She's essentially there to help with getting non-citizens to vote in local elections, which is a completely legal thing to do. None of those people are able to vote in federal elections, so it's comical seeing people absolutely freak tf out that our country is devolving into anarchy.
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
-31 points (15.6% liked)
Progressive Politics, Gun Control, Single Payer Healthcare and Free Abortions for All!
589 readers
1 users here now
We like leftists and liberals.
We want to ban all guns.
We want free healthcare.
We want UBI.
We don't mind being taxed.
We want to give everyone a free abortion!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 41 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
which is a completely legal thing to do.
Which is the entire fucking problem.
A lot of these people are legal residents, pay taxes, and are just as interested as you or I in our schools, environment, and public safety. Many of these local laws and policies affect them directly. By allowing them the ability to vote in local, non-federal elections, it gives them a voice and helps to prevent discriminatory and xenophobic policies that can directly affect these people.
It's also interesting to note that a lot of these people would love to become full citizens, but its a massive time and monetary investment that many of them can't always afford to go through. So why treat them as sub-human? Why view their ability to have a voice as being "the entire problem"? What is it do you think they are able to do that is so bad by voting in these local elections?
[deleted]
That's the way it already is. As far as I'm aware, there are no states that permit non-citizens to vote for State House, State Senate, State attorney, Governor, or any federal position (House, Senate, or President).
So it's really weird to see people freaking out about it (you should check out the news site comments section - apparently she's evil incarnate, the root of all of our problems, and here to destroy everything that we hold sanctimonious in our country.
You do realize that its not a good thing that non-citizens vote, right?
Noncitizens aren’t totally barred from voting in San Francisco. In 2016, after multiple attempts in previous years to pass a similar measure, voters approved Proposition N, which allowed San Francisco noncitizens to vote in school board elections if they had a child who went to school in the district.
What's wrong with voting in school board elections?
[deleted]
Not sure why you're down voted for this. It's a good opinion to have, and it's what everyone agrees on from what I can tell.
I think the discomfort with this situation comes from very foundational conservative thinking. It is a tenent of conservatism that a well ordered and correct society should resemble a pyramid: there should be a few people with wealth, privilege and power (political and otherwise) at the top, supported by a broad base of people with less wealth and less power at the bottom. Including noncitizens in voting upsets this hierarchical model, where outsiders oughtn't have any political clout at all.
But there's another element of conservative ideology that is violated by including noncitizens in the electoral process. It is zero-sum thinking that posits any gain for one group results in a loss to another. So handing out rights and and opportunities for political participation will diminish the the rights and opportunities for the rest of us.
As a leftist, I can understand this reasoning and see that it is a functional way of organizing and dealing with people and situations, as long as you are ok with the consequences of of the hierarchal model. I feel that the advantages of such an approach are far outweighed by the disadvantages. It is, at it's core, antidémocratic. I personally don't think it's worth it to accept those consequences, nor do I think zero-sum applies well to issues like rights or matters of common good.
[deleted]
Well either you're not familiar with the regressive underpinnings of modern social conservatism or you want to deny it for some reason, but either way it doesn't make me wrong.
[deleted]
So for those of you reading along at home this is where wintermute tries to hijack the conversation off the rails into some far off-topic tangent by demanding I teach him about the origins of modern conservatism by going all the way back to Edmund Burke, but no matter what I put forth he's going to probably not read it and say it's not valid or "just as I thought, made up garbage" and act like he has somehow invalidated my whole explanation of why people don't want noncitizens on an elections commission.
So then yeah sure maybe I'm wrong about the whole thing. But why then, why is it a problem that a noncitizen is on an election commission? Why would someone be upset with that, or noncitizens voting in local elections? Either because they are against democracy and don't believe in voting or for some other mysterious reason. No reason is given. Maybe I'm right and it's because social stratification is seen as the natural order of things based on individual choices, and to give political power to outsiders is seen as unnatural and disruptive social engineering leading to anarchy and chaos. That's pretty much what Joseph de Maistre said but hey I'm not here to teach history or connect dots for people who just want to argue.
So, I know where you're coming from because I've read stuff by Edmund Burke and other conservatives. But, unless the conservative you're talking with is the intellectual type, they probably haven't. They've probably just internalized some version of social conservatism but would also be appalled that you'd accuse them of supporting social stratification even as they support it.
I learned some time ago that this particular argumentative strategy is incredibly pointless. They don't care that you know the historical and philosophical foundation of their beliefs. For them, that foundation isn't there for them. They probably don't know it! Their life experiences inform them more than anything else.
They don't care that you know the historical and philosophical foundation of their beliefs. For them, that foundation isn't there for them. They probably don't know it!
Hold on, this came back into my mind and I'm not sure how to interpret it. It seems like, someone who feels that they hold an opinion but can't really say why they do, can't point to some principle upon which the opinion rests, nor articulate any deeply held beliefs that would direct their thinking to come to such and such a conclusion- that person (and I am not directing this at any particular individual), that hypothetical person seems like a dumbass. Am I totally misunderstanding what is being said here?
Yeah thanks man. I don't really expect to convince anybody here who is already been programed into a republican aparatchik. I am mostly posting for anyone reading this stuff who may be swayed by dumb arguments but can be pulled back from the brink by reason.
I'm also using these posts as a way of clarifying and organizing my own thoughts. What do I think about things? Why do I think this or that? It can be useful to have somethi g to react to, and examine my own reactions.
Seconded
It was the exact same for me back when I argued about religion. But, a decent portion of it is also just for entertainment.
Right now my girlfriend is in the ER with me, and I don't have much else to do. Arguing on here passes the time rather quickly.
In the ER? Hope everbody's ok.
She has a number of chronic illnesses. All in all its a pretty normal day as unfortunate as that is. She will be ok, but it's still spooky.
She is on medicaid. So when the conservatives around here say stupid shit like "i don'T wANt To pAy FOr SOmEbody ELse's CARE. they sHoULD Get a JOb AnD pull ThEMSeLves UP By tHeIr BOoTSTrApS" it hits closer to home. They effectively want my girlfriend dead.
Screaming my head off around here about it is slightly better than screaming into the void over their attempts to kill social services.
Ive been thinking about this comment.
Its true that I dont know the history or foundation of being pro-guns/pro-2a/etc but I do know the history of disarmed populations.
Theres also the stat that college educated people are more likely to be left wing.
I wonder if conservative idea are more naturally evolving than progressive ideas.
In other words, left wing ideas are instructed but right wing ideas are not.
Its funny to put conservative and evolving together in the same sentence. First, because a lot of religious conservatives don't believe in evolution. Secondly, "evolution" implies change and innovation, and conservatism, in the traditionalist sense, has the attitude that change for the sake of change is generally not a good idea. Russell Kirk, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk probably one of the most influential thinkers in American conservativism, said that two of the most important concepts are:
"A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence."
Right wing ideas are very much instructed in schools and in churches. I went to one of those schools and one of those churches. Right wing ideas are also instructed via tv channels, websites and think-tanks, paid for by those who want to promote those ideas, although I realize that's not what you mean by instructed in the school sense. Prager U isn't a school but it does right wing instruction.
It may seem like these ideas arise naturally and organically in the minds of free thinking people, but political ideologies -left or right- don't spontaneously appear out of nothing. If you have opinions but can't point to where they come from other than "its just right" then your thinking has been influenced without you knowing it. And that's not a good thing for anyone.
[deleted]
Well I don't know how you figure. Some would say that to accept evolution is to deny the Bible, which amounts to denial of God. It also seems like to be "not religious" is by definition anti-religion, because if you were not against some aspect of traditional American society then you'd be a part of it. If you grew up with it, then at some point there was a rejection.
So you made it up. Got it.
[deleted]
There is a belief anyone can climb as hard as they are willing to work.
An objectively false belief. The American dream has been dead for decades.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brookings-institute/
Democrats are more about a pyramid shape where you have the rich ruling class, a small middle class and a large group of poor people who depend on the government.
Tell me you don't understand anything about the left without telling me.
There are certainly oligarch owned democrats who are in favor of a rich ruling class (with that said, republicans are far worse about this).
And then there are the progressives, the actual leftists that begrudgingly vote democrat, and want to see an end to the ruling class and dependence on the state.
It is a tenent of conservatism that a well ordered and correct society should resemble a pyramid: there should be a few people with wealth, privilege and power (political and otherwise) at the top, supported by a broad base of people with less wealth and less power at the bottom.
Wtf are you talking about? Where did you hear that?
It's like you guys are unaware of the ideological assumptions that color all of your opinions. Is it shocking to hear that social conservatives believe in hierarchy? Is it surprising to be told that religious conservatives believe there is an overarching authority to which all of humanity, and all of nature is subject? Is it news to you that inequality is seen as inevitable, and this is why liberal ideas about forcing equality on everyone are seen as foolish?
Why then is there any objection to feminism? Why the opposition to DEI programs? Whats wrong with migrant refugees getting US government assistance and why did Ronald Reagan complain about "welfare queens"? What is the problem some people have with young men becoming young women? Is there not some philosophical thread that connects these things as wrong or bad or out of order? It's because they all seem to violate deeply held assumptions about social order.
If you've never heard of Edmund Burke (called by many the father of modern conservatism) you should absolutely read up on him. He definately makes a case for heirarchy. I'm sure you have heard of Jordan Peterson who tries to claim that hierarchy is part of the natural order by famously pointing to lobsters. Peterson is less of a political thinker, but an alt-right hero I suppose, who dresses up conservative christian talking points with academic sounding language.
Anyway I feel like I made my case, debate it or not I don't care. it seems super funny to me that I am called on to justify a connection between conservatism and hierarchy. It's like if I said "water is so important to fish" and immediately wintermute is like " what? I literally never heard a fish say anything about water you are making that up you got a cite forr that?"
Is it shocking to hear that social conservatives believe in hierarchy?
Seeing as Im a conservative and dont believe that, yes.
Edmund Burke
And there it is. You read some book and youve confirmation biased yourself.
Hmm yes maybe that's what happened. My daddy did say book learnin don't come to no damn good.
Then wtf happened? You have these absurd takes that make no sense.
Come on, man. We felt that whoosh over on the east coast.