Should noncitizens be allowed to vote?

But the issue is not specifically me.

Do you want to be tried before jurors who believe your faith or your sex discounts the value of your life by half?

Would you like your daughter's molester tried by jurors who think the age of consent should be 12?

The question isn't about me.

Stop deflecting. Would you accept a non-citizen as your peer or not?

I'm not deflecting. I'm qualifying. I'm showing you exactly what your position implies.

My position is that I am not a qualified peer to sit on juries in foreign courts, and that everything else I believe is consistent with that.

No one's suggesting you go globe-trotting and signing up for jury duty wherever you happen to land. The question is whether, having lived in one particular country all your life without becoming a citizen, you'd be qualified to serve on a jury.

A decent defense lawyer would boot you in a NY minute.

Have you ever actually been on a jury?

You're still deflecting. You got absolutely wrecked when you tried to argue the legal obligations of being a citizen and only jury duty stuck (tenuously). Now you're just running down the slippery slope.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4295147/charles-rhines-gay-death-sentence-south-dakota-bias-jury/

Hey, remember when this happened and you didn't give a shit?

Not at all. I don't view it as "citizens get taxed and noncitizens get taxed, therefore there is no difference". I view it as "when the balloon goes up the noncitizens can leave, but the citizens will have to sacrifice". I view citizenship as being on the mortgage, with no option for defaulting. And that certainly is a difference.

I don't view it as Uncle Tony gets a share of my house if I let him stay in it long enough. Bullshit. It's still my house, no matter how nice I've been to Tony. And that's exactly how it works for your noncitizens. When house is foreclosed, the bank can indeed impound Tony's belongings along with yours. But later on you're the one who's still going to owe the back payments for the old mortgage -- not Tony. You morons are literally arguing that a tenant eventually becomes an owner.

Another thing. For a movement that seems fascinated with how other countries do things, you wingnuts are remarkably uninterested in how citizenship, borders and immigration work everywhere else. I'm sorry, but national sovereignty is a real thing, and a strong majority of Americans mean to have it here, too.

Finally, there's the matter of Jennifer Palmieri. I envy this woman, because while she's writing memos as Clinton's communications director, making it clear that "dreamers are critical to Democrats' future electoral successes", she has a whole army of propagandists and thought police to ensure that you morons are completely unaware of what complete fucking pawns you are.

Yeah, this isn't about making new Democrat voters. Are you actually so stupid to believe that???

To my point in WAB's thread, the adjective modifying "voters" is "DemocratIC." Don't give yourself away so easily.

Yeah, just like you pretend that racial gerrymandering and axing early voting isn't about obstructing Democratic voters.

Oh, I didn't know we're playing "how many wrongs make a right". So is this your admission that of course you know this is about importing more Democrat voters??? Shall we change the title???

My guess is that without "racial gerrymandering" there would be no Congressional Black Caucus. Please throw me in that briar patch.

I'm gonna need you to explain again why Democrats need more time to vote than everyone else. It's not like we don't tell you years in advance when election day is going to be. My answer is that I think it's about stopping fraud, not preventing votes. But if you want to know why I think you guys would commit fraud, I refer you to this effort to let noncitizens vote. You fuckers would do anything to win the ballot count, and responsible citizens should enact safeguards accordingly.

Well, since I said it, I get to choose which adjective I intended to use.

And in order to avoid confusing the Democrat cesspool of tyranny, misery and intolerance with anything suggestive of "of the people, by the people, for the people", I most certainly meant "Democrat".

But you guys call yourselves whatever you want. Experience shows that every couple generations you need to throw away the old name like a used diaper anyway. And for the same reason.

I admit that I'm on record as saying allowing non-citizens to vote is a horrible idea...but sure. It's probably about getting more Democratic votes.

You'll have to explain that one to me.

It's not Democrats. It's minorities and the poor...who just so happen to vote mostly democrat.

Yeah, I figured that was you're answer, but you're lying. It's about making it harder for the poor and minority voters to get to the polls, and you know it.

You're barking up the wrong tree sport. I'm no Democrat, and I don't think noncitizens should vote. I just said that if it's for local elections, and the locals want it that way, then who am I to say they can't do it?

No, I honestly don't know that. I don't even believe it. I don't even believe that the poor and minorities have a harder time getting to the polls. About the only thing I would believe is if you told me that the Democrats can't bus all the homeless people to the polls on the same day. And in that case, I would tell them to spend more on buses and less on Russian dossiers. It's election DAY. Get over it.

Yeah you do and you honestly do know that. You can keep lying about it, but understand that this bullshit is why I don't give a shit about your complaints about how Democrats are trying to game the system when you guys are doing the same thing.

No, but I do remember thinking things worked out better for gay people when they just kept it to themselves. Haven't been proven wrong yet.

Sorry, but you really don't get to be the expert on what I think. And being insistent about it doesn't really improve your accuracy.

Also, your complete misread on me makes it clear that even if you're not a Democrat you still have their totally fucked up worldview.

Finally, I note that you have plenty of opportunity to convince me I'm simply wrong. Why are you wasting it with this bullshit?

Because you're not simply wrong. You're lying your ass off...and I don't need to convince you of that.

It is true that the legal requirements of the voting rights act does require racial gerrymandering.

Then maybe you can explain it to me.

Again, to be lying I would have to understand that there's some other truth than the one I believe. I haven't found that other truth.

On the other hand, for you to say I'm lying would require you to know my mind. And that seems even less likely than your explanation about early voting.

Because the only way you can get black candidates elected in that many districts is by carving out the voters who would rather vote for a white Democrat.

The places that are talking about doing this are pretty uniformly democrat. Everyone on the Seattle City Council is either Dem or Socialist Alternative. Every County Council district that has even part of Seattle is held by a Dem. Even if you go to the state level every district that even touches Seattle is Dem.

In other words, there are no more Dem votes to get.

As much as some people see everything through partisan lenses, sometimes it is actually just about good policy.

I stand corrected then.

Yeah, that and Jennifer Palmieri's memo. Which I'm sure none of the party leaders in those blue districts got copied on.

The voting rights act legally requires states to have a certain number of minority majority districts. To get that you pretty much have to gerrymander, it is a legal requirement. 538 went over this well and I know links to their gerrymandering project have been posted here before.

One of the problems is once you create majority districts for blacks, another for hispanics, and yet another for Asians (to the requirements of the voting rights act) then that means whites will be over represented in the remaining districts. Those districts become harder for Dems to win in as those minorities you packed into minority majority districts tend to vote Dem.

Then why did SCOTUS find it unconstitutional?

If you let him stay long enough, your house qualifies as his residence and you can't evict him without due process. Shitty analogy on your part.

How you know cpurick is lying is that the GOP has never even bothered to hide their disenfranchisement campaign. They explicitly stated that their goal was to reduce black turnout and then publicly gloated when it was effective.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/nc-gop-brags-about-depressed-black-turnout

But he's absolutely not a Christian, folks.