Trump Administration using Federal Disability law to disenfranchise minority voters

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I've voted in people's garages

I'd really like to see the listing for that polling station. I REALLY would like to see that.

Now granted not all polling stations are in Public Buildings (as in Government or municipally owned) but they are all located in Publicly Accessible buildings. All public accessible buildings are required to follow the ADA guidelines.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: avgguy
So they have to close because they aren’t in line with the ADA? And that’s trumps fault how?

How the heck are you folks failing to grasp this extremely simple concept? like I don't know how to put it any simpler:

Usually when that happens, it turns out that the person making the point and expressing confusion over how few people "grasp" it is the one in error. Perhaps part of the problem is that you're applying a far too simple concept to an issue far too complex to be addressed by pedestrian simplicity.

Hmmm, that's entirely fair. I'd posit its partially the reason I post this on ATS (where I expect 90% of the respondents to disagree with me). I want folks with differing opinions to debate with me and explain their viewpoints.

originally posted by: Irishhaf


So it almost looks like the OP is in favor of oppressing a minority group he doesn't care about over another group that they obviously think is more important.
Lotta hills out there I could see standing on and dying for... this particular hill is not one of them.

This is projection from your own dark mind. If you had actually read my posts I've already said what should be done, "Federal funds should bring all polling locations up to specifications".

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: shooterbrody

The voting rights act being gutted was a conservative imperative, and has nothing to do with whatever president was in power when it was gutted. The vote in the SC on it was straight down party lines.

The point of the OP was to highlight that the enforcement of the ADA was disproportionately being applied in a strategic manner specifically to hurt the voters in areas where their local governments wouldn't be able to comply with the ADA violations. Rather than accommodate or help them fix this issue (as the DOJ did in your reference with the Navajo Nation), they are licking their lips at the prospect that folks who work 2 jobs will have to drive hours to get to their polling places now (which means a sizable amount of them just won't be able to vote).

But your OP is all about how bad Trump is for doing this. It seems your FAKE NEWS missed the mark.

Uh, yeah, because its Trump's administration that's enforcing this from this spurious angle of accommodating handicapped voters. Notice their true intentions aren't to make it easier for the handicapped to access these locations, but rather to close them entirely.....

a reply to: Wayfarer

Which was started by the obama administration, and settled WITHOUT CLOSING THE POLLING PLACES by the trump administration.

Shortly before the 2016 election, the DOJ sent representatives to visit Navajo Nation chapter houses that serve as polling locations in Coconino County and found that almost none were ADA-compliant. The Trump DOJ took on the work and Coconino County eventually settled instead of closing any of its polls, agreeing to “provide an accessible voting program, including a program that is accessible to persons with mobility or vision disabilities and accessible polling places at accessible sites,” according to settlement documents.

So this practice was ok in 2016 before the election, but now it is vile?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

Which was started by the obama administration, and settled WITHOUT CLOSING THE POLLING PLACES by the trump administration.

Shortly before the 2016 election, the DOJ sent representatives to visit Navajo Nation chapter houses that serve as polling locations in Coconino County and found that almost none were ADA-compliant. The Trump DOJ took on the work and Coconino County eventually settled instead of closing any of its polls, agreeing to “provide an accessible voting program, including a program that is accessible to persons with mobility or vision disabilities and accessible polling places at accessible sites,” according to settlement documents.

So this practice was ok in 2016 before the election, but now it is vile?

Your article states "The Trump DOJ took on the work..." so, uh, I hate to tell you this, but that means the Trump DOJ took on the work. Ironically they settled with the Navajo nation. Wonder why they're not keen on settling on this....

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Looks like Trump and Co. are at it again (those rascals!) , this time with a clever use of the American's with Disabilities Act to target polling location closures exclusively in heavily minority areas.

In summation, the act requires that polling locations meet a variety of standards to accommodate those with disabilities, and the Trump Justice dept. is arguing that by not complying with this law these various minority heavy polling locations are to be shuttered. The argument is that because they are not accommodating enough to those with disabilities, then the location must close and nobody gets to vote at a nearby voting location. Of course, you'll be shocked to hear that low income area's rarely have the funds to renovate these various locations to meet the letter of the law, ergo they are impartially effected and clearly the primary recipients of the malfeasance architected by likely either very conniving or very racists individuals.

Summary Reference Article

This is of course recently made possible by the Supreme Court decision to gut the voting rights act: Are we really that shocked?

I'm having a hard time rationalizing why its righteous/moral/good to go back to the Jim Crow days where government actively worked to harm/hamper/reduce minority votes. I can understand those with the vitriol and hatred of opposing political parties can rationalize why in their minds it may be good to disenfranchise those voters who are likely to vote against your wishes, but I can't logic some moral imperative that allows one to view it as a good act rather than a despicable action rationalized as good for the purpose of self service.

Oh, you mean that law that's been around for almost 30 years? Yeah, they should get another 30 year extension!

a reply to: Wayfarer

Not my article it is the article YOU sited as the source for this thread.
Why was the DOJ engaged in this behavior prior to the election in 2016?
Why is this behavior vile only now?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Wayfarer


Well that would hurt him too? More Black and Hispanic voters are jumping off the Democratic Plantation than ever before. He's getting a 36% approval rating from Black voters (almost doubling his initial support), that pretty good from someone who is suppose to be the ultimate racist!

I think you need to check your math there.

A simple example.

Trump gets 35% of minority vote, Democrats get 65%

If you reduce the total minority vote by 50%, then trump loses %17.5 of his vote count, while a Democrat candidate loses 32.5% of their vote count. Can you see now who this helps/hurts more?

Sounds like you better get busy building some ramps!

a reply to: bender151

Really these should just reinstate the voting rights act in full to reduce the unconstitutionality of discriminating against voters through a variety of means (in this case income disparity), but I see what you were getting at.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

Not my article it is the article YOU sited as the source for this thread.
Why was the DOJ engaged in this behavior prior to the election in 2016?
Why is this behavior vile only now?

Lol, ok, Your/My tangent is the best angle you got now then go for it bro.

They engaged in the behavior upon the neutering of the voting rights act in 2013.

The behavior is vile now because its being enforced impartially and coincidentally in areas that stand to have the most benefit for Republican tickets (which I'm sure you view as a pure coincidence).

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

The ADA was used to enforce handicap accesible options be placed on all public buildings.

Now you are saying what, this law was purposefully placed to put an undue burden on all poor people?

So no doubt you advocate the repeal of the ADA then?

In these rural areas polling locations aren't always in public locations. I advocate for the reinstatement of the voting rights act so that federal money would correct these situations in low income areas, as I have been a proponent of eliminating ANY inequality when it comes to voting access.

Yes the law that was being used to stop voter ID laws.

I myself find the notion black people are to incompetent to get an ID racist, but I guess I am not progressive enough to treat black people as inferior.

Rather, its more likely you're not as clever as you think you are and are either subconsciously biased or willfully a lot more evil than you let on.

Your right, I am probably not as clever as i think I am.

but to find out I am evil because I dont think blacks are too incompetent to get id's, thats a new one.

My god!

Do you see all of those evil black people on that video saying you should have an id to vote?

IF you are evil its because of rampant use of logical fallacies in your arguments. I know you are clever enough to understand them so their use implies a dishonest approach to our debate.

Logical fallacy?

You mean like trump admin following laws designed to ensure handicap people have access to vote and shutting down places that fail to meet that law makes him racist?

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I'd really like to see the listing for that polling station. I REALLY would like to see that.

Stay on good terms with your neighbors, because many polling sites across the U.S. are in people's garages. It's a location common in San Francisco, but South Carolina, Texas, and likely other states also set up garage polling.

mentalfloss.com...


www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

Which was started by the obama administration, and settled WITHOUT CLOSING THE POLLING PLACES by the trump administration.

Shortly before the 2016 election, the DOJ sent representatives to visit Navajo Nation chapter houses that serve as polling locations in Coconino County and found that almost none were ADA-compliant. The Trump DOJ took on the work and Coconino County eventually settled instead of closing any of its polls, agreeing to “provide an accessible voting program, including a program that is accessible to persons with mobility or vision disabilities and accessible polling places at accessible sites,” according to settlement documents.

So this practice was ok in 2016 before the election, but now it is vile?

Your article states "The Trump DOJ took on the work..." so, uh, I hate to tell you this, but that means the Trump DOJ took on the work. Ironically they settled with the Navajo nation. Wonder why they're not keen on settling on this....

You see?

and there we have it.

Obama started it, trump settled it.

Trump = racist, Obama = good guy

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

The ADA was used to enforce handicap accesible options be placed on all public buildings.

Now you are saying what, this law was purposefully placed to put an undue burden on all poor people?

So no doubt you advocate the repeal of the ADA then?

In these rural areas polling locations aren't always in public locations. I advocate for the reinstatement of the voting rights act so that federal money would correct these situations in low income areas, as I have been a proponent of eliminating ANY inequality when it comes to voting access.

Yes the law that was being used to stop voter ID laws.

I myself find the notion black people are to incompetent to get an ID racist, but I guess I am not progressive enough to treat black people as inferior.

Rather, its more likely you're not as clever as you think you are and are either subconsciously biased or willfully a lot more evil than you let on.

Your right, I am probably not as clever as i think I am.

but to find out I am evil because I dont think blacks are too incompetent to get id's, thats a new one.

My god!

Do you see all of those evil black people on that video saying you should have an id to vote?

IF you are evil its because of rampant use of logical fallacies in your arguments. I know you are clever enough to understand them so their use implies a dishonest approach to our debate.

Logical fallacy?

You mean like trump admin following laws designed to ensure handicap people have access to vote and shutting down places that fail to meet that law makes him racist?

No, I mean like your previous assertion, "I myself find the notion black people are to incompetent to get an ID racist, but I guess I am not progressive enough to treat black people as inferior." is a false dilemma/false dichotomy and not part and parcel of the OP. Its purpose was to shift the discussion to something I neither stated nor argued.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

Which was started by the obama administration, and settled WITHOUT CLOSING THE POLLING PLACES by the trump administration.

Shortly before the 2016 election, the DOJ sent representatives to visit Navajo Nation chapter houses that serve as polling locations in Coconino County and found that almost none were ADA-compliant. The Trump DOJ took on the work and Coconino County eventually settled instead of closing any of its polls, agreeing to “provide an accessible voting program, including a program that is accessible to persons with mobility or vision disabilities and accessible polling places at accessible sites,” according to settlement documents.

So this practice was ok in 2016 before the election, but now it is vile?

Your article states "The Trump DOJ took on the work..." so, uh, I hate to tell you this, but that means the Trump DOJ took on the work. Ironically they settled with the Navajo nation. Wonder why they're not keen on settling on this....

You see?

and there we have it.

Obama started it, trump settled it.

Trump = racist, Obama = good guy

Oh look, another logical fallacy kids, this time in class we'll be learning about causal fallacies, in which Grambler will try and imply that because the voting rights act was gutting in 2013 and protections against financial discrimination in voting were limited, the DOJ under Obama are actually the ones committing the heinous act now under Trump's administration.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I wholeheartedly want ALL that are eligible to vote to do so.
That said the article you sited shows this behavior began way before trump was in office but only offers criticism to the trump administration. Who is the "they" that engaged in this behavior in 2013? Trump was not in office at that time. If the behavior is vile for one it is vile for all. The fact that you would deny that or attempt to disguise it says all that needs to be said.
This is really why we can no longer have nice things. If it is a crime for one it is a crime for all. Expecting equal application of the law is no longer socially acceptable.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

I wholeheartedly want ALL that are eligible to vote to do so.
That said the article you sited shows this behavior began way before trump was in office but only offers criticism to the trump administration. Who is the "they" that engaged in this behavior in 2013? Trump was not in office at that time. If the behavior is vile for one it is vile for all. The fact that you would deny that or attempt to disguise it says all that needs to be said.
This is really why we can no longer have nice things. If it is a crime for one it is a crime for all. Expecting equal application of the law is no longer socially acceptable.

I see what you're getting at. To clarify, 'vile' was in respect to the impartiality of the application as referenced in the OP for those specific areas.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I'd really like to see the listing for that polling station. I REALLY would like to see that.

Stay on good terms with your neighbors, because many polling sites across the U.S. are in people's garages. It's a location common in San Francisco, but South Carolina, Texas, and likely other states also set up garage polling.

mentalfloss.com...


www.theguardian.com...

Well i'll be damned.

While most of those are actually not people's garages, there is indeed a residence used as a station. I owe you an apology for scoffing. You won't get it, but I owe it to you

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

Which was started by the obama administration, and settled WITHOUT CLOSING THE POLLING PLACES by the trump administration.

Shortly before the 2016 election, the DOJ sent representatives to visit Navajo Nation chapter houses that serve as polling locations in Coconino County and found that almost none were ADA-compliant. The Trump DOJ took on the work and Coconino County eventually settled instead of closing any of its polls, agreeing to “provide an accessible voting program, including a program that is accessible to persons with mobility or vision disabilities and accessible polling places at accessible sites,” according to settlement documents.

So this practice was ok in 2016 before the election, but now it is vile?

Your article states "The Trump DOJ took on the work..." so, uh, I hate to tell you this, but that means the Trump DOJ took on the work. Ironically they settled with the Navajo nation. Wonder why they're not keen on settling on this....

You see?

and there we have it.

Obama started it, trump settled it.

Trump = racist, Obama = good guy

Oh look, another logical fallacy kids, this time in class we'll be learning about causal fallacies, in which Grambler will try and imply that because the voting rights act was gutting in 2013 and protections against financial discrimination in voting were limited, the DOJ under Obama are actually the ones committing the heinous act now under Trump's administration.

You see how you cant even remain consitent from post to post?

I thought this OP was about shutting down polling stations, not the voting rights act?

So when i discuss why that act was bad for outlawing voter ID, I am committing a fallacy and not discussing what you want.

But in your very next post you say its not about that Obama started the process to shut down these places, is that overturning the voting rights act was terrible.

As it stands, arguing that it was run of the mill for obama to target minority polls to close uner the ADA, but racist for trump to do so is hypocrisy.