4,607 karma · joined July 7, 2014
Never heard a "conservative" call a protester a "libtard" right before rolling coal at them?
Never heard of a friendly Southern town doing anything they can to keep out people of the wrong skin color, or to encourage them to leave?
Oh.
Maybe you should read some history and not rely on your personal anecdata.
I don't use sock puppets. Believe it or not, the structure of HN comments allows conversations between > 2 people. If you prefer a private conversation, use email. You've already responded to my comment [1]; I can respond to whatever comment I want. If you don't like what I say, you can write back appropriately or ignore it. Accusing me of not following the rules, however, is a very weird response.
> In any case, I'm not going to respond to poorly constructed straw men.
Please be specific: what straw man?
> if you want to keep ranting like a partisan -
Oh, the irony.
> then perhaps it's genuinely impossible for you to discuss things outside of echo chambers.
Let me get this straight: we have differing views, we're in an environment where we can freely discuss them, and yet you call it an "echo chamber" in the same breath that you refuse to continue a conversation. No one here is being censored, the only obstacle to communication is your attitude. Maybe you would feel more comfortable in /r/conservative (i.e. an actual echo chamber that aggressively censors opposing views)?
Well, we agree on that much.
That's fine, but please don't play the martyr. You're supporting a president who is deporting people for constitutionally protected free speech. I think you'll survive a little flag here on HN.
Not sure what kind of test this is supposed to be, but okay, I'll bite. He's done some things that could be good, but because of his unique pathology, he makes even good things bad. Look at the Trump Accounts. Creating a savings account for children is potentially a good thing. Here are the problems with it: during his presidency, he has single-handedly doubled the national debt, so this isn't a great opportunity to give away money; the move is ideological incoherent, coming from a guy who thinks that wealth redistribution is un-American; and of course he's a narcissist, so he's incapable of doing anything with stamping his name on it. It's hilarious that MAGAs decry "partisanship" but for some reason love obviously partisan, and likely Hatch Act-violating, nonense like this.
> Do you think those comments should be flagged and [deleted] or they add value here and should be kept around?
Some of those comments are flagged because they express non-constructive, hyper-partisan, anti-immigrant sentiment. They deserve to be flagged. Some are flagged because they are just unpopular on HN; those should not be flagged. I'd never claim that HN doesn't lean left, and it's always hard to be a minority in a community. The appropriate response from conservatives like you, in order to prevent your comments from being flagged, is to comment better: use factual evidence, logical arguments, and non-partisan language. Unfortunately, the few HN conservatives around here aren't doing that.
There are more-or-less two possibilities: either he believes that the election was stolen despite the total absence of evidence to that effect, in which case he is a fool; or he cynically pretends to believe that for the purpose of personal gain, in which case he is a liar and a con-man. Based on what we've all seen of his psychology, though, I think the more likely case is that he's simply unconnected to reality: he's spent his whole life in a billionaire bubble where everyone tells him what he wants to hear, and he's able to to convince himself that he won in 2020 because he wants to believe that.
> because it's the best way to take on yellow journalism.
What part of the reporting the fact that Biden won the 2020 election is "yellow journalism"?
> 'Why aren't you taking these jokes seriously!?' isn't the most compelling call to action.
Except, as I've already pointed out, people have been excusing behavior as a "joke" since 2016, and at every opportunity he proves that it's not a joke. People thought "Mexico will pay for a wall" was a joke; it wasn't, it was just a lie.
> Trump never laid out the idea of running as Vance's VP and forcing him aside.
I never he said he did. I did say that he said that he's "looking into ways that he can run," an idea supported by other people in Trump's orbit, such as Steven Bannon. It's not misinformation to say that Trump is considering running again, it's plainly stated in the record.
So your position is that: Trump said he's looking into running (but it's a joke), he's selling 2028 hats (but he's trolling), close advisers say he's running again (but that doesn't count). Do you understand why people think MAGA denies reality? Is there any possible evidence that would make you think he's thinking of running again? (For the record, I don't think he'll run again, because I think he will die or become gravely ill: were it not for that, he definitely would try.)
> That's accurate, but the implication to somebody who only relies on the media, instead of first party sources,
Oh, you have first party sources? Great, please tell me what Donald Trump has personally told you, that has not been publicly revealed.
> In any case, none of this would be news to you if you posted this in a place with more open discussion.
Nothing you've told me is new. I've heard all this before. The entire country has spent a decade hearing people like spout nonsense like "Trump isn't a politiician, he tells it like it is" and "Trump is already rich so he has no need to make money from the presidency" and "Trump may lack expertise, but he'll hire great advisers" and other provably incorrect statements. You mistakenly believe that we disagree because we haven't heard your side. The truth is that we've all heard your side incessantly and we just think you are dumb and/or crazy.
Sorry, but I have to laugh at the idea of an "implicit admission." Also known as "not an admission." I feel like you have a parasocial relationship with the man, and that you are projecting your own emotions on him.
> You haven't given any evidence.
The evidence I've given is the man's own words. But you don't want to believe that, because you're too deep in the cult. You're at a point where no amount of evidence could possibly reach you because your emotional defense systems won't allow you to accept that you've been conned.
> Partisanship just blinds people, and is something that should be avoided like the plague.
Well, we agree on that much.
You keep on repeating that. Your brain is hyper-focused on "every state has free voter ID card". Meanwhile you are consistently ignoring the context: 10% of Americans don't have voter ID of any kind. No state issues voter ID automatically. Those Americans will be disenfranchised under a Republican voter ID law. Until you can solve the disenfranchisement issue, voter ID requirement cannot be supported.
> So not only do you now admit that free options exist, you're trying to claim they're irrelevant.
Whether or not they cost money is not the point. The point is whether getting them is an obstacle that will disenfranchise legal voters.
> I accept your defeat.
Lol are you literally 13 years old? You definitely act like it.
>>This makes no sense. "Walking distance" to what? I have never heard of or seen such a program. If they exist, they are not terribly effective, given that 10% of the population still lack a valid ID. > "I haven't heard about it so it doesn't exist."
You didn't actually address my question. I asked "walking distance to what" because that obviously matters. And I didn't say they don't exist, I said that they aren't effective.
> That's exactly how it works in Europe, Czech Republic. If you don't have a copy, you request a new one.
No. In the Czech Republic, they are issued automatically because the government already has your birth certificate. Because IDs there are universal, there is a much lower barrier to entry. You dont know what you are talking about.
> That's not how it works in the US, you do not give away your birth certificate to a different part of the government.
You don't "give it away" and I didn't say that you did. You need to acquire your birth cert, then show it to the DMV. I don't even know why you would even argue this. You're just arguing to be argumentative. Again, you have the mind of a 13 year old.
> That's not why 10% don't have ID nor did I fail to address it. School is mandatory in the US yet 15% of Americans are illiterate.
Completely irrelevant comparison. In European countries, everyone has voter ID because the IDs are issued automatically, which does not happen in the US.
> You don't need a known audience to virtue signal to.
You are sad, pathetic person.
> You're not pursing justice, you're spew false propaganda and fighting a problem that doesn't exist.
Sad, without morals. Your low estimation of your fellow man reflects the weak state of your own conscience. You assume (falsely) that everyone is as self-interested as you are. I hope you find someone who can show you beauty and kindness in the world.
> That's not why they blocked the bill.
Citation needed.
> No country issues an ID automatically to anyone who makes a request. The ID is issued to you automatically after proving who you are. You don't need to petition the state with an attorney or pay a fee.
That's not what I said. Stop putting words in my mouth. At the point I can only include that you are intentionally misinterpreting me in order, I don't know, win internet points or just fill up your vacuous life.
Debating someone who is not interested in actually understnading the world but just incessantly repeating themselves like a dying insect is not rewarding for me or educational for you. So please grow up. Until then, I won't continue this conversation.
Even if there is no financial cost, it requires documentation and time to get voter ID. It is not issued automatically. That's why 10% of the US population doesn't have form of ID that could be used to vote and will be disenfranchised under Republican voter ID requirements. Until that issue is fixed, voter ID is not something I can support.
Because your elected GOP representatives consistently vote against it, when universally available ID is presented by Democrats as a condition for voter ID laws. Do you have a plausible explanation for why GOP Congressmen would reject that proposal? I sure do.
> Nobody should oppose efforts to fix it.
First you have to prove that there is a problem to fix. Fraud, as we've covered, has never been shown to be a significant issue, and software bugs, as I noted, are not cured by invasive and illegal USPS tactics. So what in your view could possibly be fixed by this latest move?
In contrast, the disenfranchisement in Georgia, Tennessee, and now proposed through the USPS,is fully intentional. Republican don't want legal voters to vote.
The situation is not at all comparable.
Don't tell me I'm "unfactual" while presenting this kind of weak sauce non sequitur.
I never asserted that they did. Are you arguing with me or with a straw man?
Did you not see the links to factual evidence that I included?
> This is about voter IDs (which are free), not drivers licenses. Now you're moving goalposts.
Most people get their in the form of a driver's license, not as a pure voter ID. If a tiny minority of people get the free option, then how is it relevant?
> Many states have mobile DMV offices that are stationed within walking distance during the year, special programs where DMV employees go to the homes of those in need to verify documentation, etc.
This makes no sense. "Walking distance" to what? I have never heard of or seen such a program. If they exist, they are not terribly effective, given that 10% of the population still lack a valid ID.
> It's absolutely true. Yes, if you lose documentation such as birth certificates, you may be required to acquire them. Same as any first world country.
That's not how it works in Europe (at least in Netherlands and Czech Republic, where I have experience). In that case, the government already has your birth cert, so they don't force you to acquire it and then give it back to a different part of the government. Only the US sets up these additional obstacles. Which, again, is why 10% of Americans don't have a valid ID, a fact that you refuse to address.
>>European countries in the "first world" have automatic, mandatory IDs, which the US does not. > The US has this via the states, not federally.
Can you please name a single US state that automatically issues ID to all voters? I can't.
>>Republicans always accuse liberals of "virtue signalling" when liberals try to do anything supporting justice. > You're not supporting justice, you're regurgitating false propaganda.
What about "making sure that eligible voters and vote" is not about justice?
> Like Karens virtue signaling in the town square about being good Christians.
Not an answer to my question.
> You're not "pursuing justice" you're regurgitating BlueSky brainrot to feel morally superior.
You already said that, but you are just making baseless accusations. You don't know my mind. Let me ask you this: do you categorically refuse the possibility that anyone pursues justice for its own sake? Were MLK Jr, Ghandi, the Sufragettes, the abolitoinists all just "virtue signalling", or do you think that some people actually care about making the world a better place?
It's really hard to take your argument seriously when doubt the good faith of arguments made with support facts that help people and support democracy. Clearly no one in the MAGA camp could be accused of "virtue signalling" because they have no virtues. On the contrary, MAGA members publicly signal their devotion to groupthink by willfully blocking out unpleasant facts and pledging fealty to a prodigious liar.
> Free voter ID is provided by every Republican state. The link you posted literally states that Democrats blocked the bill LOL!
You keep on ignoring important words in my comment. In this case, you specifically edited out "automatic" and "mandatory." The absence of those words is why Democrats blocked the bill.
> That is exactly what every state has. Every Republican state has this. Find a state that does not have this.
Literally no state has this. I live in a red state and I have to go in and request a voter ID, using appropriate evidence. They are not issued automatically. I challenge you to find any evidence supporting the idea that any state automatically issues ID.
> Stop moving the goalposts. Your claims about voter ID are fake propaganda. Voter IDs are free in every state, you cannot deny this fact.
Calling it propganda doesn't make it untrue. You have failed to address the many examples of disenfranchisement at the hands of the GOP.
My conclusion, based on the evidence presented in this thread: Either you are a terrible debater who consistently disregards evidence and arguments presented by the opponent, or you are debating in bad faith and intentionally ignoring evidence that disagrees with your preconceived conclusion. Which is it?
Okay, we're at that level of argument, I see. Well, you forgot to bring your evidence. A drivers license in New York costs between $64.25 and $107.5
>>as well a trip to the DMV or equivalent > Not always.
Please explain how a an ID issued without an in-person visit is supposed to securely represent a person's citizenship status? That is the point, after all, right?
> False. Many (all?) states provide free birth certificates for voter IDs.
Absolutely not true. Even if it were true, it's still friction, which is ~10% of the American population lacks an ID that would be required to vote. If you're trying to convince me that getting an ID is free and easy, you'll need to explain first why everyone who needs such an ID doesn't already have one.[1]
> I don't take this process for granted, it's the same process across the first world.
European countries in the "first world" have automatic, mandatory IDs, which the US does not.
> virtue signal
Republicans always accuse liberals of "virtue signalling" when liberals try to do anything supporting justice. To whom am I virtue signalling? My massive Instagram following (which I don't have)? Maybe you falsely accuse other people of chasing clout because the idea of pursuing justice for its own sake is completely foreign to your own morality.
>>If voter ID advocates feel so strongly about their position, they would support mandatory ID. >They do.
Please check your facts. Free, mandatory ID was offered as amendment by Democrats to the recent voter ID law and was voted down by Republicans. [2]
>>The fact that they don't support mandatory ID >False, they do support free IDs.
That's not what I said. In order for voter ID laws to be fair, IDs must be not only free, but mandatory for everyone and issued automatically. Republicans have consistently voted against such a law.
>they don't care about securing elections, they care only about excluding the undesirable class from elections.
Do you really disagree with that statement? Can you then explain why the GOP has systematically disenfranchised voters? Just a few recent examples:
* Georgia improperly purged legitimate voters https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/19/georgia-gove...
* Tarrant County, Texas dramatically reduces polling sites in Democrat-leaning areas, despite population growth https://fortworthreport.org/2026/09/01/advocates-demand-incr...
* Tennessee (among other states) gerrymanders its districts to disenfranchise minority voters https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-memphis-voters-fee...
> Repeating propaganda doesn't make it true.
I absolutely agree with this statement. Somebody should tell Donald Trump (and his rabid followers), who despite your exhortation insists on lying about election fraud.
[1] https://voteriders.org/article/who-doesnt-have-an-id-in-amer...
[2] https://apnews.com/article/save-act-senate-voting-bill-trump...
No idea what disclaimer you are referring to.
> as any human alive would know he's joking.
On the contrary, I know that he's not joking. He doesn't think he's joking. This isn't a one-off comment: he's selling hats about running in 2028. He wasn't joking about "building the wall," about mass deportations, about tear-gassing peaceful protesters [1], or about trying to steal the 2020 election. Every time his supporters downplay his ridiculous rhetoric as "trolling," he doubles down. Trump's followers certainly think he's serious about running again, including Steve Bannon. When has he ever admitted to joking?
> So you have, in your own post - misinformation, sweeping assertations, and claims unsupported by evidence.
I've given you evidence of Trump being utterly serious in his utterly ridiculous claims and plenty of historical evidence of contempt for elections in my previous comment, which you have failed to address. So I don't take your accusation of "claimed unsupported by evidence" to be accurate.
Errors are not fraud. The current push by the Trump administration is (allegedly) about fraud.
> The American public overwhelmingly wants voter ID, as other countries have, but this is a topic not entertained by one side of the political aisle.
It's entertained if you can do it fairly. "Fairly" means everyone gets an ID automatically. Why do Republicans oppose given legal voters ID so that they can vote?
They do exist. What's interesting is that those are problems created by the same people who are currently trying to disenfranchise people through the current push to takeover state elections through the postal service. So color me skeptical of their alleged "good intentions."
Well. Who could possibly have predicted this. /s
But yet here you are.
> There is no room for discourse or nuance.
Try me!
> If you voted for Trump you are a fascist and a pedo and nobody wants to hear your thoughts.
On the contrary, there have been endless articles and discussion about Trump supporters' opinions, to the extent that "New York Times Interviews Twelve Trump Supporters" [1] [2] is a bit of a cliche. I think that your (collective) thoughts have been well expressed and understood by the other side, it's just that most people find those opinions unimpressive, mostly couched in a sort of hero-worship credulity or open hostility to people who are different from you.
> Some opinions that would have been demonstrably in the Clinton/Obama administration would be considered MAGA now.
Sure, public opinion shifts. For example, Republicans used to be the party of limited government and law-and-order. Then they elected a felon who flagrantly violates the Constitution (14th amendment, separation of powers, emoluments clause, etc) and has worked tirelessly to extend the power of the federal government, in the present case to intervene in the Constitutionally-mandated state right of operating elections. Of course "people used to feel differently" is not, on its own, an argument in support for the administration's policies, so I hope you can do better.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/series/voters-voices-trump-administr...
> Which "side" has been fighting tooth and nail for unverifiable mail-in ballots > resisting all investigations of voting integrity?
Basically, the comment asserted that Democrats are "pushing" for mail-in ballots, despite the fact that many Republican-controlled states (notably Mississippi, which recently defended its mail-in voting law) also allow mail-in voting. The comment cast aspersions on the accuracy of mail-in voting, citing no evidence. The comment was apparently informed solely by partisan bias without any basis in the reality of the situation.
In short, it was not a good comment. Did it deserve to be flagged? Probably not. But it was certainly not a thoughtful, well-reasoned defense of the current administration's flagrantly illegal overreach. If this is the kind of comment that you want to see more of on HN, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
I keep waiting for all these well-thought-out, factually-based, good-faith arguments offered by conservatives but for some reason they never appear. It seems that the only comments written by conservatives are knee-jerk, xenophobic, semi-literate arguments based in half-truths and GOP talking points. Maybe we scared off all the "good" conservatives?
> Trump fascist' that adds very little to the conversation.
I agree that it adds little to the conversation, but it's not clear to me what else you'd like to hear. If you think that a federal takeover of state elections in absence of any real election crisis is not fascist behavior, feel free to make that argument here and I will respond in a temperate and measured tone.
It reads that way only if you are intentionally ignoring evidence.
We're talking about an Executive Branch in the hands of a man who has shown historic contempt for election outcomes and little moral qualms with altering them to suit his agenda.
* Conspiracy after the 2020 election to float fake electors
* Massive and ongoing campaign of lies about the illegitimacy of the 2020 election, in absence of any evidence
* Demanding states perform mid-decade redistricting, in contravention of longstanding custom
* Repeated calls to "cancel" upcoming election
* Repeated allusions to running for a third presidential term, in violation of the Constitution
Needless to say, these kind of actions and pronouncements are unprecedented in this country. When a person tells you they don't care about accurate elections, believe them.
It's incredibly hard to think that this person is deeply concerned about election integrity when he has shown such little regard for existing election laws and customs. Your willingness to overlook this evidence speaks of your own partisan bias. Oh wait, are going to say he's "joking" and I don't have a sense of humor?
EDIT: formatting
They didn't overlook it. They fixed the error.
If you are asserting that this error was a partisan, intentional attempt to change the outcome of the election, you're going to need to provide a lot more evidence before injecting USPS into election policy makes sense.
Moreover, you find these 400 erroneous votes deeply problematic but you, I assume, did not ask for federal election oversight in the following cases:
* Georgia improperly purged legitimate voters https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/19/georgia-gove...
* Tarrant County, Texas dramatically reduces polling sites in Democrat-leaning areas, despite population growth https://fortworthreport.org/2026/09/01/advocates-demand-incr...
* Tennessee (among other states) gerrymanders its districts to disenfranchise minority voters https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-memphis-voters-fee...
What I see here is a pattern of attempts to restrict voting among those opposed to the GOP. And these are the people that you trust to provide "rigor" in voting?
You could easily test this by posting a thoughtful rebuttal.
I've been posting actively on this thread and I haven't yet seen a thoughtful rebuttal, although there have been several comments in favor of the current administration's approach to voter enforcement via the USPS. Unfortunately, literally all of those comments were based on misinformation or make sweeping assertions, unsupported by evidence, about voter fraud in the US.
I am willing to look and I see exactly zero cases of widespread, organized, mail ballot voting by non-citizens of the type that Republicans say is widespread, despite lack of evidence. What I do see is low-level cases of some guy filling out two voter registration forms in an effort to win a local election and getting caught immediately, which are cases that Republican proposals would do nothing to prevent.
> Hackers rather trivially were able to hack optical scan machines back in the 90s or early 2000s
Curiously, this case was not in the list of fraud cases that you yourself provided.
> Yes, there is a barrier of entry for freedom of speech and gun rights; it's called holding on to freedom itself,
That's not what I asked. Do you have to show your ID before you are allowed to use your freedom of speech? No you don't. Rights don't have a barrier to entry: they are available to everyone.
> if you aren't willing to give up something for your freedom, you probably don't deserve it. (Not saying you must necessarily give something up, just that you must be willing to give something up.)
Again, that's not how rights work. The Bill of Rights doesn't say "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... unless the person in question gives vibes suggesting that they don't love the the US of A, go America." You can vehemently disagree with your country and still get rights, including the right to vote.
> I never said the barrier for entry should be a test, like the "literacy tests"
The Republican proposal under question specifically requires people to get a government issued ID that proves citizenship, while ~10% [1] of the US population lacks such ID. That sure sounds like a barrier of entry designed to exclude classes of "undesirable" people.
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/213-...
If you don't have a REAL ID or passport, you can just pay a $50 fee and get on the plane anyway. So whatever the REAL ID proves cannot be essential to security.
At the moment, yes. Under Republican voter ID proposals that require proving citizenship, no. Having an SSN does not imply US citizenship.