Voter Suppression

[Gil Bang 25,894]

Fuck yeah. Lyft till I die.

 

 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

On 10/21/2018 at 9:55 AM, MixtyMotions said:

The GOP's best voter suppression tactic in states with large Black populations is not to run a candidate in Black districts against Black nominees.  For example, in Houston, do not put up a GOP candidate against Sheila Jackson Lee.

The Dems try to motivate voters by hollering racism.  Just take that card away.  Sheila Jackson Lee will win anyway.  But if the GOP runs a candidate against her the Dems will run through the Black neighborhoods asserting some mortal threat by White people against Blacks, and the need to ge defend Sheila and the threat to Blacks.

If a candidate has opposition they campaign more than if they are unopposed.  All candidates do this.  If a candidate like Sheila Jackson Lee has no personal reason to campaign, she'll campaign a lot less.  It will affect voter turnout in her district.  Voters who would come to vote for her, and then vote straight Dem while they're there, don't come.  That affects candidates like O'Rourke.

One year I worked to support a candidate for a minority district in the state House.  He had been a football star in the community (and played at Michigan) and was active in local politics.  Promoting him drove up turnout in that district and probably cost us a key countywide race.

Another good voter suppression technique is to push an issue which splits the Dem electorate, forcing a candidate either to choose or wimp out.  For years the gay marriage thing worked.  It was popular with the true Left but not with Catholics, minorities or Billy Bob - all big Dem constituencies.

Yeah, you're a shitty person who knows all the best ways to suppress minority voters.  We got that already.  I think you have it backwards on districts like SJL's though. She never really has to campaign even with a GOP opponent on the ballot.  Its up to O'Rourke, or another statewide candidate, to drive out the vote there, and they should focus GOTV efforts on those type of districts.  To an extent, its also up to SJL (or similarly situated Reps) to GOTV even when they have little chance of losing.

My district is similar.  The Dem primary even resulted in a million page thread here.  Since then, there has been almost zero evidence of campaigning, or that the general election is coming up.

Edited October 23, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,831]

As I posted earlier, the lady and I went to vote yesterday and she was wearing a Beto shirt. She was asked to cover it in order to stay in the polling place (there's more detail, but that's the gist)

My understanding was that SCOTUS struck down this provision earlier this year. Does anyone have any clarity on this? Is this article true?:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2018-elections/2018/10/22/think-want-wear-beto-orourke-ted-cruz-shirt-polls-think-again-illegal?fbclid=IwAR3c3rZafwkUksX_YEca1MN96vZTeu5C7shmVuHbq4lEmWa2SV9hV3jXTlI

Edited October 23, 2018 by Longhorn_Fan68

[bernorange 8,348]

Someone already posted a link to a LA Times article in response to your same question in another thread.  SCOTUS ruled that Minnesota's law was too broad - covering any speech that was issue related and not candidate related.  It did not strike down all electioneering laws.  Your DMN article is correct.

[Huckleberry 32,694]

Hmm. So the woman I mentioned yesterday in the GOP shirt was committing a crime. Interesting.

[Chad Fuck 17,548]

9 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Hmm. So the woman I mentioned yesterday in the GOP shirt was committing a crime. Interesting.

Depends on where she was in relation to the front door.  Most election sites I've seen have a limit demarcated.  It's easily seen, because there will be a shitload of campaign signs just in front of it.

[HenryJames 65,884]

18 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Hmm. So the woman I mentioned yesterday in the GOP shirt was committing a crime. Interesting.

Talking to you is punishment enough.

[Brisketexan 104,537]

The Economist on Kemp - and really, on the entire GOP strategy, which is patently unamerican:

“And he has warned Republicans that Democrats are “registering all these minority voters that are out there and others that are sitting on the sidelines, if they can do that, they can win these elections in November”.
Read that sentence again. Mr Kemp all but admits that he cannot win an election if every eligible voter votes. A major-party candidate for governor sees registering voters not as a fundamentally American and essential activity, but as a partisan threat. “

Your party of the flag and anthem and shit, people.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,831]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

The Economist on Kemp - and really, on the entire GOP strategy, which is patently unamerican:

“And he has warned Republicans that Democrats are “registering all these minority voters that are out there and others that are sitting on the sidelines, if they can do that, they can win these elections in November”.
Read that sentence again. Mr Kemp all but admits that he cannot win an election if every eligible voter votes. A major-party candidate for governor sees registering voters not as a fundamentally American and essential activity, but as a partisan threat. “

Your party of the flag and anthem and shit people.

FIFY

[GSU&UT 1,798]

52 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The Economist on Kemp - and really, on the entire GOP strategy, which is patently unamerican:

“And he has warned Republicans that Democrats are “registering all these minority voters that are out there and others that are sitting on the sidelines, if they can do that, they can win these elections in November”.
Read that sentence again. Mr Kemp all but admits that he cannot win an election if every eligible voter votes. A major-party candidate for governor sees registering voters not as a fundamentally American and essential activity, but as a partisan threat. “

Your party of the flag and anthem and shit, people.

I mean this isn't shocking or going to hurt him at all, but we all know these pieces of shit can't win if every citizen of 18 voted.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brian-kemp-leaked-audio-georgia-voting-745711/

[wildcat09 29,213]

27 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I mean this isn't shocking or going to hurt him at all, but we all know these pieces of shit can't win if every citizen of 18 voted.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brian-kemp-leaked-audio-georgia-voting-745711/

I'm really hoping this isn't the Abrams camp's planned October surprise, because there's no way it remotely moves the needle with any white voters on the fence. At this point, white voters on the fence are those who are more supportive of Dem policy objectives but sympathize with the "racial anxieties" of the right, who are scared that they're no longer the majority. Kemp stating that they're no longer the majority isn't going to make him look worse in their eyes, that's the whole reason they're considering voting for him.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I'm really hoping this isn't the Abrams camp's planned October surprise, because there's no way it remotely moves the needle with any white voters on the fence. At this point, white voters on the fence are those who are more supportive of Dem policy objectives but sympathize with the "racial anxieties" of the right, who are scared that they're no longer the majority. Kemp stating that they're no longer the majority isn't going to make him look worse in their eyes, that's the whole reason they're considering voting for him.

Whatever they reveal won't matter at this point anyways. We're in our second week of early in-person voting, I bet less than one one-hundredth of a percent are undecided at this point.

[gmr548 16,481]

The Economist on Kemp - and really, on the entire GOP strategy, which is patently unamerican:

“And he has warned Republicans that Democrats are “registering all these minority voters that are out there and others that are sitting on the sidelines, if they can do that, they can win these elections in November”.
Read that sentence again. Mr Kemp all but admits that he cannot win an election if every eligible voter votes. A major-party candidate for governor sees registering voters not as a fundamentally American and essential activity, but as a partisan threat. “

Your party of the flag and anthem and shit, people.

No one voting GOP at this point can read The Economist. Not even the cover.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Bruh Man 3,160]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The Economist on Kemp - and really, on the entire GOP strategy, which is patently unamerican:

“And he has warned Republicans that Democrats are “registering all these minority voters that are out there and others that are sitting on the sidelines, if they can do that, they can win these elections in November”.
Read that sentence again. Mr Kemp all but admits that he cannot win an election if every eligible voter votes. A major-party candidate for governor sees registering voters not as a fundamentally American and essential activity, but as a partisan threat. “

Your party of the flag and anthem and shit, people.

How the FUCK is this not on every news channel? And how the FUCK do Republicans defend this? I swear to God this country is going backwards to a dark time.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

31 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

How the FUCK is this not on every news channel? And how the FUCK do Republicans defend this? I swear to God this country is going backwards to a dark time.

(We never left that dark time.)

[Js1 85,085]

1 hour ago, Bruh Man said:

How the FUCK is this not on every news channel? And how the FUCK do Republicans defend this? I swear to God this country is going backwards to a dark time.

"Well, Brian Kemp is preventing all those caravan Mexicans and Muslims from voting in the Georgia election via absentee ballots."

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

 

[Guest]

More like BOR-O-WITZ!!!

[Message Board User 12,389]

 

[bolverk 29,394]

How in any way is this moral...AT ALL!

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

39 minutes ago, bolverk said:

How in any way is this moral...AT ALL!

Are you unfamiliar with any of this? Dude's a politician. Why would you expect anything different? Hillary took nine figure checks from Russian government proxies and still got the Democratic nomination for President. 

Edited October 24, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[elfenix 34,169]

 

 

Are you unfamiliar with any of this? Dude's a politician. Why would you expect anything different? Hillary took nine figure checks from Russian government proxies and still got the Democratic nomination for President. 

 

Bless your heart

[bolverk 29,394]

5 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Are you unfamiliar with any of this? Dude's a politician. Why would you expect anything different? Hillary took nine figure checks from Russian government proxies and still got the Democratic nomination for President. 

Are you unfamiliar with the legendary Rev from TOS? That was her famous exclamation from the old mugshot thread.

[Buzzrock 14,870]

The Economist on Kemp - and really, on the entire GOP strategy, which is patently unamerican:

“And he has warned Republicans that Democrats are “registering all these minority voters that are out there and others that are sitting on the sidelines, if they can do that, they can win these elections in November”.
Read that sentence again. Mr Kemp all but admits that he cannot win an election if every eligible voter votes. A major-party candidate for governor sees registering voters not as a fundamentally American and essential activity, but as a partisan threat. “

Your party of the flag and anthem and shit, people.

You left out the worrisome irony that it is his current office who is registering all these people to vote.

[SubliminalHorn 6,672]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

Are you unfamiliar with any of this? Dude's a politician. Why would you expect anything different? Hillary took nine figure checks from Russian government proxies and still got the Democratic nomination for President. 

Jfc 

[triplehorn 2,664]

8 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

How the FUCK is this not on every news channel? And how the FUCK do Republicans defend this? I swear to God this country is going backwards to a dark time.

This is slow motion GOP stealing an election

and this same old shit is still getting worked in GA:

 

Georgia NAACP files complaints alleging voting machines incorrectly registered votes

"WASHINGTON — The Georgia NAACP filed complaints Tuesday with state election officials alleging that some voting machines mistakenly showed votes cast for Democrat Stacy Abrams registering for her opponent Republican Brian Kemp.

The state conference of the NAACP filed the complaints electronically with the Georgia Secretary of State Office saying some voting machines in two counties, including Bartow and Dodge, didn’t initially register the correct votes.

"We’ve experienced this before," said Phyllis Blake, president of the Georgia NAACP. “They ended up taking these old dilapidated machines out of service. The ones giving the problems. They should have been replaced about 10 years ago."

[...]

Grimes said she went to a polling site in Bartow County Thursday and tried to select Abrams, but the machine marked the box for Kemp. Grimes said she tried several times to clear the selection before it allowed her to vote for Abrams.

“I was not going to leave until everything was the way I wanted it,’’ recalled Grimes, adding she also paid close attention to other selections. “If I had not been focused, my vote would have went for him.”

 

------>  Note that you don't hear anyone complaining the outdated unsecured machines mistakenly recorded a vote for Abrams instead of Kemp.  

[Catdaddyhorn 3,444]

10 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm really hoping this isn't the Abrams camp's planned October surprise, because there's no way it remotely moves the needle with any white voters on the fence. At this point, white voters on the fence are those who are more supportive of Dem policy objectives but sympathize with the "racial anxieties" of the right, who are scared that they're no longer the majority. Kemp stating that they're no longer the majority isn't going to make him look worse in their eyes, that's the whole reason they're considering voting for him.

Let's be honest here, the notion that white majorities are somehow in jeopardy of going the way of the Dodo bird are fallacious. A healthy % of Hispanics are white hispanics. In the 50s, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and many hispanics  who were white in everything except their surname were considered just that, white. It was only after the migrant/immigration policies of the 70s & 80s and our clumsy political reaction to it that all that changed. Suddenly, any and everyone who spoke spanish, regardless of their race got lumped into the same group. In another 20 years the supposed hispanic threat that will somehow render whites a non-majority will be squelched in much the same way the Italians, Irish, Polish, and a whole bunch of other people of European descent instantly became white in the 40s and 50s after WWII.  

[Guest]

LOLz.  Scorekeeper's nightmare...  Not the right kind of minority.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,144]

7 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

I have to imagine it won't be his decision to make if it comes to this.  If no one stands up and lets this go through then yeah... there should be serious riots in the streets over it.

[lemonlime 5,503]

5 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I have to imagine it won't be his decision to make if it comes to this.  If no one stands up and lets this go through then yeah... there should be serious riots in the streets over it.

Who is going to stop him?  The other Georgia state officials who are currently helping Kemp suppress the vote?

[Fudge Nuggets 19,144]

2 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Who is going to stop him?  The other Georgia state officials who are currently helping Kemp suppress the vote?

The Supreme Court... oh wait, never mind.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,406]

I’m pretty much a Democrat voter but I don’t fully disagree with Voter ID laws.  In theory, I don’t see a problem with asking someone to identify themselves.  

However there is one area of voting that the Voter ID advocates seem to completely disregard and it’s an area that I guarantee has the most fraud:  mail-in ballots.

There is zero verification that the ballot was received and completed by the actual registrant.  Zero.  I recently assisted an older relative with his ballot by bringing the mail to him, and then mailing the ballot back.  I could have easily filled out the ballot how I wanted to and not him. 

Of course I think I understand why Voter ID advocates don’t want to touch this issue. 

1. There isn’t really a good solution for someone to validate their identity over the mail. 
2. At least in Texas, you can get a mail-in ballot for a variety of reasons but the main one is being 65+.   No one wants to disenfranchise old people so we deal with potential fraud.

Many worry about Juan the Honduran illegal immigrant voting in-person but it’s more likely that John the grandson is voting on with his grandparent’s mail-in ballot.  Harris county already has 54K mail-in ballots for this election.  Do we all really believe that all 54K were filled out by the actual voter, or at their direction?

[Huckleberry 32,694]

Yep, mail ballots are ripe for abuse. But that's okay, we don't need retired white people to verify their identity.

[Celery Man 20,881]

I’m pretty much a Democrat voter but I don’t fully disagree with Voter ID laws.  In theory, I don’t see a problem with asking someone to identify themselves.  
However there is one area of voting that the Voter ID advocates seem to completely disregard and it’s an area that I guarantee has the most fraud:  mail-in ballots.
There is zero verification that the ballot was received and completed by the actual registrant.  Zero.  I recently assisted an older relative with his ballot by bringing the mail to him, and then mailing the ballot back.  I could have easily filled out the ballot how I wanted to and not him. 
Of course I think I understand why Voter ID advocates don’t want to touch this issue. 

1. There isn’t really a good solution for someone to validate their identity over the mail. 
2. At least in Texas, you can get a mail-in ballot for a variety of reasons but the main one is being 65+.   No one wants to disenfranchise old people so we deal with potential fraud.

Many worry about Juan the Honduran illegal immigrant voting in-person but it’s more likely that John the grandson is voting on with his grandparent’s mail-in ballot.  Harris county already has 54K mail-in ballots for this election.  Do we all really believe that all 54K were filled out by the actual voter, or at their direction?

The reason they don’t want to touch the issue is because it isn’t related to the problem they are trying to fix.

[triplehorn 2,664]

18 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yep, mail ballots are ripe for abuse. But that's okay, we don't need retired white people to verify their identity.

We use mail in ballots with built in safeguards: The ballot is mailed to a registered voter’s address.  Voter registration involves having a copy of your signature on file.  The mail in ballot has an envelope within an envelope with the inner envelope bearing your signature.  Forgery/fraud is able to be scrutinized with a tangible paper trail with unique personal identifiers.  The logistics of perpetrating a significant fraud are essentially nil.  

Electronic paperless voting machines ?  Not so much.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

24 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yep, mail ballots are ripe for abuse. But that's okay, we don't need retired white people to verify their identity.

It wouldn't be hard to get one, but when I submitted my application for my absentee ballot I had to provide my DL number.

 

Also, this was reported in 2016 as well in the same counties. Almost would have been useful to, say, I don't know, SWITCH TO 100% PAPER BALLOTS!

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,406]

6 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

We use mail in ballots with built in safeguards: The ballot is mailed to a registered voter’s address.  Voter registration involves having a copy of your signature on file.  The mail in ballot has an envelope within an envelope with the inner envelope bearing your signature.  Forgery/fraud is able to be scrutinized with a tangible paper trail with unique personal identifiers.  The logistics of perpetrating a significant fraud are essentially nil.  

Electronic paperless voting machines ?  Not so much.

Chance are essentially nil that I can't intercept an elderly relative's mail and forge their handwriting?    Or count on a bored, over-worked election official from not scrutinizing the ballot too closely?

I'm not saying there is rampant mail-in ballot fraud but it has to be on magnitude of 100x or 1000x more prevalent than in-person fraud.  Even before voter id laws.

 

[GSU&UT 1,798]

Reminder that we're talking a ton about mail/absentee ballots because, at least Georgia, refuse to put in a proper paper trail that can be audited as well as lots of states having extremely weak IT security practices regarding how they host their election and registration records.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

16 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I'm not saying there is rampant mail-in ballot fraud but it has to be on magnitude of 100x or 1000x more prevalent than in-person fraud.  Even before voter id laws.

And I could not also make fake IDs of old folks I know who won't vote and do in-person voter fraud, counting on the same bored, over-worked election officials to not overly scrutinize? And what if the old folks realize they haven't received their mail-in ballots (they aren't all literally in vegetative states) and call/show-up to get their ballots?

You should work off of EVIDENCE, not your completely unfounded feelings of certainty.

This is especially important when we have state power erecting barriers between citizens and the most fundamental right a citizen has. Feelings and assumptions aren't substitutes.

The state should have to demonstrate, with actual evidence and demonstrable facts, the need for any voting barrier. At least, if you don't want an authoritarian state.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Fuck voting machines. PAPER BALLOTS for the win.

[wildcat09 29,213]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’m pretty much a Democrat voter but I don’t fully disagree with Voter ID laws.  In theory, I don’t see a problem with asking someone to identify themselves.  

However there is one area of voting that the Voter ID advocates seem to completely disregard and it’s an area that I guarantee has the most fraud:  mail-in ballots.

There is zero verification that the ballot was received and completed by the actual registrant.  Zero.  I recently assisted an older relative with his ballot by bringing the mail to him, and then mailing the ballot back.  I could have easily filled out the ballot how I wanted to and not him. 

Of course I think I understand why Voter ID advocates don’t want to touch this issue. 

1. There isn’t really a good solution for someone to validate their identity over the mail. 
2. At least in Texas, you can get a mail-in ballot for a variety of reasons but the main one is being 65+.   No one wants to disenfranchise old people so we deal with potential fraud.

Many worry about Juan the Honduran illegal immigrant voting in-person but it’s more likely that John the grandson is voting on with his grandparent’s mail-in ballot.  Harris county already has 54K mail-in ballots for this election.  Do we all really believe that all 54K were filled out by the actual voter, or at their direction?

I'd be fine with a voter ID if it was provided for free to every citizen without any obstacles that just so happened to be placed disproportionately in certain peoples' way. Requiring an ID to vote itself has never been the problem. The problem is that state legislatures have repeatedly commissioned studies of what forms of ID people have broken down by race, then with the intention of suppressing minority votes selected IDs most frequently carried by white people as acceptable and IDs more frequently carried by minorities as unacceptable. Then they closed the government offices in which people could get a valid ID in black and brown neighborhoods, and the polling places in black and brown neighborhoods, and curtailed the hours they're allowed to vote. It's a clear pattern if racial discrimination. If it were waged against white people instead of black and brown people, guys like Slorch would be mailing bombs to the officials responsible. 

[Huckleberry 32,694]

42 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

We use mail in ballots with built in safeguards: The ballot is mailed to a registered voter’s address.  Voter registration involves having a copy of your signature on file.  The mail in ballot has an envelope within an envelope with the inner envelope bearing your signature.  Forgery/fraud is able to be scrutinized with a tangible paper trail with unique personal identifiers.  The logistics of perpetrating a significant fraud are essentially nil.  

Electronic paperless voting machines ?  Not so much.

Is that the case in every State? You have more faith in the various levels all doing their job than I do. I by no means think we should stop mail-in voting, by the way, just that it's absurd that many people think in-person vote fraud is the larger vulnerability.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/More-Than-80-Ballots-Sent-to-San-Pedro-Apartment-400053161.html

Even if that were simply errors on top of errors as claimed, if a dishonest person had found those ballots then in one fell swoop they could have submitted three times the number of fraudulent votes than were found out of a billion in-person votes cast between 2000 and 2014 in one study.

So, as I said, the mail-in voting process is a much more logical place to look for fraud and fraud vulnerability.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Huckleberry

[triplehorn 2,664]

51 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Chance are essentially nil that I can't intercept an elderly relative's mail and forge their handwriting?    Or count on a bored, over-worked election official from not scrutinizing the ballot too closely?

I'm not saying there is rampant mail-in ballot fraud but it has to be on magnitude of 100x or 1000x more prevalent than in-person fraud.  Even before voter id laws.

 

You could try, but ain't no one got time for that - a single vote at a time.  And you still have a paper trail with signatures to verify if there's any complaint or suspicion.  Other advantages of mail paper ballots are that you can drop your ballot in any mailbox for free, or in your own at home, and not have to travel to some huge polling line during work, outside of your area, with a shortage of functional voting machines.  There are specific drive-by ballot boxes if you choose not not use USPS.  All those variables I just mentioned are used to suppress vote (prohibitively long lines by design, hard to access polling places, shortage of functional machines).  Paper ballot by mail can't be suppressed and is completely verifiable for anyone motivated to do so.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

This is a minor gripe compared to a lot of other voter ID and suppression efforts, but the envelope and ballot you get back here doesn't have the postage paid for it and generally requires two stamps since it's thick and heavy.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,406]

9 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

You could try, but ain't no one got time for that - a single vote at a time.  And you still have a paper trail with signatures to verify if there's any complaint or suspicion.  Other advantages of mail paper ballots are that you can drop your ballot in any mailbox for free, or in your own at home, and not have to travel to some huge polling line during work, outside of your area, with a shortage of functional voting machines.  There are specific drive-by ballot boxes if you choose not not use USPS.  All those variables I just mentioned are used to suppress vote (prohibitively long lines by design, hard to access polling places, shortage of functional machines).  Paper ballot by mail can't be suppressed and is completely verifiable for anyone motivated to do so.

So why don't we allow everyone to mail vote then?  It sounds like its more secure and easier.  And as you said, virtually impossible for anyone other than the registrant to complete the ballot.  

[bad_teammate 13,132]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

So why don't we allow everyone to mail vote then?

Because we don't actually want people to vote.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

9 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

So why don't we allow everyone to mail vote then?  It sounds like its more secure and easier.  And as you said, virtually impossible for anyone other than the registrant to complete the ballot.  

Uhh Oregon does this now and has gotten much better turnout because of it.

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-oregon-increased-voter-turnout-more-than-any-other-state/

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,831]

Because we don't actually want people to vote.

 

define 'we' because that sure as shit doesn't include me

Edited October 24, 2018 by Longhorn_Fan68

[triplehorn 2,664]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Because we don't actually want people to vote.

Karl Rove was against verifiable paper ballots, which should say something.  The voter fraud crusade is an ongoing sham intended to shift eyes away from vote suppression efforts.  It's the secure methods of voting that can't be systematically suppressed en masse that are targets for voter fraud claims (surprise, surprise).  It's shocking how obvious and undeniable it's become today.  It's a blatant con on Americans and our system of elected government, and for certain reasons related to diminishing favorable demographics, the desperate die hard perps are all GOP.

[Brisketexan 104,537]

33 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

 

 

define 'we' because that sure as shit doesn't include me

It sure as shit includes the political party that controls our federal government, and controls many states, including Texas.  I'll post it again for emphasis, from The Economist, about the GOP plan currently being followed:

Quote

And he has warned Republicans that Democrats are “registering all these minority voters that are out there and others that are sitting on the sidelines, if they can do that, they can win these elections in November”.
Read that sentence again. Mr Kemp all but admits that he cannot win an election if every eligible voter votes. A major-party candidate for governor sees registering voters not as a fundamentally American and essential activity, but as a partisan threat. 
 

The GOP does NOT WANT MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE.  It is their foundational political strategy.