Rants and Raves

[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. ".

[Ozymandias]

Please explain exactly what is racist about this bill?

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.

[CrestWood87]

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?

The point I was attempting to make was that proper identification is required in many aspects of daily life. To require I'd to vote is not racist "in my opinion" I would think that everyone would be in favor of only legally eligible citizens casting votes. As for Mexico my statement was made as extreme sarcasm. While we have no federal I'd card each state has some form of I'd for residents. Oh not drunk here just trying to get caught up on over due paperwork.

[Admin2]

Here in Georgia you need a I'd to purchase a gun buy alcohol even check out a library book. I'd is also required to rent a car buy a plane ticket "I wonder if Delta is going to change that?" Receive services such as cable, electricity, water ect but it's the I'd to vote that is racist.

Mexico which is a third world country has a national voter I'd law you cannot vote in any Mexican election without an I'd issued by the federal government. Seems to me like they do outclass us in one area.

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?

[Admin2]

The bill allows a voter to have food or water. What it does not allow a supporter of a candidate to pass out food or water, on the Behalf of a Candidate to voters in line to vote How is that racist? It Requires one to produce a picture ID to prove one is a legally registered voter. How is that Racisit?

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?

[HobbyMan51]

The bill allows a voter to have food or water. What it does not allow a supporter of a candidate to pass out food or water, on the Behalf of a Candidate to voters in line to vote How is that racist? It Requires one to produce a picture ID to prove one is a legally registered voter. How is that Racisit?

Obviously. This is yet another example of Fat Stacy and her buddy, boney-assed Biden and his group of ******, creating chaos in order to achieve election fraud. Screaming "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire would be a felony. This is the same thing only this time the word is "racist" instead of "fire". The movement figured out a long time ago that screaming "racist" at everything they didn't like produced results. People, mostly white people, would run like ass-scalded monkeys to avoid being called a racist. I remember an old story about a boy who cried wolf one too many times when there was no wolf. His entire flock of sheep was eventually massacred by the wolves when people stopped listening to his lie. Those old stories tend to predict real outcomes. This one will too.

[Niteluvr]

The bill allows a voter to have food or water. What it does not allow a supporter of a candidate to pass out food or water, on the Behalf of a Candidate to voters in line to vote How is that racist? It Requires one to produce a picture ID to prove one is a legally registered voter. How is that Racisit?

I just read most of that bill but can't download it here due to space limitations. One could argue that it's racist in intent but that's about it and very superficial. The fallout is that big money allowed themselves to bow down to those who don't like it. Nobody has any balls anymore.