Please include any references to Democratic gerrymandering. As for your claim "Democrats say that requiring an ID to vote disenfranchises minorities." Here is the data on that; https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet tldr; Blacks of voting age - 25% lack government ID (or documents that support getting govt ID) vs Whites of voting age - 8% lack government ID
Is not being in possession of an ID a legal requirement? How is it one group is somehow able to more reliably acquire an ID over another? Should those who are unwilling or incapable of completing a simple task have a say in the political direction our country takes? Try again.
First of all, you can't just say "since 25% of blacks lack a government ID, they are being disenfranchised". Maybe they don't care about voting, and if they did, they'd go get an ID. Just because someone doesn't have an ID doesn't mean they want to vote, and if they don't want to vote, they aren't disenfranchised. Some people don't have a driver's license. Does that mean they are being disenfranchised from driving? No, it just means they don't own a car and there's no need for one. They don't care. As for my claim, can you please quote the whole text and not just the part you are trying to attack? Democrats say that requiring an ID to vote disenfranchises minorities. But they have no problem with all the other things that require an ID disenfranchising minorities (assuming it even does, which I don't agree with). For example, can you link me to where you, or other democrats, get upset when the airlines or TSA require an ID to fly on a plane? How about to open a bank account? What about to get food stamps (SNAP)? Alcohol? I mean, if we're going to discuss how people are disenfranchised from a lack of ID, surely you should be up in arms over all that. Why just voting?
I don't have citizenship in Russia. Wife does. We also both have US citizenship, and I have citizenship in a Western European country. Since I don't believe you are asking through honest curiosity, but instead looking to set up your next trolling attempt, that's all I'll give out.
I don't think they would answer the question directly honestly.Some do answer it honestly indirectly imo
Ok, maybe. But again, this is an example of where I don't entirely support the removal of all "confederacy" statues either. And that doesn't mean I support the confederacy as much as I support remembering history and what built the United States. Various generals of the confederate army were notable historical figures and known for other things as well.
I think once you take part in killing 500,000 + US troops any good you may have done is irrelevant. Hitler and Nazis are part of what built modern day Germany but they don't allow Hitler monuments and I would guess that there are fewer Germans that want Hitler statues than republicans that want Confederacy statues. Personally I find The Confederacy just as evil as The Nazis
What about the revolutionary war? You support the militia attacking British soldiers? Or was that just like killing "US Troops"? After all, killing His Majesty's soldiers was just as bad, right? Just as rebel. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". What matters is the cause, not the action. Many who fought against the Union thought they were in the right, and it wasn't just about slavery. It was about the Union telling them how to live. Just like the colonists fighting King George. You can consider the Confederacy as evil as the Nazis if you want, though I personally believe that to be ridiculously hyperbolic. But there's a lot of subjectivity in that. Comparing them to Hitler is really over the top, in my opinion.
The colonists were in fact treasonous traiters. Don't see how killing and enslaving millions of blacks is any less evil than killing Jews.