Rants and Raves

[LoveARub69]

Does anyone believe that had the Republicans not suffered 3 embarrassing defeats during the last election that they'd have passed this controversial set of voting laws?. Most of Which negate laws that the Republicans passed in 2008.

[Sgt Lurker]

It's less about the water and more about making the process time-consuming and unpleasant enough to get people to give up and go home in the less-nice (black / ethnic / poor) areas of town.
For instance: I live in an upper-class area of town. There are three voting precincts within two miles of me. There was no line when I went, it took all of 5 minutes. I didn't think about bringing snacks, water, or anything. Just stopped by, voted, and left. Probably 15-20 voting machines inside.
I also accompanied two friends to vote. One in East Point, one in Norcross, both poorer and more diverse areas. Waiting times were well over an hour. No shade for people to wait in. Lines wrapped around the buildings (church and library), but there were only 3 voting machines at each location.
Signature matching, on the other hand, is a whole different ballgame. I know I don't have a consistent signature. I rarely have to sign shit. If someone were supposed to verify my signature against my drivers license? My vote would 100% be thrown out. As would everyone else without a practiced, consistent signature. Think about the kinds of people who have one, think about the kinds of people who don't.
Either way, we're still only seeing 50% turnout for elections. The question should be how can we get more voters, rather than how can we add extra steps to the process. Something something taxation without representation. Because the IRS misses NOBODY.

The state is not responsible for long lines most of the time. That is the responsibility of the County Election Officials the same ones who can be relieved by the state if they consistently have issues. The one exception in my 21 years of voting in GA was last year's primaries with the new machines and I do not who exactly to blame. Many places were having issues getting the machines to recognize the DLs and it turns out they were not trained correctly. When word came down to place the DLs upside down and they worked, my poll Mgr stated that this was contrary to their training.

[Sgt Lurker]

Just to be clear, the bill does not forbid anyone from providing food and water, it only forbids them from doing it on behalf of a candidate or party. If democrats love people that much they can go and give out all the water etc. they want, they just can't say where it comes from or who is paying for it, they won't though because they won't get credit for doing it because they can't attach their brand to it.

No one, but no one, can distribute food or water within the 150 foot (or whatever that limit is) rule but can do so before that point and can set up a stand outside that limit. The intent was to prevent campaigning but that was not specified. But realistically, if it is hot and a long line and you told the person behind you that you going to get water and offer to bring them a bottle, would the person behind not let them back in?

[Airmantroy]

Just to be clear, the bill does not forbid anyone from providing food and water, it only forbids them from doing it on behalf of a candidate or party. If democrats love people that much they can go and give out all the water etc. they want, they just can't say where it comes from or who is paying for it, they won't though because they won't get credit for doing it because they can't attach their brand to it.

To clarify the whole water deal.

The law forbids water and food distribution within 150 ft of the polls, which I will have to guess they mean the door to the building. If you can't stand in a line for 150 ft for the short amount of time it'd take to push a straight democratic ticket, you might need to go ahead and order a casket. Personally I don't care how hot it is outside, how thirsty I may be at the time, no bottle of water or pack of crackers is going to sway my vote. There's so much misinformation going around about this bill that unless you actually sit down and spend 30-45 minutes reading it, you have no idea what is factual. My personal opinion is, if you think it's racist then try explaining why I can't walk onto a plane with a bottle of liquid that wasn't purchased after I had to provide ID to get past the TSA checkpoint. This new law affects every voter, regardless of party. No suspected fraud will "be tossed out" by anyone without a thorough review by a bi-partisan committee of state officials. It's not 100% in the hands of some republican committee.

[Aaron Hamlet]

Signature matching, on the other hand, is a whole different ballgame. I know I don't have a consistent signature. I rarely have to sign shit. If someone were supposed to verify my signature against my drivers license? My vote would 100% be thrown out. As would everyone else without a practiced, consistent signature. Think about the kinds of people who have one, think about the kinds of people who don't.

'Think about the kinds of people who have one, think about the kinds of people who don't.' Ok. Been thinking about it. Which 'kinds' of people do and which don't?


New law does away w / signature matching. You don't even have to know last 4 of SSN, 'they can provide one of several alternative forms of identification, such as a copy of a utility bill, bank statement or government check. '.

Good woke virtue signaling tho, dude.

[HobbyMan51]

It's less about the water and more about making the process time-consuming and unpleasant enough to get people to give up and go home in the less-nice (black / ethnic / poor) areas of town.

For instance: I live in an upper-class area of town. There are three voting precincts within two miles of me. There was no line when I went, it took all of 5 minutes. I didn't think about bringing snacks, water, or anything. Just stopped by, voted, and left. Probably 15-20 voting machines inside.

I also accompanied two friends to vote. One in East Point, one in Norcross, both poorer and more diverse areas. Waiting times were well over an hour. No shade for people to wait in. Lines wrapped around the buildings (church and library), but there were only 3 voting machines at each location.

Signature matching, on the other hand, is a whole different ballgame. I know I don't have a consistent signature. I rarely have to sign shit. If someone were supposed to verify my signature against my drivers license? My vote would 100% be thrown out. As would everyone else without a practiced, consistent signature. Think about the kinds of people who have one, think about the kinds of people who don't.

If you wish to see the devil behind every Bush and tree then that is what you will see. You act like only white people have to wait for five minutes under shady trees to vote. I'm a white guy who waited in line for up to two hours in the last two elections along with the other ethnic representations. In fact, there were a lot of white people standing in line as well. Of course we were all outraged that no one from the slave class came to hold palm fronds over our white heads to shield us from the boiling sun overhead. In November and January no less. You say we are only seeing 50% turnout for elections. Where did you get that figure? Seems quite low to me. Blacks are voting in record numbers and yet somehow they are being suppressed and prevented from voting? Think about the people out there (Stacy Abrams, for example) who are using people like you to advocate voter fraud. She is all about that, by the way. Can the system be improved? Yes, of course, and it always should be to include as many people as possible, but the one thing that should never be compromised is the rule of identification. Get rid of that and you might as well not have elections anymore, which is part of the woke plan, by the way. I don't know why you don't know how to sign your name anymore but it is becoming clearer to me why cursive writing skills are being abandoned as part of the educational process. Fits right in with Fat Stacy and her mob's agenda. Create chaos, divide, and then conquer.

[Vx333]

The voters may also bring a bottle of water with them along with a snack. The polling stations are also allowed to provide water fountains. If that still doesn't work you can step out of line (get someone to hold your spot) and purchase a bottle of water and a snack. Scratching my head as to how the water bottle is a lightening rod for racism. For the absentee ballot they now require a form of I D. OK, pick from five choices one of which is to write down the last 4 digits of your SS#. Is this voter suppression? I guess so but it does apply to all races. The do nothing alternative is to rely on "Signature Matches". I think a some form of I D is an extremely low hurdle for any registered voter to cross to vote absentee.

It's less about the water and more about making the process time-consuming and unpleasant enough to get people to give up and go home in the less-nice (black / ethnic / poor) areas of town.

For instance: I live in an upper-class area of town. There are three voting precincts within two miles of me. There was no line when I went, it took all of 5 minutes. I didn't think about bringing snacks, water, or anything. Just stopped by, voted, and left. Probably 15-20 voting machines inside.

I also accompanied two friends to vote. One in East Point, one in Norcross, both poorer and more diverse areas. Waiting times were well over an hour. No shade for people to wait in. Lines wrapped around the buildings (church and library), but there were only 3 voting machines at each location.

Signature matching, on the other hand, is a whole different ballgame. I know I don't have a consistent signature. I rarely have to sign shit. If someone were supposed to verify my signature against my drivers license? My vote would 100% be thrown out. As would everyone else without a practiced, consistent signature. Think about the kinds of people who have one, think about the kinds of people who don't.

Either way, we're still only seeing 50% turnout for elections. The question should be how can we get more voters, rather than how can we add extra steps to the process. Something something taxation without representation. Because the IRS misses NOBODY.

[Member #7133]

Just to be clear, the bill does not forbid anyone from providing food and water, it only forbids them from doing it on behalf of a candidate or party. If democrats love people that much they can go and give out all the water etc. they want, they just can't say where it comes from or who is paying for it, they won't though because they won't get credit for doing it because they can't attach their brand to it.

The voters may also bring a bottle of water with them along with a snack. The polling stations are also allowed to provide water fountains. If that still doesn't work you can step out of line (get someone to hold your spot) and purchase a bottle of water and a snack. Scratching my head as to how the water bottle is a lightening rod for racism. For the absentee ballot they now require a form of I D. OK, pick from five choices one of which is to write down the last 4 digits of your SS#. Is this voter suppression? I guess so but it does apply to all races. The do nothing alternative is to rely on "Signature Matches". I think a some form of I D is an extremely low hurdle for any registered voter to cross to vote absentee.

[TooHotForYou]

Oldti, mamasans and one of the girls gofundme accounts are a hair under $100 k each. Fight that asian hate racism and donate to push all over 100 k.

That is awesome. Hopefully the money goes to a good cause.

[Aaron Hamlet]

Oldti, mamasans and one of the girls gofundme accounts are a hair under $100 k each. Fight that asian hate racism and donate to push all over 100 k.

[SkyWookie]

So this bill does not allow for food and water to be provided in voting lines, and requires identification for absentee voting. But exactly how does this bill discriminate based on race? It's possible for any US citizen to obtain proper identification. It seems to me a bit racist to assume minorities aren't able to vote based on these "regulations. ".

Just to be clear, the bill does not forbid anyone from providing food and water, it only forbids them from doing it on behalf of a candidate or party. If democrats love people that much they can go and give out all the water etc. they want, they just can't say where it comes from or who is paying for it, they won't though because they won't get credit for doing it because they can't attach their brand to it.

[Sgt Lurker]

The bill itself isn't intrinsically racist. The *problem*, if history is any guide, will be in the application and enforcement of the bill. Now, I'm a chess player, so I see this in terms of structuring an endgame: You create a bill which basically would make it harder to vote. There's little argument there: if you reduce ballot drop boxes, require IDs even for mailed in or dropped ballots, and reduce the possibility of comfort in the event of a long line, that makes it harder to vote. Period.

It's harder for *everyone*, black, white, or green. But then we start monkeying around with the polls themselves. We understaff them. We have machines which don't work. And so on. We create a scenario in which *lines get long*, and THEN the provisions of the law kick in, but we make sure *those long lines happen in districts where we don't want people to vote*. That's the set-up.

Yes, the law applies equally to everyone, WHEN IT APPLIES. If we apply it unequally, though, we can create the effect we want even when the law is "fair". So, to wit, the "we" in our argument (Republicans), being able to *cause long waits*, make sure those happen in majority-black districts. Equal law, but unequal application: THAT is what makes it "racist".O.

Many Blacks are outraged at the assumption they are too stupid to follow these changes.

Add to that, why is it only liberal black leaders are speaking out? If it was truly a racist issue, wouldn't black leaders from both sides of the aisle speak out? Once again, the conservative black leaders are angry that that the other side think they are either too stupid or incapable.

[Sgt Lurker]

Nothing in the bill closes polling places nor addresses purging. In GA, if you have not voted in the past X elections, they send letters to the address on file 2 or 3 times, all you have to do is sign and return it to stay on the rolls.

Without even bringing up that it's a "solution" to a problem that has never, ever been proven to exist, it's because then, like in Texas and Alabama, they close the licensing offices and poll locations in the predominantly poor and minority areas making it much more difficult for those folks to "qualify" to vote and in fact vote but what's "racist about that. " Then some people say "you just need an I'd how is that racist?" But then you show up to vote, with your I'd that you had to drive three hours one way to get and you find that somebody has "purged" you from the voter rolls and you're no longer registered to vote but hey what's racist about that, if you didn't vote in the last election you should have to re-register even though they didn't do that in the white neighborhoods and in fact you were not informed that you had been removed from the voter rolls, you just can't vote because you have been deregistered.

In every single state, without exception, Republican anti fraud voter initiatives disproportionately effect poor and minorities, without exception that's why it's racist.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-court-ruling

What in the fuck is the issue with passing out water?

[Niteluvr]

Seriously, some of you guys are pretty fucking dumb, the US has no national I'd card and they could be prohibited by the 4th amendment it's never been tested, and are you really saying that Mexico, which has one of the most corrupt governments in the world, which was in a fact a single party country for 71 years (the IRP) is ahead of the US in fair elections?

Do you guys get drunk and just spew this nonsense?

It's your inability to read and comprehend what's in front of your face that's the issue here. He never said we had a national identification card, just that identification is needed to purchase certain items or to vote. And that, of course, could be a simple driver's license.

Are you drunk?

[Niteluvr]

The bill itself isn't intrinsically racist.

The *problem*, if history is any guide, will be in the application and enforcement of the bill.

Now, I'm a chess player, so I see this in terms of structuring an endgame:

You create a bill which basically would make it harder to vote. There's little argument there: if you reduce ballot drop boxes, require IDs even for mailed in or dropped ballots, and reduce the possibility of comfort in the event of a long line, that makes it harder to vote. Period.

It's harder for *everyone*, black, white, or green.

But then we start monkeying around with the polls themselves. We understaff them. We have machines which don't work. And so on. We create a scenario in which *lines get long*, and THEN the provisions of the law kick in, but we make sure *those long lines happen in districts where we don't want people to vote*. That's the set-up.

Yes, the law applies equally to everyone, WHEN IT APPLIES. If we apply it unequally, though, we can create the effect we want even when the law is "fair".

So, to wit, the "we" in our argument (Republicans), being able to *cause long waits*, make sure those happen in majority-black districts. Equal law, but unequal application: THAT is what makes it "racist".

O.

Reminds me of the movie, "Free State of Jones. ".