Well the water thing certainly isnt about ID's, but the most troubling part to me is that it it removes who runs the elections. Now instead of the SOS, the legislature, will be the runs actually running the elections. The only reason for this change is because they blamed the SOS for not overturning the election. There is no other reason to make this change.
Georgia Antivoting Law
- Thread starter fried-chicken
- Start date
Well the water thing certainly isnt about ID's, but the most troubling part to me is that it it removes who runs the elections. Now instead of the SOS, the legislature, will be the runs actually running the elections. The only reason for this change is because they blamed the SOS for not overturning the election. There is no other reason to make this change.
No. They have to be open until AT LEAST 5pm. It isn't a restriction.
Such as what? And you are telling me it is just a coincidence that they made this change immediately after blaming the SOS for not "finding" more votes for Trump? It isnt a coincidence.
Such as 3 years ago when the SOS, the man in charge of elections, ran for governor. If Trump was in charge of the presidential election last year wouldn't you have some questions about the validity of the vote totals?
That is a different conversation. In that case you are talking about a conflict of interest. If that is all this is about then they could have just made a law that a sitting SOS can't over see an election that he is also a candidate in, which the vast majority of the time would not be an issue.
Just FYI: The Washington Post admitted to "misquoting" Trump.
CORRECTION
Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump’s December phone call with the state’s top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to “find the fraud” or say she would be “a national hero” if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find “dishonesty” there. He also told her that she had “the most important job in the country right now.” A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump.
There was more than 1 call. This call was to an investigator. He also called the SOS directly.
Ok. Just passing along the information. Obviously, you just want to ignore it, because it doesn't help your "argument". Its ok. Happens all the time in politics.
That’s not true. I know you won’t believe me, but the link below shows where the Washington Post (not exactly a conservative outlet) rated that claim from Biden with 4 Pinocchios (which means it’s absolutely 100% not true.)
Care to admit you’re wrong, or do you want to just deflect?
You are talking about a call to an investigator. He also called the SOS directly. The Wapo correction is not about the call directly to the SOS. It isnt about ignoring anything, it is about pointing out that there was more than 1 call. If anyone is ignoring anything, it is you ignoring the call to the SOS.
Read the actual verbiage of that section. All it does is prevent campaigning organizations from giving gifts (including food and drink) within 150 ft of the actual polling location, or 25 feet from the line of voters.
Poll workers will still be allowed to set up water stations and pass out water. If this is what you’re upset about, it’s extremely nitpicky.
I'm not ignoring anything. I was just pointing out a correction that many haven't seen or chose to ignore. Simple as that.
Please return to your regularly scheduled partisan bickering.
I have seen that correction. It doesnt change the phone call to the SOS where the audio was all over the news.
So it isn't implicitly bad that the SOS is no longer the top election official, you just feel like it's a response to the Trump phone call. If the SOS had ended up finding 10,000 bad ballots would you have the same opinion on this?
It just seems to me like a partisan elected official being in charge of elections might not be anymore advantageous than having an appointed official do the job. Either way I can't see how this is a form of voter suppression.
I cant answer that because it would depend. If it seemed they were legit ballots then no I wouldnt have had an issue with it. If it seems they either threw out other ballots without reason or something like that, then yes I would have an issue with it.
But they arent moving from partisan elected officials. The new officials will be handpicked by the legislature which is predominantly Republican. This is a solution seeking a problem and it isnt a coincidence. If you think it is about Kemp running for governor as SOS, then why wasnt this enacted earlier? He took office in January of 2019. The reality is that if Trump had won Georgia, this change would not have taken place. I have zero doubt about that.
THe crux of what is essentially happening, is that the GOP is basically a dying party, or at least a severely hurting party. Bush Sr and jr are the only two Republicans to win the popular vote since Reagan, and they each just did it once, which should tell people how the nation as a whole looks at the GOP. But instead of changing some of their views to attract more voters, they are changing the rules of elections. The election in Georgia was ran based on regulations the Republicans put in place, but since they lost, they have now decided those rules and regulations aren't good for the party. At some point Republicans need to become a more modern party and attract more voters, or in the not to distance future they are going to find themselves essentially powerless.
Well we can speculate all we want as to what the reasons behind this bill are, but what's the point of that beyond just wanting to bicker about politics? I just don't see anything in this bill that will suppress voter turnout and by most accounts it will probably increase it.
It could increase it, but it wouldnt be because of the bill itself. It would be because of peoples reaction to the bill.
Then by definition it can't be a voter suppression bill. If more people go out and vote, it clearly didn't keep people from voting.
I get your point but I dont necessarily agree with that. You can try and suppress the vote, that doesnt necessarily mean you will be successful. If the intent of a bill is to suppress the vote, then I would still consider a voter suppression bill.
Well at the very least we can probably agree that this isn't Jim Crow on steroids.
IT isnt exactly like Jim Crow, but I also dont think it is a coincidence that the places Republicans claimed had all of this unfounded fraud were mostly places with large African American populations. And these new laws are only being put in place because of the fraud, that nobody has been able to find. There is certainly a tie in with this and with African Americans voting.
If you agree the contents and outcome of a bill won’t suppress the vote, and the writers of the bill say the intent is not to suppress the vote, is it still a voter suppression bill?
I dont know if it will suppress the vote or not, we will have to wait and see how that turns out. I dont care about what the writers say the bill is for, I care about the actual bill.
I might be wrong, but I don't remember a lot of Georgia's elected officials coming out saying that the election was stolen from Trump. I know there were a few but probably not enough that could craft a voter suppression law due to it.
It only has to do with Trump in so much that Trump made it an issue. What it has to do with the is fact the Democrats just won 3 statewide elections, and Republicans feel like they might be losing their stronghold on the state. You might disagree and that is fine, but to me this is nothing more than a state seeing its political Demographics changing, they are trying to do what they can to preserve their power. And this is where I think Republicans are going to hurt themselves. Instead of changing rules change some policies to attract different voters. Politics is an ever evolving thing, and I dont think Republicans at this point in time are evolving to modern times.
If you buy tickets now they will probably just be on your phone, because its 2021.
It isnt over my head. You can buy and transfer tickets online now, and you dont need an ID to do it. Bars arent checking anything other than your age. But, what is over your head, is this bill isnt just about ID's.
I’ve never had to show an ID to buy a ticket or enter a venue with said ticket. WTF is this clown on about?
Back in the day i would for will call, but I cant remember doing that in years. Someone will just digitally transferr the ticket, and the people will scan my phone. I dont get his point with that at all. Just like a flight, I used to print out a boarding pass, now I just download it to my phone.
He’s a grade A moron. Nobody has to show an ID to purchase or receive a ticket to an event or to enter that event. At will call the person will ask you your name because...shockingly...the ticket is held by a name and not being purchased at that point.
Did you even read mine? I never intimated anything remotely close to that, bud.
I have attended many many events in my life without presenting an ID. In fact I can’t recall ever presenting one to attend a concert or football game or something unless for age verification to purchase alcohol. I’d call this “surviving in life” just fine. I guess I never needed to get tickets from a non point of sale area of the specific venue you want me to google. But somehow survived. I can’t remember showing my ID ever for at least the past year (I voted by fraud...err...mail in balloting).
The standard closing time is 5pm. They can opt to stay open later but the state could have made it 6 or 7 or 8 if they wanted people to have access since they restricted mail in options.
I may have had to provide an ID for my job many years ago. Don’t remember if it was a drivers license or social security card and haven’t had a use for one recently. Opened my checking account 20 years ago. I don’t need to present an ID to maintain it and it’s constantly used. Yes years back I may have had to present an ID in person for one off verification of something one time to start up but it is not something that is requested continuously beyond that.
And why does this part of the law exist. What "voters fraud" happens with free water?
Not all polling places need to be open at all for the entire early voting period. Why force poll workers to stay there for longer hours if nobody is showing up?
And how did they restrict mail-in options?
Latest posts
-
-
-
UCF fb -2.5 pt favorite over WVU (opening line on DraftKings)- Latest: hemightbejeremy
-
