So why compound either..?

@Varn Voter suppression can be remedied and activate 10’s of millions of voters who overwhelmingly support Democrats. For one glaring example: in 2000, Gore lost Florida, and therefore lost the election, by something like 573 votes. A Republican-owned software company called ChoicePoint purged the voter rolls of 60,000 voters in Democratic districts. As well, Palm Beach County Republicans used “butterfly” ballots that fooled 6,000 elderly Jewish voters into punching the tab for Pat Buchanan, thinking they were voting for Gore—I know this to be true because my parents were among those voters who realized this after the fact. Not to mention the suppression of votes by former felons and inmates held for lack of bail money or in low-level marijuana offenses. Yet Democrats lay blame for Gore’s loss at the feet of one-time Ralph Nader voters, burying the opportunity to permanently redress suppression. These days, tactics like voter ID laws, closing of polling places in Democratic districts, continued suppression of millions of incarcerated people’s votes, and now defunding the USPS in the time of the pandemic deeply threaten our Democracy. Remedying systemic voter suppression issues unlocks our Democracy-taking it out of the hands of Party elites and placing it where it belongs: in the hands and votes of the people.

I don't doubt Bobbyzen's comment, and voter suppression disturbs me far more than nonviable third-party votes. But as Varn replied, "why compound either?"

@Bobby9 Evidence abounds. I do my own research. You do yours.

@nicestuff @Varn -- How does addressing voter suppression compound the issue? The shaming tactic proved unsuccessful in 2016, and has been a theme of the Democratic Party since, rather than a full-on assault against Republican efforts to suppress the vote.

@Bobbyzen I took Varn's reply as meaning the importance of one doesn't exclude the importance of the other. Also, my post is NOT intended as shaming. Neither is it a mere "tactic." It's purely a practical matter, from my point of view. Again, I think voter suppression is the far greater problem. Voting third party is democracy in action. Voter suppression is anti-democracy.

@Bobbyzen Not gonna dig up old news, but Gore lost due to a ‘third party candidate’ with an ego larger than his brain. The creep did nothing but ‘run for president!’ Had his votes not siphoned off enough from Al Gore, cuz no Republican was going to vote for the guy, bush jr would have been just a scary footnote to history.

@Bobby9 There is no such evidence

[google.com]

[google.com]

[google.com]

[google.com]

[google.com]

These stories are evidence of voter suppression implemented this year through closing polling places in poor and black communities. I could post stories throughout US history up to including recent primaries, and what the head of the USPS is doing to suppress voter turnout in November.

@Bobby9, @Varn Gore would have been elected even WITH people voting for Nader were it not for voter suppression.

@Bobby9 you’re not very good at reading. I didn’t say Gore won. I gave very specific examples of successful voter suppression tactics in Florida in 2000.

@Bobby9 Right. And literacy tests weren’t an attempt to suppress the Black vote. That’s just another conspiracy theory.

@Bobby9 hahahaha. No I don’t think all whites are literate but 1) literacy tests were only introduced in the South after Blacks finally won the right to vote, and 2) you are a perfect example of an illiterate white, failing to comprehend the words that Gore would have been elected if the 10’s of thousands whose votes were suppressed could have voted. The NY Times, by the way, is not an icon of truth, but apparently you think it is.

@Bobby9 Try to s-l-o-w-l-y reread my immediate prior post. CLEARLY it does not even imply you said or hinted that Gore won."

I must have misread your scold that Gore lost as implying that I said Gore won.

@Bobby9 So your point in this entire conversation is voter suppression does not exist. If I showed you a photo of a person or people wanting to vote being prevented from voting would you agree that voter suppression is real?

@Bobby9 You didn't answer my question.

It’s a good thing most aren’t as self-centered & selfish..

Voting green right now is just like praying.. !!

@Varn

That's a pretty ironic comment coming from the most self righteous person on this site.

Hey varn, remember when you said that women with manly characteristics disgust you and I called you out for being a bigot and you didn't even attempt to explain yourself? Have you accepted yourself for what you are?

Also, Why are you trolling my posts? Can't get enough eh

@Cutiebeauty

How so?

@RoboGraham So if he doesn't want to date a masculine female that's a preference. How does that make @Varn a bigot. If he didn't want to date a guy, does that make him a homophobe?

@barjoe

It had nothing to do with dating. It was a question of who to watch on TV. varn made it clear that he is selective based on looks and women who have manly features are repulsive to him.

@RoboGraham Does that make him a bigot?

@barjoe

Bigot- "A person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

We can consider women who are manly in appearance to be a group and the refusal to watch shows because they are in them is prejudiced based on them belonging to that group. It is intolerant.

The person in question was Rachel Maddow.

@RoboGraham I think Rachel Maddow is an attractive woman. She's a lesbian and goes for that butch look but she's very handsome and not in a manly way. Shallow of him. Her sex appeal is irrelevant. Bigot? Not sure that's necessarily true. I know straight girls who are plain and choose not to glam up. If she were so inclined, I'd sleep with her. Just saying. I think the operative word is stupid, no offense to @Varn.

@barjoe

His words- "I’ve one male friend who can ..stand her. I can’t. There’s something grating about females with male characteristics that I can’t get beyond;"

If you say that you can't stand someone based on physical characteristics, it grates you and you can't get beyond it, that's intolerant, it's bigoted.

Imagine replacing the words (females with male characteristics), with some other physical characteristic, such as skin color, would you agree that it's bigoted then?

And apparently all of his friends think feel the same so he hangs around a bunch of bigots too.

@RoboGraham They are shallow. They probably don't like her politics, so they are critical. They may or may not be bigots. I admit I watch some shows because the women are so damn hot. Does that make me a bigot? No. It makes me shallow.

@barjoe

Being attractive to women is natural.

Being disgusted by women with male features is bigoted. And I suppose you can call it shallow too.

@RoboGraham Some women are so unattractive that they could disgust me physically. Think Susan Boyle. Rachel Maddow isn't bad looking. I've made fun of Ann Coulter's looks because I don't like her politics. I'd prolly hit that lanky thing if I met her in a bar. I think with Rachel that they pick on her looks because they don't like her views. This is the real world.

@barjoe

I don't know why this question of attractiveness keeps coming up. Is it not possible for you to set aside a woman's attractiveness or lack there of and just see her as a person doing her job?

@RoboGraham Yes. I do. But. Don't you ever tune into a local newscast because the traffic girl is hot AF? She gives the traffic just as well as the dude on the other channel.

@barjoe

Sure, it's just that it's off topic from what we were discussing originally.

Can we agree that it is unusual for a person to be so disgusted by a woman who has manly features that he refuses to watch her news show?

I think most of us don't think that way and for those that do, the decent thing to do is to set that feeling aside and focus on the content, not the appearance of the anchor. Even if her appearance is grating to you.

@RoboGraham It depends on if you like them or not. It's not that Rachel is bad looking, they just don't like her. Whoopie Goldberg looks like she does, but I like her. Sarah Huckabee Sanders is a hateful right winger so I might bring attention to the fact that she's a human cow. It's just the way it is.

@barjoe

Let's say he does like the content of the show and what the person has to say. The only issue is the appearance.

@RoboGraham If it's Rachel, I'd say he's homophobic. If it were Whoopie, I'd say shallow. I don't worry about what people think or why. There's ageism, fast shaming. I guess you could call it uglyism. Your saying it's all a form of bigotry. I guess. Maybe.

@barjoe

That's pretty much it.

I think bigot is a catchall term for prejudices of all sorts.

@RoboGraham I guess. Maybe. Is a guy who likes hot weather girls over fat ones the same bigot that KKK is?

@barjoe This guy is one sorry Troll. His clinging to ‘conversation’ he trolled on another subject confirms it. His hangup with me is that I’m often right, have been one of few to challenge his BS posts … and he can’t put up.. Some extremely desperate behavior here, perhaps rising to the level of being flagged..

@Varn

Do flag. Let's see who gets in trouble. The person who said something very offensive, or the person who called him out on it.

Core Principle #7- Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.

How would you like it if people were to dismiss you and and say they can't stand you because your physical appearance is "grating" to them?