> Donald Trump sued the White House over documents relating to the January 6 riot at the Capitol. He just lost

> Mr Trump also failed to show any harm that would occur from the release of the sought-after records, Justice Millett wrote.

not without incriminating himself because if there was any harm that could come, he's only care about harm done to him

Two election workers break silence after enduring Trump backers' threats reuters.com/world/us/…

> Death threats from angry Trump supporters forced Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman, a 62-year-old grandmother, to flee her home of 20 years. Some messages called for her hanging; one urged people to “hunt” her. Freeman showed hundreds of menacing messages to police and called 911 three times.

> But a year after Donald Trump and his allies falsely accused Freeman - along with her daughter and co-worker Wandrea “Shaye” Moss - of election fraud, the threats have not been investigated by local police or state authorities, according to a Reuters review of Georgia law enforcement records. Federal agents have monitored some of the threats, but made no arrests.

> Offering the first detailed account of their ordeal, the two women told Reuters about threats of lynching and racial slurs, along with alarming visits by strangers to the homes of Freeman and her mother.

> The intimidation began last December, a month after the 2020 election, when the Trump campaign released surveillance video they falsely claimed showed the two women, who are Black, opening “suitcases” full of phony ballots to rig the vote count in predominantly Black Fulton County, which includes part of Atlanta.

"...the two women, who are Black, opening..."

sucks that this part of the sentence even matters

"John Doe, a Black man, went to the store today"

Next weeks Wednesday headlines, mark my words: "Francine, who identifies as Filipina, with an Italian grandmother and various Native American ancestors was arrested on Tuesday for a history of exceedingly violent parking violations; Local police force being investigated for racial bias"

Related detail: Kanye West publicist pressed Georgia election worker to confess to bogus fraud charges

I think "pressed" is not quite the right word here:

> The visitor, Trevian Kutti, gave her name but didn’t say she worked for West, a longtime billionaire friend of Trump. She said she was sent by a “high-profile individual,” whom she didn’t identify, to give Freeman an urgent message: confess to Trump’s voter-fraud allegations, or people would come to her home in 48 hours, and she’d go to jail.

That sounds like a pretty explicit threat, to me.

@Flats yep, sucks that it matters, but it does in this case

Georgia Republicans purge Black Democrats from county election boards

@BradC Just read through quickly, Why would it matter if Sunday voting is disallowed? How could restricting one day of the week be racist? I don't think I quite understand that, any insight here?

Good question, @Flats. Its because that restriction was specifically crafted to hurt black communities in Georgia who held "get the old church ladies to the polls" events after church on Sundays.

You can't take any GOP voting restrictions in good faith: they are ALL specifically designed to hurt minority (and therefore democratic-leaning) access

Or, in other cases, to hurt other democratic-leaning groups, like students

@BradC I don't know if this is fair, but I'll hear you out at least! What about the hot topic of requiring a government issued ID to vote? That seems to be very polarizing as well, but the reason for this has always eluded me

Think of them like Jim Crow-era restrictions. Sure, at first glance knowing how to read seems like a reasonable limitation, but the way that literacy tests were actually created, implemented, and enforced were clearly not neutrally intended

@Flats Another reasonable question. Just for context, are you in the US?

Yes sir, Metro area of Minnesota to be exact. So none of these things would directly affect me as far as i'm aware, but are interesting nonetheless

And that'll give you the added context of me being in a very heavily democratic-leaning area, and around student age too, so most of the people I know and interact with share the "typical" view for a left-leaning individual on these topics.

@Flats AIUI, the argument in favour is that it makes certain types of voter fraud (which are, in practice, incredibly rare to begin with) harder to carry out, and the argument against is that government ID isn't something that you get automatically -- you need to go get one (and pay for it).

I've just thought it odd why some of the things that seem to be really big deals to my peers, really matter at all in the grand scheme of things

Ok, here's my approach to the argument about voter IDs: how do you manage voter roles without ID? Well, you ask who they are, you find their name on the voter role, and you ask them to sign under penalty of perjury that they are that person.

So the question is: how good is that method in preventing in-person voting fraud?

So the supposed benefit is a red herring, and the drawback is that if you're poor it can be really hard to get an ID -- your job may not be willing to give you the day off to go get one, government offices are chronically underfunded and have long lines, etc

The answer: nearly 100%

And that's something that local and state governments have a lot of room to fuck with

Like, a literal handful of cases in the past 50 years, across the entire united states

So in practice it ends up being another way to make it hard for poor people and minorities to vote, by making it hard for them to get an ID and then making that ID required for voting.

@ToxicFrog I can go get an ID on the weekend for like $20

@ToxicFrog Why would minorities be impacted by this any more than others?

So once that is established, any restriction in the requirements is going to do two things: 1) MAYBE reduce those in-person fraud cases (from tiny to miniscule) 2) Make it harder for some people, without those ids, to vote

@Flats now do that math when you're working a 12 hour shift six days a week, and the nearest DMV is an hour away by bus and not open on weekends.

@Flats because... statistically more minorities (and old people and poor people) don't have ID than white and wealthy people

Also, $20 is a lot of money for some people; also also, what exactly is the benefit here?

So yes, a large portion of the population already has IDs, but those that don't are NOT equally spread across all demographics

@ToxicFrog that's a good point, but it can always be done online too, in the case of not being able to go to the DMV. Libraries could allow a free computer to use in this case.

To go back to where this started: you can't take GOP arguments at face value. They KNOW that there isn't any in-person voting fraud (except the occasional Trump voter, ironically), they also KNOW that increased voting ID requirements are harder for minorities, elderly, those without drivers licenses, etc

@Flats those are all great ideas, but they don't help with the underlying point: VOTER ID DOESN'T MAKE VOTING SAFER, IT JUST MAKES IT HARDER

@ToxicFrog I mean I would see the benefit as being the peace of mind for those wackos who would think that fraud is rampant. If ID is required, they will think that it actually made a difference

and the GOP knows it

@Flats so now you're introducing imperfect solutions to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.

> peace of mind for those wackos who would think that fraud is rampant

It's not and they know it.

Or at least, the ones who generally believe that it's rampant (a) won't be appeased by any security measures; (b) are not in a position to set policy; and (c) are a tiny minority.

I mean, at this point there probably are a lot of GOP followers that have been indoctrinated on this point. But the GOP leadership absolutely knows this; they've been caught on camera admitting its all a ruse, multiple times

The ones pushing for it at the political level know perfectly well it's security theatre and in the past have often been quite explicit (especially when they think they're off the record) about the point being making it harder for minorities to vote and whipping up the paranoid bigots in their base into a frenzy/.

yep

@ToxicFrog true true, but it could help. I think for the most part I agree with you all on this topic, but to me it still doesn't seem to be a major roadblock for those without ID to get one? Maybe there could be new legislation to allow for a social security number to suffice? that's free and should reflect an identification

In MN ID is required to register, but I don't think there has really been a lot of push to change that, and MN has voted blue for decades

@BradC I'd like to see examples of these videos, That would seem to me a perfect evidence for a lawsuit or to have them removed from office!

@Flats lots of examples. Here's one:

The ID discussion is really weird to me, but mostly because it seems kinda insane not to have some general ID for everyone

Republicans keep admitting that voter ID helps them win, for some reason

No More Pretending: Republicans Admit Vote Restrictions Are All About Winning

@MadScientist That's my thought. There are many things in this country that you need identification for. I would think that voting is an important one too

Perhaps the ID card should be subsidized entirely by the local governments, taht would remove the cost issue

But you don't have a central ID, and that means it distorts the vote if you require an ID because not everyone has one of the accepted ones

FLORIDA GOP LEADERS ADMIT VOTER SUPPRESSION WAS MOTIVE BEHIND VOTER LAWS

tons more articles out there.

@MadScientist We do, in MN at least. You can get either your Driver's license, or if you don't have that, a simple ID card. Those are the generally accepted forms of ID and both are government issued

I think requiring a simple piece of mail (perhaps a voter reminder card or utility bill) showing name and address, plus a "under penalty of perjury" signature seems more than sufficient.

I live in a country where every adult has an ID, and we don't actually require it to vote (though you might be required to show it if there is some doubt about your identity)

@MadScientist correction: every adult you know has an ID

@BradC No, every adult is required to have one

@BradC That's pretty scummy for sure

oh, sorry, thought you were the person from Wisconsin. Never mind. Yes, lots of other countries require (and provide) IDs for all persons

@BradC This is already required as a proof that you are allowed to vote in your area for local elections and issues

@Flats Right. And requiring MORE than that (drivers license, etc) is unnecessary and disenfranchises the groups we've discussed above

@BradC But I would think it rather simple to forge an address on a piece of mail. harder on a utility bill though for sure

@Flats Don't fall into the trap of those hypotheticals: even requiring JUST the signature (with NO paperwork) has led to, literally, a tiny handful of cases in the past 50 years across the entire country.

@BradC What about the homeless? they may have an ID card, but they would not be able to provide proof of residence (obviously) Are current voter laws disenfranchising them?

> true true, but it could help

Help WHAT? Like, implementing this won't shut up the base (they'll just start yelling about forged IDs), it won't shut up the politicians (because voting security is not the point, voter suppression is), it'll make voting harder, especially for marginalized communities...in what way would it help?

@BradC I do love hypotheticals though ;)

Like, if someone is telling you to do something in bad faith because it will have harmful effects, going ahead and doing that to shut them up (a) has harmful effects and (b) won't actually shut them up

@Flats Yes, current voting laws do largely disenfranchise the homeless. And those in prison.

and we should work on that. But GOP is doing the opposite

@BradC That's a shame...You could even pull some strings and say that voting laws are disenfranchising men since they undeniably make up the lion's share of homeless and imprisoned in the country

but I think that would be presenting the issue in a dishonest manner

which is partially why I think it's a little dishonest to present the ID issue as one of race or minority status

@ToxicFrog You are right on that one lol. Politicians will do anything to win. And that's bipartisan, no doubt

Just because most of the people affected would be minorities doesn't necessarily mean that they were targeted. That would be correlational, not causational

I hope that I am clear, by the way, in the fact that I respect both of your positions and I am mostly arguing them because I find this stuff fascinating, not because I necessarily disagree

Plus it'll be a good read for those that tune in later ;)

@Flats yeah, no. this isn't a "both sides do it equally" issue

> I think it's a little dishonest to present the ID issue as one of race or minority status

The politicians pushing for ID are quite explicit about it being a way to disenfranchise minority voters so that they can win more, so, I fail to see the dishonesty here

Yeah, its all very explicit, especially behind closed doors (and sometimes that leaks out).

But even if it wasn't, its very obvious when their "facially neutral" rules just happen to always impact one specific demographic of voters. Hmmm... (scratches chin)

@ToxicFrog I doubt that any politician (that went on to win, in this century) has said explicitly "yep, this'll stop those Blacks from voting for the other guy. An easy win for me!

but i get the idea for sure

@BradC That can go back to my argument that they are targeting men by making it impossible for homeless and imprisoned Americans to vote

"Good golly, Democrats and Republicans are sexist!"

One more note: if you are requiring an explicit "I don't want blacks to vote" admission to oppose a rule, then all you've done is give them incentive to be sneakier about it.

@BradC valid

And I have also never liked the fact that "Minority voters" are always held up on a pedestal as a nearly Democrat exclusive group. I mean there are plenty of Republican minorities too. Are they too dumb to realize that they are being targeted? Or is it that they see the issue in a different light?

@Flats That's a valid observation; certain Hispanic communities especially can be equally split or even right-leaning.

or what about all of the white Democrats? are they too dumb to realize that they'll get a better deal by voting Republican? Obviously not, they just want things to be fair and equal for all, regardless of race. But then does that mean that all Republican voters are evil to the core? I find it hard to believe that 50% of the country is despicable

But the overall population stats are pretty impossible to ignore, so even if voting restrictions on (say) crowded urban populations impact white GOP voters, too, they'll impact MORE left-leaning voters

@BradC Right, and surely Hispanic communities are just as represented in the "difficult time getting an ID based on poverty" group

> as a nearly Democrat exclusive group

literally no-one does this? But overall, poor and minority voters skew dem; if you manage to cut out a demographic that votes 45% for you and 55% for the other guy, you've improved your odds of winning.

Same reason the conversatives here keep trying to make it harder for students to vote -- as a demographic students tend to vote against them more than for them, even though there's lots of conservative student voters in absolute terms.

@Flats Oh, I don't think 50% of the country is despicable. I think its probably closer to 40% :)

@BradC lol, perhaps we can agree to disagree there XD

I'd like to imagine people are generally nice :)

So they're fine disenfranchising their own voters as long as they can disenfranchise more opposition voters in the process. Simple math.

you guys seem to be quite nice for example

I think publishing misinformation about the COVID vaccines is despicable, and a very large part of Republicans are actively doing that and causing a lot of harm that way

@ToxicFrog That's a good point too, but then surely we would see total voters going down, but it seems that they have been going up in recent elections! That could be population too

@MadScientist Very true! But I think that publishing information preemptively on certain news stories can be very harmful too. And when the media is undoubted left leaning, this can be an issue in the same vein

Do you like, enjoy arguing just for the sake of it?

@ToxicFrog Absolutely

don't you?

I enjoy a good discussion, but I am persuaded that "both sides do it" centrism is both false and harmful.

One example I can think of in recent memory is on the Kyle Rittenhouse case. the amount of information that was published that was shown to be false (or at least unfounded\unproven) later on was very unsettling

and the Rightwing media did the same. Held him up as a hero for what?

that he is a hero I think is a terrible take on that situation

@BradC I think that that is a bit misleading, you'd be hard pressed to find an average Republican that thinks we should be killing black people

I think a reasonable fact-based take is that Rittenhouse likely had a reasonable self-defense claim under the law, but also that self-defense laws in this country are fucked up.

Since they only consider the situation "in the moment", rather than the fact that you brought a long gun into a protest, when you didn't have to.

@BradC Why the second part? Honestly, I think that in the case where Kyle would have been killed in that scenario, both Huber and Gaige (I don't wanna spell his last name, too hard) could have had plenty of an argument for self defense too

@BradC In Wisconsin though, you are allowed to carry openly like that, I don't think that warrants a revoking of your right to defend yourself

Here's an article that discusses the issue at that higher level:

abc7.com/…

Without those laws in place he would have been killed by Rosenbaum who was certainly the aggressor initially, whether he was provoked by the fact that he had a gun or not. and that hardly seems the be the right call to deny him the right to defend himself.

"Stand your ground" laws are harmful and should be re-considered

@BradC I can get behind that I think. But I don't think that requiring someone to retreat unless there are no other options really helps the situation much

lots of good articles out there, here's one from 2020 (after the shooting, but before the trial and acquittal):

@BradC I like that article, pretty clear on what was happening, no sides taken. The way news should be presented

How Guns Twist the Logic of Self-Defense Laws

more opinion-based article: Kyle Rittenhouse Didn’t Break the Law. That’s Terrifying.

@BradC "True, Rittenhouse was only 17, and the law bars minors from gun possession." This isn't true though. Shame that it made it into the article

"Some accounts suggest that he may have hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard" This is clearly true. And I think that video supports this no question

@BradC So this one I think is a good example of how you can present a story that is "true" but is clearly skewed to one side over the other

This article (written by a law professor before the verdict), I think addresses the meta points I'm talking about here:

Analysis: Here's why Kyle Rittenhouse is likely to be acquitted — and why the law on self-defense must change

> If the jury acquits Rittenhouse, it will not be a mistake. They will have properly applied the law to the facts of the case. If you think a verdict of “not guilty” was the wrong result, your quarrel is not with the jurors who decide the case but with the law as it is written.

> That law is not set in stone. It is dictated by statute, not by our state or federal constitutions. It can, and should, be changed to discourage the use of deadly force and to hold those who resort to the use of deadly force accountable.

@BradC I think this is valid, but also quite scary. In this case, defending yourself is turned into a trial against you the victim, and can cause unnecessary harm to the person who had defended themselves. The problem with that of course is that how could you prove that they were really in danger if there was no video evidence as was the case with Kyle

if I am assaulted in a back alleyway, and fearful that I may be raped, I should without a doubt be able to defend myself with deadly force. but if there are no witnesses, who's to say that I wasn't just pointing my gun at someone to provoke them into defending themselves and give me an excuse to murder?

Its hard, because in either case, there is one person's word against the other

and in the case of self defense, it is one person's word against the deceased

if we remove the right to self defense, then ideally the person that commits the crime will be caught and brought to justice eventually, but we are left with a dead or seriously harmed victim

allow self defense and we are left with a dead or seriously harmed perpetrator, that never got due process

but was undoubtedly in the wrong, if the defender's story is the truth

None of the articles I've posted above advocate removing the right for self-defense.

> Absolutely. Don't you?

(a) no, not usually; argument is a means to an end, not an end in itself. (b) to the extent that it's enjoyable, it's enjoyable in inverse proportion to how high the stakes of the subject being argued are. US civil rights policy is pretty high-stakes, even if I don't live there myself. If I'm going to argue-for-entertainment I'd much rather argue about something completely inconsequential, like the optimal way to lay out a factory in Factorio.

(And more generally, arguing about something "for fun" is a luxury only people who aren't really affected by the outcome either way get to enjoy. If you want to play devil's advocate on a topic, it's polite to make sure that the thing you're arguing about for shits and giggles isn't an existential threat for other participants in the conversation.)

@BradC I’m not saying they are, but they mention the reworking, and I am trying to mention how it may be difficult to rework them in a way that really changes the situation for the better

@ToxicFrog apologies if my arguing upsets you, but I don’t think you can say that discussing self defense or voter ID is an existential threat to people…

@ToxicFrog I agree here, but I also think that it’s really important to argue about things that are really big deals, especially with those who think differently. If its an existential threat to me, you’d be darn sure that I’d be arguing it till the other person understood my point, or I realized that perhaps my thinking was flawed

Otherwise, I’m just letting that person influence others to potentially threaten my existence even more…

I’d rather we focus on fostering a community that supports each other, rather than ripping each other to shreds. Most people, are pretty reasonable. The thing that makes them hate each other is the push by politicians, media, and the public to be on one side of the aisle or the other. It’s all or nothing, and you’re only given two choices, both of which have been misrepresented and radicalized by their own members and representatives

Maybe some day in my lifetime, we can break out of the two party system in this country. But until that happens, I have a feeling that disdain for the “Other” is only going to grow. The Right may have been the catalyst for a future civil war, but both sides are complicit in advancing the risk. I’m not saying that the Left should have just sat back and let it happen, that’s ridiculous. What I am saying is that they haven’t countered the radicals properly, and have only kept feeding the fire

@ToxicFrog everyone should be allowed to weigh in on every issue. Just because I happen to not be Black, shouldn’t have anything to do with whether my opinion is valid or not on a certain topic.

@Flats couldn't disagree more, but right now I'm going to lunch :)

@BradC Fair enough :)