Jeff Sessions: " Anglo-American heritage"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Vociferous, Feb 13, 2018.

  1. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    here's a question if showing id is so important why don't we require it to vote with an absentee ballot? simple because its not about stopping fraud its about stopping the more disenfranchised members of the electorate from voting. they tend to vote in person to a higher degree and have a harder time getting to the polls. its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. if you took every proven instance of voter fraud in the past 15 years put them in one state and it would have zero effect on a state wide election i think 32 proven cases in the past 1 and half decades out of an over a billion votes cast. you have a better chance of winning the lottery than effecting an election through voter fraud. the real fraud happens by improperly removing people from the rolls, giving out bad info, and tampering with the electronic voting machines which is a lot easier than you might think. it takes a little programming no how and the balls to jack one of the cards. there is a documentry on how to do so that was released in the bush era. they have secured the systems since than. if you honestly care about election fraud for the love of god focus on fixing real problems.

    to quote judge Richard Posner, a judge who voted to uphold id laws

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Likely because voter registration already requires ID, and absentee/provisional ballots can be matched to registration signatures for verification.

    Reporter Emily Schultheis opens with the claim that “at least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.”

    Schultheis doesn’t say where she got the estimate of 5 million until well into the article — it’s from a Brennan Center report. And she fails to disclose the radical, left-wing nature of the Brennan Center or the fact that it is an advocacy organization that is litigating against voter ID.

    As I have pointed out previously, that 5 million figure is completely speculative and not based on any substantive evidence. In fact, the experience of states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter-ID laws have been in place for years, as well as reputable surveys conducted by academic institutions such as American University, consistently show that the share of registered voters who don’t have a photo ID is less than 1 percent. This is a far cry from the high numbers the Brennan Center has been claiming since 2006.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nonsense. Racism is plain and long-established fact.
    Observed, not assumed.
    All of them, for many black people especially.
    It isn't. It's a general comment that includes them. You can't mention Jim Crow without including Alabama sheriffs. How could they have been excluded?
    You didn't know about racism in the US? Seriously?
    By requiring otherwise unnecessary and unwarranted ID and documentation of identity that decades of white racism have made differentially more difficult and expensive to obtain for black people, and therefore more likely to not have been obtained or be obtained now.
    No meaning other than the words themselves is "inferred". The words themselves mean exactly what Sessions intended them to mean. He referred to the Anglo-American heritage of southern sheriffs - Jim Crow is part of that, so is current racist law enforcement practice.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    you cant complain about bias in the brennan center and than quote heritage center and if you'll note the brennan center link i did actual links to its evidence. the brennan center is hardly radical and you know actualy allows to check their work like this
    there were some washington post articles but those were behind a pay wall

    also i live in georgia and i can tell you right there is a big problem. the claim less the 1% dont have a photo id. but the state requires a state issued voter id. that's not the same thing . look at college students student ids are photo id's but aren't considered valid

    actual in persons can be validated the same way.

    but i digress. your ignoring the actual point being that requiring id attacks a problem that just doesn't exist voter impersanation just doesn't happen to any sort of degree to effect elections. in my life time there has never been a case of voter impersanation effecting election. there is only one place voter impersanation is a problem, and that's in legislatures. voter id laws are like lets see i'm locked in a room with a grizzly wearing chain mail and a lame chipmunk, clearly i need to focus on the chipmunk.

    and lets not forget that republicans have on multiple occasions screwed up and admitted that yes voter id laws suppress the vote and that helps; not to hard to see why they favor them.
  8. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    you mean like saux city DMV only being open on the fifth wendesday of the month?
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    You would think conservatives might rush to Oregon and Washington, where we vote by mail, and thus should be rife with the fraud they fear.

    But that's not what they're doing. And at some point, they warned us. I mean, repeatedly. And not only did they warn us in Wisconsin, two years ago, they also managed to boast about it↗ last week.
  11. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Who said otherwise?
    You've personally observed some minority be denied access to ID?
    Even the free IDs?
    Good, then you can drop that straw man.
    Because he was not addressing Jim Crow era sheriffs. Seems like that would be obvious.
    Past racism does not mean equivalent present racism.
    Even free IDs?
    No mention of southern sheriffs or Jim Crow. Nor have you shown current law enforcement to be racist.
    I didn't complain about anything. I just quoted a source.
    Georgia - Valid forms of ID include driver's licenses, state ID cards, tribal ID cards, United States passports, employee ID cards, military ID cards, and voter ID cards issued by county registration offices.
    Again, if they can legally buy alcohol, tobacco, or cold medicine, are on welfare, food stamps, or disability, or rent an apartment or cash a check they should already have ID. And to assume minorities can't manage get any of those is racist, because it also assumes they can't work, rent, or even get aid.
    Voter fraud is more of a problem than you seem to realize, but even discounting that, an insecure ballot reduces voter confidence in one-person-one-vote and harms voter turnout. One fraudulent vote can disenfranchise two legal citizens of their rights, the one whose vote was stolen and the one whose vote was cancelled. It doesn't matter if it effects elections or not. The US has an obligation to protect citizen rights.
    The U.S. Supreme Court has concurred with this assessment, noting that known instances of fraud “demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You mean interfered with, put to greater expense in money and time and hassle, deceived into false assumptions of security and then denied their vote. Sure. Black people descended from slaves - by the hundreds of thousands, in the US.
    Yep. And even those - the minimum one would expect - are not the norm.
    "Anglo-American heritage" - direct mention of Jim Crow, enforced by southern sheriffs.
    That doesn't need showing. That's the null hypothesis.
    Not necessarily. And not sufficient to vote - most of that stuff just needs proof of age, where it needs ID at all. (I have never once had to present voter ID to buy tobacco, alcohol, or cold medicine; rent an apartment or cash a check. I doubt the minimum ID necessary for welfare or food stamps would suffice for voting in some of these places, either.)
    It never has, in the US.
    Requiring documentary proof of identity and residence and qualifying status, on the other hand, has harmed voter turnout and reduced the reality (as well as the confidence) of one person one vote. So has gerrymandering, electoral fraud, and other interferences or obstacles preventing legal voters from voting.
    Is there a single recorded case of that ever happening?
    Preventing US citizens in good standing from voting denies them their rights. Shunting them into provisional ballots which are then discarded without counting deprives citizens of their rights. Forcing citizens to vote on unaudited and malfunctioning machines that foul or miscount their ballots deprives them of their rights. Making some citizens stand in long lines to vote while others are catered to and provided conveniences deprives that some of their rights. These things actually happen, to hundreds of thousands of people, every election, in the US. These things actually have changed close elections.

    Your hypothetical fraud is speculative and trivial, by comparison with the real and significant harms of these voter ID laws alone - never mind the various other vote suppressions of the Republican swindlers and election riggers, acting according to the Anglo-American heritage of racial oppression and disenfranchisement.
  13. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    time is a cost

    should is not are. and once again your forgetting you can get photo id's for those that are not allowed for voting like i said a college student id

    no it isnt.
    your racism is showing. even judges that used to support voter id laws now say they are suppression tactics. one person vote protected couple hundred thousand disenfranchised
    why is it the only people who can find evidence of voter fraud are the people pushing the racist disenfranchising voter id laws? your quoting sources know for lying again. at least it isn't egergious as quoting lott
  14. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    What interference, greater expense, time, or hassle than any non-minority?
    And how did you witness it?
    Are you arguing to just maintain the status quo?
    So Obama was lauding the same thing?
    Hahaha! Again, always fun when you try to sound smart.
    The null hypothesis is the default assumption that any two things are not related. Here, you're doing the opposite, by assuming law enforcement and racism are related. So you're just trying to shift the burden of your own argument by ignorantly misunderstanding the null hypothesis.
    Most IDs required to do any of those are also accepted as voter ID. And I hope you're just pretending to be that dumb.
    I already gave you a link to voter ID requirements. So if you can't manage to read it, that's on your own willful ignorance.
    I see a lot of claims there and zero support.
    All states require some form of ID, either to register to vote and/or actually vote.
    Many. Look it up.
    How do you know they're citizens, much less in good standing, without verification? You don't.
    How do voter ID laws exacerbate provisional ballots or malfunctioning machines? They don't.
    How do voter ID laws exacerbate long lines? They don't.
    Yep, for everyone. Are you claiming the time of minorities is worth more? That seems racist.
    If college students can manage to get appropriate ID, they might be wasting their time and money on college.
    Not an argument.
    Only when taken out of context. He still supports his ruling.
    We judges weren’t given, in Crawford, the data we would have needed to balance the good and bad effects of the Indiana law. We pointed out that “the principal evidence on which the plaintiffs relied to show that many voters would be disfranchised was declared by the district judge to be ‘totally unreliable’ because of a number of methodological flaws; and we accept her finding.” Given such empirical uncertainty, we naturally were reluctant to invalidate the law in the name of the Constitution; to have done so would have plunged the federal courts deeply into the management of the electoral process—a managerial responsibility that sections 1 and 4 of Article I of the Constitution actually consign to the states.
    Genetic fallacy.
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    We've been through this. Did you think to just wait a while and try again?
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    All of those associated - statistically and sometimes legally - with racial oppression.
    For example: Difficulty in obtaining legally valid proof of birth from poorly maintained records, home births not attended by any doctor, circumstances surrounding adoptions of abandoned or orphaned children, jailed or unknown fathers, custodial relatives, illegal conceptions concealed, and so forth.

    Almost all white people can simply apply to the official repository of the records for their known time and place of birth for a copy of their birth certificate, which will be reliably delivered to a secure mail receptacle in a couple of weeks - and even these will charged a fee that disproportionately burdens the disproportionately poor, which black and red and brown people are. Comparatively fewer white people ever have to do what comparatively many more older black and brown and red people must do - compile baptism records from defunct churches, witness accounts of one kind or another, official records from unrelated government agencies, etc - build a case, at the cost of money and time.

    You didn't know that? The voter ID designers do.

    Example the second: The crosscheck procedure that purports to screen for double voting - people who vote in two districts or States - falsely flags comparatively more poor and black and brown and yellow voters, for a variety of reasons none legitimate. That adds more time, trouble, and expense for black and brown voters (and some yellow).

    You didn't know that? Kris Kobach does.

    And so forth.

    This kind of interference with non-white people voting is part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement Jeff Sessions mentioned. The demonstrators and protestors and activists and the like beaten and abused by sheriffs (among others) in the Confederate States over the decades have often been focused on voting rights and election reform as a racial issue. And they still are, as are the white supremacists like Kobach who are trying to suppress the non-white vote.
  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    No but id issuing places tend not to be open as often in areas which serve minorities which increases the chronological burden. if you think that's coincidence, i got a bridge in brooklyn with you name on it. rich white republican areas arent served by id places only open 4 or 5 days a year. and no that is not am exageration

    could you parse this better i can tell what your trying to say.

    it was a statement of fact.

    for technical reason? did you ever read the article. even he repeatedly states its disenfranchising capabilities.

    not really. the genetic fallacy only happens when the entirety of the argument is revolves around the evidence as coming from the source to dismiss it, as it was an aside after laying out evidence it by definition is not the genetic fallacy. this wasn't part of my argument against voter id, just a commentary that the only people who have ever found the evidence of massive voter fraud are the people who want something has proven negative consequences for what most people see as little to no pay off. pointing out that people who claim to have found evidence for a low reward high risk strategy should probably be taken with a grain of salt is not a logical fallacy now if all my argument was is that the heritage foundation supports this it must be bad you'd have a point but that simply isn't the case. this is just you reaching as usual because you can't deal with the facts being in stark contrast to your view point.
  18. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Yep, and you only made trivial semantic arguments that never did divorce one Anglo-American heritage from the other.
    Why, are you looking to take another stab at it? No one ever said law and law enforcement were the exact same things (which seemed to be the straw man you were arguing), only that they shared the same Anglo-American heritage referred to by both Sessions and Obama.
    Correlation (association) is not causation.
    Older Caucasian mothers, aged 35 and over, are more likely to give birth at home than younger mothers. According to data compiled by the CDC, there are wide disparities in race and ethnicity for mothers choosing home births. In 2009, the percentage of home births was three to five times higher for non-Hispanic white women than for any other race. From 2004 to 2009, the percentage of home births increased for Asian Pacific Islanders and Hispanic women, and remained about the same for non-Hispanic black and American Indian or Alaska Native women.
    So caucasians should be the most effected by home births.
    Thirty-seven percent of adopted children are non-Hispanic white, compared with adoptive parents, 73% of which are non-Hispanic white. Overall, 40% of adopted children are of a different race, culture, or ethnicity than both of their adoptive parents (or their sole parent if there is only one parent in the household).
    So non-hispanic whites, being the most adopted, should be most effected by adoption.
    Birth certificate to be filed for foundling child.
    When an infant is found for whom no known certificate of birth is on file and for whom no other identification is known, the finder shall notify the police authorities having jurisdiction within the area of finding.
    The police authorities, within 48 hours, shall have the local health officer determine or cause to be determined the approximate date of birth of the child.
    The health officer, within 72 hours of notification shall complete a certificate of live birth on a standard Washington certificate of live birth form designating the place of finding as the place of birth and place of residence, the approximate date of birth, sex, and assign a given name. He shall write across the face of the certificate in the sections provided for parental information the words, "foundling child," sign, and date the certificate and cause the same to be filed with the local registrar of the area in which the finding occurred.
    So only the adult's fault for not notifying the police when they found a child.
    Unknown father or custodial relatives are not a reasons for lack of proof of birth. Look it up.
    Concealing birth remains illegal in many states. Its seriousness as a crime, however, differs from state to state, ranging from a felony in Arkansas to a misdemeanor in Washington.
    Already illegal. Again, adult's fault.
    So aside from adults intentionally thwarting the law, you're only left with hospitals intentionally and disparately handling records. Can you show any evidence of that?
    Again, correlation is not causation.
    Mostly due to choices their parents make, which are not cost prohibitive. That's cultural, not systemic.
    You'd have to show some evidence of that. Do you have any?
    The only interference of voting in the US was done by southern Democrats. And guilt by association is a fallacy.
    No coincidence at all. Private tag agencies, those often closer than the local DMV, often avoid high-crime areas or have restricted hours for safety. "Rich white Republican areas" also don't suffer from such crime rates. Some states even have mobile voter ID units that can be requested:
    Sorry. Typo.
    Unsupported statements are not arguments.
    You not only failed to refute the Supreme Court opinion that affirmed Posner's 7th Circuit decision, you're only refute was of the source. Each claim in an argument stands on its own, and must be individually refuted. You don't get to pretend that you have refuted the Supreme Court saying that known instances of fraud “demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election” by dismissing the source. That is what you did. Hence a genetic fallacy, which is about specific claims, not whole arguments including many claims.
    The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Correlation is the relevant claim. Statistical correlation, being used by Republican voter ID proponents to suppress the non-white vote.
    Not in the past - when current voters were born, especially older ones, and black people did not routinely receive medical care in nearby hospitals.
    And not affected: Home births among white people do not and did not much affect their access to birth certificates and other documentation. Among black people, they do and did.
    Well documented legal adoption or fostering is of course by far the most common arrangement among white people. Even victims of the crack epidemic and similar disastrous creators of child neglect emerge from childhood with their papers in order if they are white. That's one of the advantages of citizenship white people have enjoyed in higher percentages than black people - all that easily found and presentable documentation.
    They aren't good reasons, no. There aren't any good reasons for the extra difficulties in documentation, time and money and effort, afflicting such a high percentage of the black people who wish to vote under these new laws.
    Prior to 1964. Since then, it's been increasingly a specialty of Republicans, north and south. Nowdays, it's essentially a Republican operation nationally - Kris Kobach prime example, long lines of black voters in Republican administered States visible illustration.
    There is only one Anglo-American heritage of sheriffs in the US. And part of it is centuries of racist oppression of black and brown and red and yellow people, favoring white people.
    And almost everybody, in particular every sheriff listening to Jeff Sessions use the term in connection with his policies of enforcement of immigration law along the southern border of the US, knows that.
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    To reiterate↑:

    • Citing presidential candidate Barack Obama chiding ethnic and religious discrimination as a question of habeas corpus, pointing back to our "Anglo-American law", also refers to the fact that we guaranteed the right as response against Anglican behavior. That is, if you want the common link in Obama's words from 2008, it is in our American response to the British violation of a principle described in Latin and ostensibly asserted on behalf of British people who were rich enough. Meanwhile, the principle was enshrined as law in a post-Greco-Roman framework spun by French philosophers.

    Where Mr. Obama's words overlap with the Attorney General's is in recalling and accounting for supremacism; a white vice presidential candidate was rattling against habeas corpus according to ethnic and religious labels—in other words, advocating white supremacism—and demonstrating in that argument the corruption one must guard against. The future president offered a reasonable demonstration for one aspiring to recite and affirm the oath of the American presidency.

    That is to say, where overlap can, in fact, be described, only reinforces the point that the Anglo-American heritage of our law enforcement tradition includes murderous supremacism.

    Meanwhile, Senator Obama's statement is precisely suitable to its occasion: I have acknowledged direct statutory lineage, but you skipped over that part. Mr. Obama describes what should not be a difficult vote; like the antisodomy rules the Supreme Court sought in English common law, so also is habeas corpus centuries old, and reminding the United States Senate that it should not be difficult to fail to violate the Constitution in a question that has ostensibly lain settled for centuries is the sort of duty a senator ought to be able to attend as a matter of reflex.

    And none of it has anything to do with what Jeff Sessions said.​

    You skipped↑ out↑ that part.

    So, yeah, are you looking to take a stab at it?

    Or are you just making more cheap excuses?
  21. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    You'd have to show causation to make that claim stick. I guess you don't understand the difference.
    How? Are you ever planning on supporting any of your arguments?
    Are you ever planning on supporting any of your arguments?
    Are you ever planning on supporting any of your arguments?
    Are you ever planning on supporting any of your arguments?
    I agree. There is only one Anglo-American heritage. Tell that to Tiassa.
    But again, correlated racism does not imply causation.
    "Every sheriff?" From all across the country?
    Do you think Obama was criticizing that Anglo-American heritage or lauding it?
    If criticizing, you'll have to walk me through some citations to support that.
    If lauding, it's exactly what Sessions was doing.

    If you're arguing anything else, it can only be semantics.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    He was citing it in response to questions regarding the legitimacy of habeas corpus. You're the one who quoted it; do you not know whence it comes?

    Jeff Sessions is just appealing to the idea of the sheriff in order to pitch traditional white supremacist language.

    The two discussions have nothing to do with one another unless, perhaps, we delve into the "Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement" and its observable disdain for habeas corpus and other fundamental rights derived through our Anglo-American and other-American heritage of law reaching back to the roots of democracy.

    You keep requiring that "law" and "law enforcement" compare synonymously; they don't. You've been told this repeatedly. It's not semantics; you're just making an uninformed, ill-conceived, and, ultimately, traditionally white supremacist-American argument.

    (Remember, one of the reasons we're down to "white" supremacy is there just aren't enough Anglo-Americans to hold out against Euro-American Catholics or Jews, Scandinavian and Germanic Protestants, &c. In the end, if you changed your name just enough, and discriminated against the next shade darker than you, that was often enough to hide. My paternal great-great-grandfather, I believe it was, arrived in the area and changed his name from some variation of Petersen associated with Norwegians to an oddball, English-sounding name; there are three pockets of us in the country, and one of them is apparently not related. It is true, we did intern German-Americans during WWII, but not nearly as many, and they were harder to find despite their numbers, and for obvious reasons. Still, if anyone remembers "freedom fries", that's also how Mitt Romney got into the queerest of news cycles when saying he liked tube steak. No, really, we didn't want to say "frankfurter" or "hamburger", so we said, "tube steak" and "liberty steak".)

    You're making up an issue pretty much ex nihilo.
  23. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    I know where habeas corpus comes from. Just trying to peg down your vague replies.
    Nope, you're just ignoring the actual words in favor of your own subjective interpretation.
    Since it seems like you really don't know, habeas corpus comes from English law. Obama rightly said that habeas corpus came from our Anglo-American law. He was lauding that heritage.
    Habeas corpus originally stems from the Assize of Clarendon, a re-issuance of rights during the reign of Henry II of England.[8] In the 17th century, the foundations for habeas corpus were "wrongly thought" to have originated in Magna Carta.[9] This charter declared that:

    No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.

    William Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century. Blackstone explained the basis of the writ, saying "[t]he king is at all times entitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted."
    You have not demonstrated "observable disdain for habeas corpus" in the Anglo-American heritage that would negate it's origin in that exact same heritage.
    No, I'm saying that Anglo-American heritage is comparable, and its law enforcement operates under its law.
    What subjective nonsense you repeat, without support, is irrelevant. You have yet to make your case that Anglo-American law enforcement is somehow especially racist compared to Anglo-American law.
    Hahaha! So because our legal heritage happens to come from a predominately white country, you naively think it's somehow inherently racist?
    That must be why you confuse Obama lauding our Anglo-American heritage for him deriding it. You're lost in your own little subjective world, aren't you?
    And you think "freedom fries", a direct response to Frances reaction to our response to 9/11, has something to do with, what, England-centrism?
    And where do people in the US call them "frankfurters", or ever rename hotdogs or hamburgers?

Share This Page