as to allow yourself some weasel room to, you know, be weaselly.
Dan, do you understand that the little squiggly thing at the end indicates that a question is being asked?
Do you understand that a question is not a statement or a claim, or slander, or a false attack?
Do you understand that a question is not an “allegation” or a “charge”?
If the post is too vague for you, why waste your time commenting? Why not comment in a more substantive way on other posts?
Theses are all rhetorical questions, I don’t expect answers , not that I really ever expect answer, but these questions are not intended to be answered.
Why would you cite some mythic prohibition that was only intended for the Hebrew theocracy cited taken from a piece of literature you believe to be substantially inaccurate? If the Bible isn’t a rule book, why would you cite as rule as if it is binding?
It's absurd to suggest that there is not Democratic support for this.
https://immigrationreform.com/2019/03/11/house-democrats-devalue-voting-rights-with-support-for-non-citizen-voting-immigrationreform-com/
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/31696-dems-back-illegal-alien-voting-for-good-reason-illegals-vote-democrat
https://www.newbedfordguide.com/11-massachusetts-democrats-sponsor-bill-to-allow-non-citizens-to-vote-in-local-elections/2017/10/25
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/18/texas-democrats-ask-noncitizens-register-vote/
Three of the above reference mostly local elections. That would be a start for Dems if they got passed any legal issues. California, for example, requires citizenship for all statewide elections, but apparently that hasn't been enforced. Should this become more common, how much longer before federal elections included illegals voting as well?
Dan can whine all he likes. He can likely provide some link that he believes will end the discussion in his favor. I doubt it would mitigate the facts related in the links above.
Indeed. Why waste my time?
Because, in part, the conservative movement today - especially conservative/fundamentalist evangelical types - has become a fake news/false claim haven way too often. I see it over and over on FB and other places "Here's a bit of unsourced 'news...' Clinton ate babies! She wants to forcibly abort your babies and start a restaurant serving YOUR DEAD BABIES that SHE MURDERED... AND PROFIT FROM IT!"
That sort of brainlessly false hysteria is what way too many conservatives are doing these days. Making vague, unsupported and generally false claims under the guise of memes or "questions" that have implications.
It is a form of slander and false witness.
Now, IF all people were rationally and merely laughed off such repeated nonsense from a few isolated fear mongers, that would be one thing. But we now (thanks largely to white evangelical conservatives) have a fear monger in office who fans the flames of passing on false claims and people are buying into it.
"The media is the enemy of the state!"
"Liberals want to abort already birthed babies!"
"The Democrats are getting non-citizens to vote for them!"
And on and on.
I'm saying that this nonsense is dangerous to a free republic and should stop, or at least stop being mainstreamed.
Now, given that probably no one comes here, it IS a good question to ask why I bother. I guess I am concerned that someone might be reading your intimations and false claims and slander and adding your "question" to the larger body of stupidly false claims that conservatives have come to drink like so much plastic cup communion Kool Aid.
"It would probably be pointless to mention the fact that multiple DFL controlled jurisdictions have at least floated the idea, as well as mentioning that the question as asked in perfectly valid."
Support the allegation.
“Last year, Portland Mayor Ethan Strimling and Councilor Pious Ali co-sponsored a proposal to allow legally present non-citizens to cast ballots for City Council, school board and other city elections.”
The mayor of Somerville, Joseph Curtatone, recently asked the city’s Board of Aldermen to approve a home rule petition that would grant voting rights to non-citizen residents in municipal elections. In so doing, Somerville joins the list of Massachusetts cities -- Brookline, Amherst, Cambridge, Newton and Wayland -- in considering such proposals, which will require a new state law to approve these measures.
Massachusetts is not alone. Just last November, Montpelier, Vermont, made a similar move; as have at least 11 towns in Maryland. Several cities, including New York, Chicago and San Francisco, already permit non-citizens to vote in school board elections.“
Supported.
You think that mininterpreting a bunch of anonymous “conservative evangelical types” on social media is some sort of magical proof.
I note that you couldn’t actually provide actual examples, but had to concoct distorted, extreme, fake examples, to make your point. It’s like you think that responding with expletive filled rants, fake examples, and personal/ad hom attacks will somehow make the problem you perceive better. Because there’s no one on the left engaging in fake news”, not a single person would do that. But you give them a pass. Why not focus on the log in your own (side’s) eye?
You’ll note that both Art and I have support the “claim”, while once more you haven’t.
Once again. It’s a question, not an allegation. If you need remedial grammar help, I’ll provide links for you.
“The Washington suburb of College Park, Md., on Tuesday became the largest U.S. city to allow noncitizens to cast ballots in municipal elections after a divided City Council vote that reflected the nation's heated and emotional debate over illegal immigration.
Unlike most other states, Maryland allows towns and cities to decide for themselves who can vote in local elections. In recent years, Hyattsville, Mount Rainier, Takoma Park and several smaller towns have extended that privilege to noncitizens. College Park, home to about 32,000 and the University of Maryland's flagship campus, will join them starting in 2019.“
“n recent years, a concerted effort has been gathering force to allow new immigrants to the United States to vote without becoming citizens. It is being mounted by an alliance of liberal (or progressive, if you prefer) academics and law professors, local and state political leaders most often associated with the Democratic Party or other progressive parties like the Greens, and community and immigration activists. They are working in tandem to decouple the legal standing to vote from American citizenship.
As a result of these efforts, there are several municipalities in the United States that currently allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Moreover, legislation to allow non-citizens to vote has been introduced in a number of states and localities including Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and New York City.
Advocates of non-citizen voting advance many arguments for their initiatives. They point out that non-citizen voting was, at one time, allowed in a number of early American states and territories and that it is currently allowed in other Western democracies. They argue that it is only fair to allow non-citizens to vote since they shoulder many of the responsibilities of citizens, like paying taxes, but are not formally represented. And, they say, allowing non-citizens to vote will have civic value as a training ground for the responsibilities of citizenship.”
Oh look, proof.
On the subject of Facebook memes, I routinely question right-leaning memes...asking the poster if he researched the suggestion before posting...so as to separate ourselves from the many lefty memes that are more often than not, false or misleading. With that in mind, I've never seen any that come anywhere near the level of ludicrous nonsense that Dan here tries to insist are common. As I indicated at my blog on the subject, Dan engages in fake news himself.
This is particularly true when he speaks of Trump. Indeed, there's nothing false about any of the following he used in support of his position:
"The media is the enemy of the state!"
"Liberals want to abort already birthed babies!"
"The Democrats are getting non-citizens to vote for them!"
As I explained in my post on the subject, as well as in comments at his blog that he eventually deleted, Trump didn't say "the media" is the enemy of the people (not "state"), but clearly referenced specific elements of the media who attack him relentlessly without regard to accuracy.
Liberals have opposed bills and proposals seeking to treat abortion survivors as any other injured person or "wanted" child would be.
We've already proven the Dem desire to allow non-citizen voting.
I frequently fact check memes by my conservative friends because I don’t want to see them blindly post false information, like my liberal friends do.
In this case, we have demonstrated that Dan is wrong. The problem is that he’s also been allowed to drive the discussion away from the question that was asked, towards his attempts to divert to other things.
I suspect that he’ll not acknowledge that he’s been demonstrably wrong, but will attempt to continue his diversions.
Was that so hard? Reference SOMETHING SPECIFIC instead of the vague charges you so often make, leaving people wondering, "What in the hell is he talking about?"
You do that all the time.
A source...
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-college-park-voting-20170916-story.html
Like that.
With the specifics...
"Had the measure been approved, the College Park city clerk would have created a supplemental voter list that would include noncitizens who meet other qualifications to vote in the city, such as being 18 years old and not being registered to vote elsewhere. The changes would have gone into effect for the next round of city elections in 2019.
Federal law only prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, according to the city. It does not prohibit cities or states from allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections."
Like that.
I had not heard of this and it makes a huge amount of sense to me. IF you are a permanent resident somewhere, being a contributing neighbor/resident in a city with an interest in city policies, it seems entirely reasonable to me that you could vote in local elections.
But that is an aside. Thank you for supporting the vague claim - eventually- with some specifics.
As I made clear in the beginning of this conversation... "But by all means, CITE SOMETHING."
That's all I'm stating to do, IF you want to be taken as something more than a troll.
In THIS case, you at least have some facts behind the vague allegations.
I'm going to point out the obvious. In you last comment, not only did you fail to mention that your claim was false and that you were wrong, but you also actually agree that non citizens should be allowed to vote.
I'm also going to point out the reality that my post, did not include a claim of fact, it was (and still is) a question.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept that a question doesn't need to be "supported". Perhaps you just choose assholery for fun.
Finally, I'd suggest that for you to be taken as more than a troll and a harborer of trolls, that you take your own advice and support the claims you make.
Your inability to acknowledge the fact the you were wrong, and to try to turn your failure on me, speaks volumes.
I do appreciate the fact that you now support foreign nationals interfering on US elections.
It's not really a defense to say that only federal law bars non-citizens from voting. It is also not a defense to say that because a non-federal entity supports non-citizens from voting in local elections that they would necessarily object to them voting in federal elections as well. I would consider one to lead to the other, particularly without any explanation for why one would be allowed and not the other.
Art,
The question that caused all this doesn't specify what jurisdictions. When Dan got his panties in a wad, I accurately pointed out that some jurisdictions are moving toward non citizen voting. Dan failed to engage his brain before he typed and now can't admit he was wrong.
I also agree with you that this is a liberal strategy to start this at the local level, then to use that as a springboard to implement it on the state and national level.
I'll be more precise and say that I can't read their minds (as if it would be stimulating reading), but we've heard their "slippery slope fallacy" defense often enough to know that regardless of what they say now, we can see the evil potential of their "well-intended" proposals, even if they sincerely don't mean to inflict harm. Illegals voting locally will be used to justify illegals voting everywhere on every level.
The problem is, virtually every issue where they’ve claimed the slippery slope fallacy has resulted in things happening as predicted.
So, clearly the slippery slope isn’t a fallacy when it actually happens.
Exactly.
Post a Comment