Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 20
I know this will be hard for most to believe, but the Bezos' toy Washington Post actually broke ranks with their owner and made critical statements about Biiden....if you can believe that. In fact, the WP gave Biden 4...count em....FOUR Pinocchios, meaning Biden lie-like-a-dawg regarding his claims he made about the recently passed Georgia voter law.

Lie #1
Biden said: “Among the outrageous parts of this new state law, it ends voting hours early so working people can’t cast their vote after their shift is over.”

Truth: On Election Day in Georgia, polling places are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and if you are in line by 7 p.m., you are allowed to cast your ballot. Nothing in the new law changes those rules.

Lie #2: "(Georgia) passed a law saying you can't provide water for people standing in line while they're waiting to vote. You don't need anything else to know that this is nothing but punitive, designed to keep people from voting. You can't provide water for people about to vote? Give me a break."

Truth: The law says “no person shall solicit votes” by offering to give “money or gifts, including, but not limited to food and drink” to voters standing in line. This has always been part of the voting laws of Georgia.

But a footnote on page 71 of the bill says: "This Code section shall not be construed to prohibit a poll officer ... from making available self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote."

Lie #3: Georgia’s election reform will ‘restrict access’ to voting for minorities

Truth: With weekends now included, the new Georgia voting law actually extends the number of hours voting poles will be open and expands early voting access for most counties.

Lie #4: “What I’m worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is. It’s sick. It’s sick...it's Jim Crow 2.0 on steroids

Truth: This law expands voting hours and days and allows for absentee voting easily by following rules of time of registration and ballot pick-up. By requiring early voter registration and the issuance of a voter ID card, it adds integrity and security to the voting system, building confidence from the average Georgian. IOW, its easy to vote, but hard to cheat.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Glad to see the WP applying the criticism of politicians equally. Especially when it is deserved.

I have read the law, and I find a mixture of good improvement and and potentially restrictive action. I say potentially because it is in the implementation of these rules that the true test comes in.

I can buy both that this is a Kemp-lite bill that he had to pass to appease his base, but also the liberal outcry that this is impacting minority voters. It is not the law itself, but it is the implementation.

For example: The law now requires large polling places with long lines to take action if wait times surpass an hour at certain times during the day. Those massive polls with more than 2,000 voters and wait times longer than an hour would have to hire more staff, add more workers or split up the precinct after that election. Great idea reduce lines, but the law only states that you have do this after the fact. So when do you start, based on the last election or the next... details details

Similarly the voter ID is obviously far better than signature. But why not make it the voters Social Security Number, why make everyone go get an ID. SSN when combined with address for tracing, is unique, we all got one, fraud is easy to spot, no extra effort needed.

It can go both ways, but I have to agree that the water thing is a SQUIRREL. It only applies within 150ft of the polling place, step back, get a drink and go back in line.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I know this will be hard for most to believe, but unlike right wing propaganda organs, the Washington Post operates with journalistic integrity and supports the independence of its journalists.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
the Washington Post operates with journalistic integrity and supports the independence of its journalists.

Now, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
MLB will not play the All Star baseball game in Atlanta because of the Georgia voting laws. I will not be watching MLB this year or next or next. A pastime will not be a political movement. It is time to watch my collage baseball teams.

ChasHage
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
the Washington Post operates with journalistic integrity and supports the independence of its journalists.
---
Now, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day!


In other words, Biden was telling the truth? OK.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I will not be watching MLB this year or next or next

I just don't get it. What is the MLB and Coke trying to do? Shoo away viewers/consumers. Do they actually think their business models and revenue generation will be improved by attacking a state law that almost everyone except the hard-core progressive hard-core CNN worshipers agrees will improve voting security and integrity while improving access to all? According to Gallup, 80% of US citizens agree with Voter ID laws. I wonder what compels them to do what they are doing? And please, don't anyone tell me its due to their high moral integrity or some such crapola. If morality and ethics were important to Coke, they would have discontinued their high sugar beverages a long time ago.

Whatever the case, I am now boycotting MLB games and any products from Coke, to include the following:

Coca Cola
Sprite
Fanta
Dasanti
SmartWater
Minute Maid
Georgia Coffee
Simply drinks
Innocent drinks
Costa Coffee
Fuze Tea
Honest Tea
FairLife
power Ade
Vitamin Water
Gold Peak Tea
Schweppes
Appletiser
Toppo-Chico
Aquarius
Ades
Fresca
Barqs
Dogadan tea
Peace Tea

I'd just love to see their Revenue and CFFO per share gradually decline over the next several quarters.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<If morality and ethics were important to Coke, they would have discontinued their high sugar beverages a long time ago.>



Maybe their position is that since they sell so many of those same beverages in China that they are covertly poisoning our adversary in the name of democracy?!?



BG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Whatever the case, I am now boycotting MLB games and any products from Coke, to include the following:

Coca Cola
Sprite
Fanta
Dasanti
SmartWater
Minute Maid
Georgia Coffee
Simply drinks
Innocent drinks
Costa Coffee
Fuze Tea
Honest Tea
FairLife
power Ade
Vitamin Water
Gold Peak Tea
Schweppes
Appletiser
Toppo-Chico
Aquarius
Ades
Fresca
Barqs
Dogadan tea
Peace Tea


Cancel culture is the rage these days.

Oh, why not? I haven’t had a Coke in years, or any other soft drink, for that matter.

And I’ve never understood the attraction of bottled water, so Dasanti and Smart? Water don’t get my dollars.

I brew my own iced tea, so I don’t buy Fuze, Honest Tea, Gold Peak or Dogadan Tea. (I haven’t even heard of those last three teas)

On down the list- but I’m just a liberal who boycotts Coke by default, not design. They simply don’t have anything I need.

But if I was having company over and they liked softdrinks, I’d probably opt for a case of Coke and another of Fresca as a vote of support for their stance in Georgia, driven though it probably is by results gleaned from focus groups.

Whatever.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think it is naïve boycotting something as huge as Coke is going to make much of a financial difference to Coke or its employees. But it does impact the profile of the state of Georgia as a place to do business and that is more persuasive.

I'm also surprised at the lack of vision of Coke, in the business opportunity provided by this fiasco. To date all they have done is state that it is the governor not us, and we really disagree with his politics. What is needed is action and some creative branding. Get rid of those bland slogan labels: Monday, Tuesday ...... and go full on political.

Coke "Mail It In"
Coke "Freedom"
Coke "Check Me"
Coke "Count Me"
Coke "Fraud"
Coke "No Fraud"
Coke "DILLIGAS"

Even a new brand lines KOCH LITE, CLEAN COAK
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
It is not "Coke" per se. It is the dam stupid, up and coming youth whining and demanding their safe-spaces because they got up on the wrong side of a bed. Whaahhh-Booo-Hooo kiss our (place you exit orifice here) or else!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I am sorry, but I have not read what Coke is doing??? Do you have something on Coke that I might read. If they are going to go into politics then hello RC, or Pepsi. You know the store brand is not bad and less expensive.

ChasHage
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Personally, i prefer Dr. Pepper. That said, soda's have been off my shopping list for decades, now.

'Coke' opposes Georgia's voting laws. Coke has gone 'woke'.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/31/coca-cola-ceo-says-the-compa...

Thanks to the "Wayne's World Generation and their offspring the Sponge-Bob generation".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
What is the MLB and Coke trying to do?

Turns out that Delaware has far more restrictive voting laws than Georgia does:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyDydQYWYAMAure?format=jpg&n...

Only The Woke could take a major event from a diverse community and move it to a white suburban area.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Turns out that Delaware has far more restrictive voting laws than Georgia does:

Delaware, a usually democratic state, does have more restrictive voting laws and has had them for some time now. They have no early voting and and vote by mail is for good reason only. If it is guilty of anything it is the failure to move with the times, But the old adage: "If it ain't broke don't mess with it", may be closer to the truth!

The difference is that DE is not rushing through laws to address unfounded claims of voter fraud to further restrict legitimate voting. Now you could argue, that DE democrats were getting the desired outcome from their process so why change, which would be logical if you buy into the false narrative of massive vote fraud.

Unfortunately that argument does not hold as DE is considering proposals from 2020 that would, automatically register voters when getting their driver's license. Residents could also register on the same day as the election instead of having to do it at least a month beforehand. Residents could also vote by mail and wouldn't need an excuse to vote absentee, similar to the 2020 election during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, you could choose to interpret this as further securing their legacy if you want to maintain your delusion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Unfortunately that argument does not hold as DE is considering proposals from 2020 that would, automatically register voters when getting their driver's license. Residents could also register on the same day as the election instead of having to do it at least a month beforehand. Residents could also vote by mail and wouldn't need an excuse to vote absentee, similar to the 2020 election during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, you could choose to interpret this as further securing their legacy if you want to maintain your delusion. - BobsDonutz

----------------------

Speaking of delusions... You could choose to interpret the current Delaware rules as reasonable and working and not disenfranchising voters.

BTW, Colorado also has rules that are more restrictive than those proposed in Georgia. But it is a dem state so those rules are just fine since dems are prevailing anyway.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
The difference is that DE is not rushing through laws to address unfounded claims of voter fraud to further restrict legitimate voting.

That depends on how you define 'voter fraud', which usually involves 'proving' that someone or some mechanism INTENTIONALLY altered the actual vote count, and the proof is definitive. There was very little of the voting process found to be definitive voter fraud. To wit....

If the voter turn out rate for a voting district is 110%, that is not voter fraud.

If the ballot count for a district that has consistently voted 40% to 50% Republican suddenly is counted to have voted 10% Republican, that is not voter fraud

If the same individual is seen on camera dropping multiple ballots into a ballot box on multiple separate occasions, that is not voter fraud

If vote counters and their managers are all registered democrats and do not allow Republican or Libertarian co-counters with them while they are counting votes, that is not voter fraud

When an audit of 1,400 mail-in ballots in Nevada found that 2% were cast by voters who never actually received a ballot in the mail, and 1% were cast by voters who say they didn’t even vote, that is not voter fraud.

When ballots are mailed out to 234,000 names on the voting register who had either been shown to have moved out of their voting district or were dead, that is not voter fraud.

When city workers go door to door and offer to 'help' voters fill out their ballots and then mail them for them, that is not voter fraud.

When a vote counting machine can be controlled remotely by the manufacturer and so presumably by anyone with right access codes, that is not voter fraud

I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on....

The issue with the all mail-in ballot method is that without careful restrictions on the issuance and collection of vote-by-mail ballots and the use of manual or statistical sampling of machine vote totals, it becomes a method that can relatively easily be manipulated. IOW, its not what we know and can prove....its what is possible but that we don't know and cannot prove due to ballot anonymity that is the driver for voting restrictions and controls, as Georgia has done.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
IOW, its not what we know and can prove....its what is possible

You mean like aliens from Planet X taking over peoples bodies and forcing them against their will to act stupid. Very possible

You list a litany of conspiracies all of which are possible and for some the data exists to prove the issue one way or another. The problem with conspiracies' is that eventually they unravel and the truth comes to light. The poor people involved in a conspiracy the more likely it is that it will unravel.

We have seen countless examples of purported election fraud yet the majority of them has passed the sniff test when carefully examined. There have been the odd case here an there of fraud, mainly by individuals and quite consistent with past elections. At some point you have to drop that bone and go back to sniffing butts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Speaking of delusions... You could choose to interpret the current Delaware rules as reasonable and working and not disenfranchising voters.
BTW, Colorado also has rules that are more restrictive than those proposed in Georgia. But it is a dem state so those rules are just fine since dems are prevailing anyway.

I don't think DE voting laws are reasonable, but they need to expand access to match the times.
As I have said before, it is not the laws that are the problem, it is the implementation or those laws that potentially can potentially cause problems.

Personally I would like to seen countrywide mail in voting as the norm using a combination of SSN and address as voter identification. Easy to track, trace and identify fraud with no onus on the voter to do anything but vote. Couple that with certain and severe punishment for fraudsters and you're all set.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Turns out that Delaware has far more restrictive voting laws than Georgia does...Now, you could choose to interpret this as further securing their legacy if you want to maintain your delusion.

What delusion is that? I said that Delaware has far more restrictive voting laws than Georgia does. Anything other than that, like some specific action should be taken to correct that, is poor reading comprehension on your part.

What's germane to this discussion about MLB et. al. criticizing GA's voter laws is that they *should* be protesting Delaware if they wanted to actually be consistent. Now, who is a famous senator from DE?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Couple that with certain and severe punishment for fraudsters and you're all set. - BobsDonutz

------------------

All set? Perhaps on vote casting by real citizen is concerned, you still have to deal with the people and processes doing the counting. If they don't bother to check ssn's and addresses then what?

What about them allowing votes to be counted that were received after the legislated cut of date/time? What about them not allowing observers the access that is needed. What about election officials not keeping accurate records or sharing those records with other parties without a protracted court battle?

A lot of mischief can go on after the ballots are cast.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What's germane to this discussion about MLB et. al. criticizing GA's voter laws is that they *should* be protesting Delaware if they wanted to actually be consistent.

Why do they need to do that to be consistent?

There are quite a few states that haven't modernized their election laws. About a third of states, for example, still don't have 'no-excuse' absentee voting. There are still about a half dozen states that don't have any in-person early voting at all. These are conveniences that should be available to voters in any state, because they make voting more convenient without materially affecting the security of elections.

However, those states have not adopted regulations to roll back voting measures. The reason they don't have early voting or no-excuse absentee provisions is because of inertia. Most of those laws were adopted before those voting practices existed anywhere.

That's different than the recent Georgia bill, which critics claim was adopted in direct response to the overwhelming turnout in the 2020 elections. A bill that rolls back election access in order to discourage turnout can be odious and vile even if it doesn't roll back election access as far as other states.

The GOP would dispute that the Georgia bill was a response to higher turnout, and certainly that it was intended to suppress turnout, and would categorically deny that it was intended to reduce minority turnout. But that's a separate argument from whether other states have more restrictive laws.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
There are quite a few states that haven't modernized their election laws. About a third of states, for example, still don't have 'no-excuse' absentee voting - albaby

---------------

mail in voting is inherently less secure that in person face to face show your id to a real human voting. That said, you can still have no excuse absentee voting without mailing a ballot to every registered voter whether they ask for one or not, especially when the voter rolls are not purged.

You can still have no excuse absentee voting without mailing absentee ballots six months before the election.

You can still have no excuse absentee voting without allowing ballot harvesting.

You can still have no excuse absentee voting without allowing unattended drop boxes.

You can still have no excuse absentee voting without disregarding cutoff dates.

You can still have no excuse absentee voting without election workers "curing" errors or omissions made by voters.

There is room for lots of improvements that will make absentee voting more secure and less tempting to would be fraudsters. Most dems want none of it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
There is room for lots of improvements that will make absentee voting more secure and less tempting to would be fraudsters. Most dems want none of it.

That may be true, but isn't particularly germane to this topic. The Georgia bill originally included a proposal to eliminate no-excuse absentee voting altogether, and originally included the elimination of Sunday in-person early voting. The former goes well beyond the 'improvements' you list, and the latter (since it deals with in-person voting) is utterly unconnected with making elections more secure.

Including those measures in the initial bill got everyone spun up about it - and given how implausible it is that either were motivated as reasonable 'improvements' to make voting more secure rather than efforts to make it harder to vote, it certainly undercut arguments regarding the motivation of the other measures in the bill that survived to adoption. Since they started off there, they're not getting any benefit of the doubt that the more ostensibly neutral measures are motivated by desires to increase election security and not a desire to get fewer people voting.

I agree there's no earthly reason that absentee ballot requests should need to be open for six months prior to an election (my recollection is that even at 3 months Georgia will be the most permissive in the country). But there's also no election security reason why the bill initially targeted eliminating Sunday early voting. And since both of those things are true, Georgia's getting a deservedly harsh look at the motives behind the 'improvements' that were never deemed necessary until the GOP lost some statewide elections.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Turns out that Delaware has far more restrictive voting laws than Georgia does:

They move the game to Colorado...a state that requires voter ID.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
We watched voter fraud in Georgia with our very own eyes on video. They lied and stated they were shutting down the count due to a water main break. As soon as the observers left, out come the containers filled with phony Biden votes. Guess what, no water main break occured.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
you still have to deal with the people and processes doing the counting.

Sure you do, and I expect all poll workers to have some level of vetting and there to be an audit trail to prove that their count was accurate was fair. This seems to be the case in the last election.

You are never going to have a foolproof system because we keep coming up with better fools.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
You are never going to have a foolproof system because we keep coming up with better fools. - Bobsdonuts

-----------------

And we won't ever make even minimal progress when any idea that might close a loophole is met with accusations of racist motives and voter suppression.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And we won't ever make even minimal progress when any idea that might close a loophole is met with accusations of racist motives and voter suppression

Quite true.
Is it reasonable to assume that the purpose of any election reform should be to increase legal voter participation while minimizing the potential risks of election fraud?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's different than the recent Georgia bill, which critics claim was adopted in direct response to the overwhelming turnout in the 2020 elections. A bill that rolls back election access in order to discourage turnout can be odious and vile even if it doesn't roll back election access as far as other states.

The GOP would dispute that the Georgia bill was a response to higher turnout, and certainly that it was intended to suppress turnout, and would categorically deny that it was intended to reduce minority turnout. But that's a separate argument from whether other states have more restrictive laws.



What specific provisions roll back election access or suppress turnout?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What specific provisions roll back election access or suppress turnout?

The provisions that made it into the final bill are:

State cannot mail out absentee ballots to all voters
Reduces time to request absentee ballot
Adds ID requirements to absentee ballots
Reduces number of drop boxes
Mobile voting centers banned except by emergency permission of the governor
Bans provision of water to people waiting in line
Eliminates ability to cast provisional ballot if you show up at the wrong precinct
Makes it more onerous for third parties to send out absentee ballot requests


(this summary taken from Kevin Drum quoted here: https://jabberwocking.com/here-are-all-the-pros-and-cons-of-...)

As pointed out upthread, the bill's initial draft was far more draconian. Original provisions eliminated no-excuse absentee voting altogether and reduced in-person early voting - with the proposed restrictions on Sunday voting appearing to be particularly tailored to the "Souls to the Polls" efforts that are used by a lot of minority voters. That's a big reason why progressive groups came to the initial conclusion that the intent of this bill was always to try to drive down the voter participation that led to the GOP's losses in the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections, and that the worst parts of the bill only got stripped out because the national spotlight (and lack of justification for them) made them untenable.

But even with the broader restrictions stripped out of the bill, the remainder still has these provisions that will make it slightly harder (at the margins) to cast a ballot and presumably, therefore, suppress turnout somewhat.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Albaby:"But even with the broader restrictions stripped out of the bill, the remainder still has these provisions that will make it slightly harder (at the margins) to cast a ballot and presumably, therefore, suppress turnout somewhat."

And if you read the bill, you'd find 'no water or food' WITHIN 150 feet of the polling place. You're free to set up your food stand 'buy a vote' at 151 feet away. In addition, POLL WORKERS can provide water to those needing in within 150 feet of the polling place and there are drinking fountains that can be accessed.

However, that 'issue' was splashed all over the news.

In TX, no 'solicitations' closer than 200 feet to the polling place - or advertising signs or posters. However, as you pull into the parking lot, there's at least 50 large posters for you to see. Since most polling places are town facilities, no food stands in the town parking lots either.

If you look at CO, where they moved the all star game, they actually have someone shorter voting times, have MANDATORY voter ID rules.....

And what is really ironic....Atlanta is 51% black, 49% white population. It would be hard to find a major city as 'white' as Denver with 91% of the population white, and if you look hard, you'll find 9% black. How's that for 'racist' outcome? hmmm.... but 'it's not Atlanta'.

I hope half the population gives up Coke products. They suck as a company now. Keeled over with pressure....



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
And if you read the bill, you'd find 'no water or food' WITHIN 150 feet of the polling place. You're free to set up your food stand 'buy a vote' at 151 feet away.

No, you're not, because the limitation is not just active within 150 feet of the polling place. It also applies within 25 feet of any voter who is waiting in line:

"(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any
1873 person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give,
1874 or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and
1875 drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any
1876 person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables
1877 or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:
1878 (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is
1879 established;
1880 (2) Within any polling place; or
1881 (3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.


https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2021/...

So the bill now prohibits categorically what used to be permitted under the law: people handing out water bottles to voters in line so that the multi-hour waits that have predominated in dense urban voting precincts are not so onerous. Poll workers are also prohibited from doing that, BTW - they can no longer provide water to voters while the voters are in line.

The reason this issue was splashed all over the news is because it's so petty. There's no evidence that providing bottled water to voters who have to stand in line for hours to vote caused any problems in the last elections. It's just a measure that makes that wait more miserable, without any real-world justification. And since the hours-long lines were mostly in dense urban voting precincts, and not rural ones, folks are rightfully suspicious that the intent was to make voting a worse experience for the types of voters that are less likely to support GOP candidates.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Albaby:"Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place."

So, the person in line says 'watch my spot' and walks 26 feet to the food stand. or free water bottle give away with candidates name on the bottle. Duh!

Ridiculous argument, Albaby! ......

Plus, GA has more than 10 days of EARLY VOTING, and NO EXCUSE mail in ballots.... so maybe you need to kick a few butts to either vote early, use mail in ballots.....duh!

Here in TX, we have two weeks early voting, and after the first day, there are usually five people or less in line during the day.....and maybe 10 in the evening hours before the polls close.

With polls open to 7pm there, and opening at 7am, for early voting, I'm amazed you think you got 'hours long lines' at most polling places in GA. Really?

or did it just happen to be one, where CNN and MS-LSD set up their cameras.....?

Did it ever occur to you that people can actually stop at a 7-11 and buy a bottle of water before getting to the poll, or bring one from home?





t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What's even more amazing.....

THERE IS NO EARLY VOTING In MI, NY, CT.....

Where are the liberal progressive whiners on that? GA has 10+ days of early voting. Those states have NONE. Not one - guaranteeing long lines, and I'll be there are no food stands or water give away places in NYC, or CT or MI.......

Hmmm.......

Worse, most of those states do not have 'NO EXCUSE' mail in ballots - where anyone can request a mail in ballot for any reason.

where is Albaby when you need him?

t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Did it ever occur to you that people can actually stop at a 7-11 and buy a bottle of water before getting to the poll, or bring one from home?

Of course. And then if the line ends up being 4 hours instead of the 2 hours you expected, you might need/want a second one.

And there's no reason to prohibit it. That's the key. There's at least an argument to be made that imposing new restrictions on absentee balloting is a result of balancing election security with the convenience of voters. But keeping people from handing out water to folks who are in line for hours? There's no problem they're trying to solve. It's just a thing that happens in dense urban voting precincts that makes waiting in line for hours less horrible.

It's mean and petty and pointless, and since these lines are pretty much only in dense urban precincts the legislators had to know who it was going to affect most.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
where is Albaby when you need him?

They should have in-person early voting. There's no reason why they shouldn't. And I think every state should have no-excuse absentee balloting.

But we can be fairly confident that the absence of early and no-excuse absentee voting is not the result of deliberate action by the legislature. Those election laws have been on the books for many decades. While they're certainly dragging their feet moving into modern election practices, they are not taking affirmative measures to try to make voting less convenient in their states than it is already. While the former is bad, the latter is vile and odious.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Thanks to the "Wayne's World Generation and their offspring the Sponge-Bob generation".



+++
+++


A Crime Against HUMANITY deserves "Thanks"?


I think NOT!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thanks to the "Wayne's World Generation and their offspring the Sponge-Bob generation".

I forgot to mention the "Beavis & Butthead" generation, Wayne's-World generations younger siblings.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
<There is room for lots of improvements that will make absentee voting more secure and less tempting to would be fraudsters. Most dems want none of it.>



At their core, democrats who adamantly oppose voter ID laws are bigots. They continually practice the bigotry of low expectations. IOW, their go to assumption is that minority voters are simply incapable of obtaining an ID on their own.

I the face of this noise and craziness, I have heard a number of minority voices on tv say that they do not know any other minority person who does not possess multiple forms of ID. In many cases one needs to produce a valid ID multiple times on a daily basis. In the course of any given year, the average person probably produces an ID hundreds or even thousands of times for dozens and dozens of different functions.

For me to get my various discounts at the grocery store I have to produce an ID that I applied for and was issued by the store. Many employees need to scan their IDs multiple times a day in order to enter the facility they work in. When I have my car inspected I need to produce my license, registration and insurance card, three forms of ID that all require you verify you are who you say you are. But somehow voting is not important enough to do that.

For the Georgia voting law, one can produce IDs from many common sources including a drivers license, a pay stub or a utility bill to identify themselves as a real person. It isn't burdensome at all.

I have previously mentioned a pretty simple idea called friction. Scott Adams often speaks about it being a core concept. If one wants less of a particular behavior, you put more friction into the process. If one wants more of a behavior your reduce or eliminate the friction. A bank has lots of money in the building. They also have bullet proof windows and laws that prosecute those who set out to rob the bank. They also require forms of ID to verify that they are giving cash to the correct person.

Another simple illustration of this can be seen in all the rioting, looting and physical violence that took place in many American cities last spring, summer and fall. There are laws with severe penalties for those violent actions. The participants saw that there were no penalties handed out for these crimes. In fact many of the mayors and others in power actively encouraged the behavior. This led to much more of the behavior as all friction had been removed from the process.

As you and others have pointed out there are countless ways that one may manipulate the rules to their advantage by eliminating many controls that were there to assure the integrity of the process.

Again, a root cause of so many of our problems is having a dishonest media that is so blatantly biased in what they report and do not report that one should not believe their weather reports without verifying it by looking out the door yourself. That is not going to be fixed any time soon.



BG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
At their core, democrats who adamantly oppose voter ID laws are bigots. They continually practice the bigotry of low expectations. IOW, their go to assumption is that minority voters are simply incapable of obtaining an ID on their own.

Republicans who are unhappy with Republican voter laws that resulted in Democrats winning elections, are now overturning those Republican laws to make it harder for minorities to vote, and Democrats are bigots because they oppose making it harder for minorities to vote?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This cartoon pretty much sums it up:

https://ibb.co/GVPYc9P
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Democrats are bigots because they oppose making it harder for minorities to vote? - Feedme

---------------

It is a racist attitude to assume that minorities are less capable of obtaining an ID or correctly filling out a mail in ballot and returning it by the due date.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
It is a racist attitude to assume that minorities are less capable of obtaining an ID or correctly filling out a mail in ballot and returning it by the due date.

It's racist to pass laws making it harder for minorities to vote. ID requires documentation, which takes money, and poor people are more likely to be minorities. Documentation like birth certificates can be harder for minorities to obtain because it was stored separately from whites' documents, or not stored at all. You know all this, but you're pretending otherwise.

And of course, you tried to overthrow the government after you lost the White House, the Senate, and the House.

Maybe you could try changing your policies so that they appealed to the majority of Americans.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
From NBC

The New Georgia Project and the Black Voters Matter Fund, said that (Georgia voter law) will "disproportionately affect voters who are elderly, indigent, or from minority communities."

How about elderly, indigent or from non-minority communities?

Is this to mean the non-minority communities are somehow more intelligent and better able to comprehend what is required to obtain a voter ID card? I have no data to back this, but something tells me the minority communities have absolutely no difficulty obtaining a EBT Electronic Benefit Transfer Card (food stamps).

Why don't we just call this what it really is. Liberals and socialist progressives want to create a voter system that provides the greatest opportunity to cheat. Couple this with the steady stream of messaging thru their media lap dogs that the members of the "communities of color' are victims of white privilege and so cheating/stealing/looting/lying are fully justified.

I can't imagine what this country will look like in 50 years if this kind of thinking were to prevail.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Is this to mean the non-minority communities are somehow more intelligent and better able to comprehend what is required to obtain a voter ID card?


It means they can likely better afford it, and the records are more likely to actually exist, because birth certificates for whites were often stored separately from non-whites and with better care and accuracy, as a matter of policy set by whites.

Liberals and socialist progressives want to create a voter system that provides the greatest opportunity to cheat.

Conservatives want to bring back Jim Crow and poll tax.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Liberals and socialist progressives want to create a voter system that provides the greatest opportunity to cheat.

Voters in general want a system where ALL eligible voters are able to exercise their rights
The only ones trying to change the voter rules seem to be Republican States, this in the face of NO proven election fraud. (And that is a generous statement)

So it seems to me that Given that the only ones who "want to create a voter system that provides the greatest opportunity to cheat", are the Republican States.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Voters in general want a system where ALL eligible voters are able to exercise their rights - bobsdonuts

--------------

Eligibility without identification!?? How does that work?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Eligibility without identification!?? How does that work?

The existing process seems to be working fine.
Consider the world wide instances of election fraud and you find that it is generally the owners of the process who are the ones most likely to commit fraud, the general intent being to maintain the status quo. Individual voters committing fraud are rare, but they happen. Systemic fraud among voters is possible, but by its nature obvious to all.

Rather than focusing on what could go wrong, look at what did go wrong and fix those problems first. The 2020 election had lots of problems from misinformation, external influence, law suits and riots, but fraudulent voting was not one of them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Voters in general want a system where ALL eligible voters are able to exercise their rights - bobsdonuts

Actually, they want a system where - with a low error rate - ALL AND ONLY eligible voters are able to exercise the right to vote, and EXACTLY ONCE EACH per election.

After all, if a city of with a million legitimate voters has 1.5 million fraudulent votes, it really doesn't matter whether any of the voters were allowed to vote or not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"Voters in general want a system where ALL eligible voters are able to exercise their rights"

Yes, and 'eligible voters' are determined by knowing who is who (identification). Otherwise, you'd have 'ineligible voters' possibly voting (likely) with no controls.

In TX, you need to register to vote - the county keeps records - and if you vote, it is marked as 'voted'. You don't get to vote somewhere else, too. Just about everyone is 'registered' to vote. There are big 'registration events' months and weeks before elections.

And no, we don't let 'box collection' of ballots. Seems there's always 'spare boxes of votes' found when needed to force an election 'their way'.

We have state run designated drop off points for 'late ballots' up till midnight if you are eligible to vote by absentee ballot- and the polls stay open till dark here - and that after two weeks of early voting 7-7pm 7 days a week.

GA about the same. "No excuse' mail in ballots. For 'eligible' voters. Your term. Early voting....which many liberal states DON"T HAVE including half of new England....and other major dem bastions.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Otherwise, you'd have 'ineligible voters' possibly voting (likely) with no controls.

Change that likely to unlikely until you have found one or two
TX does not have "No excuse mail in ballots"

I got a voter ID card a couple of weeks after I filled in my drivers license paperwork. I didn't realize I had registered to vote and serve on jury duty as well, but there you go. The only problem was that I was not a citizen at the time! Being a good alien I corrected the problem and reregistered once I became a citizen. For some unknown reason I seem to be permanently exempt from Jury Duty. I choose not to fix this.. Just an example of how the good state of TX manages things. Voter fraud should be the least of your worries.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
For some unknown reason I seem to be permanently exempt from Jury Duty.

Talk about Jury Duty. I use to get Jury Duty summons every three years and within a short period of time my wife would get one and then the youngest son who still lived in our county would get his. For some reason every time I went to Jury Duty I would get chosen/selected. Bad luck I guess.

Not sure of the age but I think once you turn 65 you can use your age as an exemption. Man I jumped all over it as I felt enough is enough. I've done my civic duty "BUT" for some reason I got a summons when I turned 65, 70 and 75. Had to call to get my name removed so I wouldn't get hauled to jail but they keep sending Jury Duty summons.

Life in the big city I guess.

Regards,

ImAGolfer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Not sure of the age but I think once you turn 65 you can use your age as an exemption. Man I jumped all over it as I felt enough is enough. I've done my civic duty "BUT" for some reason I got a summons when I turned 65, 70 and 75. Had to call to get my name removed so I wouldn't get hauled to jail but they keep sending Jury Duty summons."

************************************************************************************

The age varies by state as I understand. I believe the age is 70 in South Carolina.
You may also be exempted by doctor's affidavit as well.

Howie52
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I got a voter ID card a couple of weeks after I filled in my drivers license paperwork. I didn't realize I had registered to vote and serve on jury duty as well, but there you go. The only problem was that I was not a citizen at the time! Being a good alien I corrected the problem and reregistered once I became a citizen. For some unknown reason I seem to be permanently exempt from Jury Duty. I choose not to fix this.. Just an example of how the good state of TX manages things. "

Just renewed my Driver License. Had to do it 'in person' this year - every now and then, and I guess for seniors at some point, you gotta show up, pass vision test. Also needed to do Real ID bit.

On the form, to get a Real ID - required by TX by fall 2021, you need to provide your city of birth, your parents names, and show a birth certificate or valid passport. They prefer the birth certificate. Obviously that tells them if you are a citizen.

There's also a box to check 'register to vote' on the form. However, when you sign the form, and a 'notary' notarizes the signature - the clerk - you would be lying if you are not eligible to 'register to vote' and you checked the box. Did you check that box?

Registering to vote also gets you on the jury duty list - but if you are over 75, you can opt out - they'll never call you for a jury, either - if you do show up for jury duty.

with the COVID restrictions in place, it's a hassle doing the renewal bit now.....limited capacity and long waits/lines at places around major cities. No fun. They gotta take your pic, get your signature and now get your two thumbprints.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
On the form, to get a Real ID - required by TX by fall 2021, you need to provide your city of birth, your parents names, and show a birth certificate or valid passport. They prefer the birth certificate. Obviously that tells them if you are a citizen

First license was in CT 35 years ago. Had been in the country two weeks and urgently needed a license for my job (They never asked they just assumed). Took six driving lessons (minimum package) in two days. Turned up to the DMV after a heavy snowfall, ploughs had been trough but curb was a snow bank. Got in car with inspector, when to end of the street, waited five minutes as a funeral procession made its way through, the center of town, before exceling a 3 pointer and parking in front of DMV. PASS

Moved to TX 10 years later. Needed a TX license, all they wanted was my CT license and a confirmed address (utility bill etc) and a form filling in. No idea if there was a check box for voter registration. When I tried to deregister, I was given conflicting information. One being that I should keep my registration as I was allowed to vote in certain local elections, but States and Government elections were a big no no. Chose safety mainly because I did not care about local elections. Later found out the "No taxation without representation" was bull, but it quickly ended doorstep conversations with political types.

25years of living in TX has shown me that the State eventually gets things to work but there is a lot of pain and chaos in implementation of the simplest changes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"First license was in CT 35 years ago. "

My first license was in NJ at age 17 - the earliest you could get it IF you had driver ed in high school. A couple week course, 10 hours on the road, plus 20 hours supervised driving with family member in car - plus vision check and a state run driver test/driver course. Had to parallel park (which existed there all over NJ).

After college, moved to IL and got DL there - just swapped licenses. Moved to VA and same deal - or maybe had to get pic taken? FOrget - simple.

31 years ago, moved to TX. Pic on drivers license but just swap license to get TX one.

Of course, you've got to register car every state you move, get insurance in new state, etc.

You don't have to have Real ID, but if you want to hop a plane (I have no travel plans any time soon and haven't been on plane in 8 years I think), you can do without it. If you don't have it, you've got to show valid passport to get on a domestic flight.

Still recovering from yesterday.

At least, car registration/inspection is a simple thing in TX. Take to any of state approved inspection stations - and they are all over. Wait typically 15-20 minutes. They hook up to car computer on newer ones, read off the emissions data, check horn, lights, brakes, shading on windows, windshield, etc, look under hood for modifications to smog system, and that's it. Quick and easy. Older cars they stick probe in exhaust.

Some states are horror stories. I remember my mom in FL - stare run system and you had to drive 20 miles from her house to get there - lines - and worse, from what I hear, is Wash DC with hours of lines. People pay others to take their car through inspection - $100 or $200 for sitting in line for a couple hours getting a car inspected.

Some states you don't even need inspections - South Dakota?

If you buy a new car in TX - two years till first inspection - then annually.....

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
TX inspection is not always a cinch.
Took son #1s car to three places in Lubbock, would not pass it because they said the after market window tint was too dark. Did they measure it.. nope, did it matter that it has passed inspection three times in the past with the tint... nope. Did it matter that it was a muscle car, white, after market rims painted white and gold, legal radar detector, amped up stereo with bone shaking bass and generally looked like a stereotypical pimp mobile..... possibly. Yes I too question his taste!

Got back to Houston, 5 minutes at Jiffy Lube PASSED.

He routinely was stopped by the local cops who said that there was something wrong with his break lights. When specifically asked, "What is it sir and I will immediately get it fixed", they could never be specific other than they look funny. Standard vehicle issue, no after market mods.... Profiling? maybe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Voters in general want a system where ALL eligible voters are able to exercise their rights

I've never met anyone who does not want that. You're simply stating the obvious.

What voters DO NOT WANT is a corrupt system of voter cheating, ballot harvesting, ballot exclusion, multiple voting from a single person nor ballot box stuffing.

Voting is not a right, it is a civic responsibility that the voter may or may not elect to exercise. Voting system integrity is more important than access to voting, whatever the Democrats might say.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Voting system integrity is more important than access to voting, whatever the Democrats might say.

They are both equally important, no matter what you think.
Fixing known problems is the common sense place to start. This principle is obvious to most in their every day life, but seems to be lost on todays republican party, who's focus on the sensational gives cover to self serving actions. Things like Dr Seuss potentially corrupting children, gender identity misuse of bathroom, election fraud.... tilting at windmills.
Print the post Back To Top