Voter Suppression

[DonkeyCigars 143]

7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Giving statehood to PR may or may not help Dems (I'm of the notion that it'd be split/mixed), but denying representation to an island whose population currently surpasses that of 20 US states is a farce.

Let them vote on what they want, instead of just assuming the natural end state of our imperialism is a bill to annex them to statehood. I think it would pass, sentiment and trend shows a growing support of PR'ers wanting to become a state, it seems. And while the sentiment isn't an overwhelming majority or a comfortable margin, it's still better than the simple majority being against becoming a state which was in the not so distant past.

Edited March 2, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[DonkeyCigars 143]

Just now, Js1 said:

No. DC and PR should be states. Combine ND and SD and WY. It’s all the same anyhow. 

what did this comment mean? "*to, you idiot"

[Js1 86941]

7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Giving statehood to PR may or may not help Dems (I'm of the notion that it'd be split/mixed), but denying representation to an island whose population currently surpasses that of 20 US states is a farce.

Well they’re brown, so...

[DonkeyCigars 143]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Well they’re brown, so...

Are you genuinely toxic and racist in your paternalism or just pretending to be as a cover for the real reason you want them as a state, so you get their votes? Is this a "Y NOT BOTH?" situation?

Edited March 2, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Satchel 6982]

So, what is the basis for opposition to statehood for DC and PR?

[LABEVO 928]

9 minutes ago, Satchel said:

So, what is the basis for opposition to statehood for DC and PR?

Republicans hate minorities 

Edited March 3, 2021 by LABEVO

[Satchel 6982]

Republican anxiety might be misplaced. When Hawaii and Alaska were admitted to the Union, the “smart money” was on Hawaii being Republican and Alaska being Democratic. We all know how that turned out. 

[Buzzrock 15115]

There are something like 47 different voting rules bills floating around the Georgia Congress right now. Most are minor tweaks but the big one is getting rid of no-excuse mail-in voting. Ironically it was a Republican Congress that originally voted for it. But this excerpt I just read is great:

“State Rep. Al Williams, a Democrat who is Black, took to the House well this week to say: “Every time the rules change, hey, we learn to play the game. If this bill passes, and I hope it doesn’t, then we’ll start to practice how to win at that, too. We played the game in November.”

He paused, adding, “See you next election.””

That’s a fucking mic drop.

[Buzzrock 15115]

So, what is the basis for opposition to statehood for DC and PR?

At last count, 48% of Puerto Ricans preferred to remain independent, but that number is slowly declining. But it’s worth pointing out that almost half the inhabitants don’t want to be a state.

Then again that referendum was in 2020 and I don’t think I would have wanted to join Team America then either. 2021 might be a different story.

I don’t see why we need a 51st state from DC. Just shrink DC to cover the federal govt facilities and cede the rest of the territory to Maryland and Virginia.

[Catdaddyhorn 3462]

Help me with repub logic here? Many of these bills are being drawn up to limit voting behaviors that were really only utilized disproportionately by democratic leaning voters because we were in the midst of a 100 year pandemic and their leader told repubs not to. During normal times, practices like absentee/mail-in-voting and early voting are typically methods that republican leaning voters utilize in greater numbers. In a world where we're not in a once in a lifetime pandemic, won't some of these new laws make it more difficult for republicans to return to their old voting habits? 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Catdaddyhorn

[cactusflinthead 27626]

3 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Help me with repub logic here? Many of these bills are being drawn up to limit voting behaviors that were really only utilized disproportionately by democratic leaning voters because we were in the midst of a 100 year pandemic and their leader told repubs not to. During normal times, practices like absentee/mail-in-voting and early voting are typically methods that republican leaning voters utilize in greater numbers. In a world where we're not in a once in a lifetime pandemic, won't some of these new laws make it more difficult for republicans to return to their old voting habits? 

Because they aren't very smart. They don't think it's going to impact their voters.

[Flg8rfan 201]

Just SOME of the things you need a photo ID to do
- get something notarized
- cash a check
- buy alcohol (unless you’re old like me)
- drive a car
- check into a hotel (most of them anyway)
- rent a car
- get on an airplane

The argument that it’s insurmountable for people to get one to vote is utter bullshit. I have no doubt that there are some people that have legitimate hurdles to get one, but it seems to me that NOT having one would make everyday existence more problematic.

A decade ago when I applied for a passport, I found out my ‘registration of live birth’ from the hospital wasn’t considered a birth certificate. Used it to join the service many, many decades ago, used it to get my drivers license, my parents used it to get my social security card decades before that. Fine. $30 and 5 days later I had my first and only official birth certificate issued by the state I was born in.

Sure, there’s probably people that have some extraordinary challenges to overcome to get one but that’s on them. I’m sure there’s plenty of resources available to assist them, they just need to not wait until a month before an election for it to be an issue.

[Js1 86941]

It has to be aggy’s fault all these inbred SEC fans made their way here to MAGA up the board. Our queen Bama Chick not included 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

8 minutes ago, Flg8rfan said:

Just SOME of the things you need a photo ID to do
- get something notarized
- cash a check
- buy alcohol (unless you’re old like me)
- drive a car
- check into a hotel (most of them anyway)
- rent a car
- get on an airplane

The argument that it’s insurmountable for people to get one to vote is utter bullshit. I have no doubt that there are some people that have legitimate hurdles to get one, but it seems to me that NOT having one would make everyday existence more problematic.

A decade ago when I applied for a passport, I found out my ‘registration of live birth’ from the hospital wasn’t considered a birth certificate. Used it to join the service many, many decades ago, used it to get my drivers license, my parents used it to get my social security card decades before that. Fine. $30 and 5 days later I had my first and only official birth certificate issued by the state I was born in.

Sure, there’s probably people that have some extraordinary challenges to overcome to get one but that’s on them. I’m sure there’s plenty of resources available to assist them, they just need to not wait until a month before an election for it to be an issue.

It’s a mathematical certainty that the worse off your living conditions are, the more likely you won’t have kept up with the “paperwork of life.”

 

If there is not evidence of people trying to otherwise vote illegally they don’t have a particular form of ID, all you’re doing is disenfranchising people based on wealth.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

14 hours ago, Satchel said:

So, what is the basis for opposition to statehood for DC and PR?

50 is a good round number. 

[Js1 86941]

It’s more aesthetically pleasing to disenfranchise US citizens 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6586]

7 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

50 is a good round number. 

I agree.  I posted months ago we should add PR and DC and then combine N and S Dakota into Dakota and combine Wyoming and Montana into Wontana.  Then you get to have your nice even 50 states.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

2 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I agree.  I posted months ago we should add PR and DC and then combine N and S Dakota into Dakota and combine Wyoming and Montana into Wontana.  Then you get to have your nice even 50 states.

Even better, just cut AL and MS loose. 

[Buzzrock 15115]

Help me with repub logic here? Many of these bills are being drawn up to limit voting behaviors that were really only utilized disproportionately by democratic leaning voters because we were in the midst of a 100 year pandemic and their leader told repubs not to. During normal times, practices like absentee/mail-in-voting and early voting are typically methods that republican leaning voters utilize in greater numbers. In a world where we're not in a once in a lifetime pandemic, won't some of these new laws make it more difficult for republicans to return to their old voting habits? 

Is that right? Republican voters use mail-in more often when there isn’t a pandemic?

I thought the pundits all said that republicans tend to vote in person in general.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6586]

2 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

Is that right? Republican voters use mail-in more often when there isn’t a pandemic?

I thought the pundits all said that republicans tend to vote in person in general.

 

I can tell you in years past, in many states, mail in ballots were known to be Republican at a much higher rate.  Usually rich old people.

[Js1 86941]

Just now, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I can tell you in years past, in many states, mail in ballots were known to be Republican at a much higher rate.  Usually rich old people.

Especially Florida 

[Mole 4338]

This last election, in order to request an absentee ballot in Georgia, I had submit my DL number and other identifying information. Then they mailed the ballot to my mailing address of record. I’m not sure how that could be an opportunity for fraud on any notable scale. 

[Js1 86941]

4 minutes ago, Mole said:

This last election, in order to request an absentee ballot in Georgia, I had submit my DL number and other identifying information. Then they mailed the ballot to my mailing address of record. I’m not sure how that could be an opportunity for fraud on any notable scale. 

As long as there is an appearance of possible fraud, it's enough for the GOP

[Nivek 17330]

 

48 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

50 is a good round number. 

Well, I am glad the 13 colonies banded together on the basis of numbers.   That seems to be a prudent method for selecting membership.

 

 

[pyrohornIII 4844]

 

19 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

The argument for felons is that voting is a privilege and not an absolute right. Part of losing your freedom for felonies is losing the ability to vote. That's the argument as I understand it, for why it's illegal now. I'm saying the only reason people want it overturned is to add more voters to their coffers, under the guise of some liberal idea of equality and even felons should vote and minorities are disproportionately felonious. The same idea with annexing PR; the only reason it's a bill now is because Dems want to strengthen the bulwark of voters while in a (tenuous) position of power.

a) Not everyone in jail is there for a felony, nor have they been convicted.  Many people cannot raise bail, so they sit incarcerated until their case is brought.  They have not had their voting rights rescinded simply for being charged.  

b) "debt paid to society" once a person goes 'off paper', they have fully repaid the debt.  Their voting rights are reinstated.  It was never intended that losing voting rights for eternity would be like the scarlet A a former felon would have to bear.  

c) "taxation without representation."  Wasn't that the driving issue to rebel against the monarchy to begin with?  This PR/DC statehood issue has been discussed for decades, but probably not so much in the conservative circles, since it goes against their interests.  The only reason it hasn't been done to this point is that magical number 50.  

1 hour ago, Buzzrock said:

There are something like 47 different voting rules bills floating around the Georgia Congress right now. Most are minor tweaks but the big one is getting rid of no-excuse mail-in voting. Ironically it was a Republican Congress that originally voted for it. But this excerpt I just read is great:

“State Rep. Al Williams, a Democrat who is Black, took to the House well this week to say: “Every time the rules change, hey, we learn to play the game. If this bill passes, and I hope it doesn’t, then we’ll start to practice how to win at that, too. We played the game in November.”

He paused, adding, “See you next election.””

That’s a fucking mic drop.

This right here.  The voting laws are purposefully made as complicated as possible to confuse both the voter and the poll worker.  The more confusion and frustration on the voter's part, the less likely they will vote.  The more chaos, the easier it is for biased poll workers to use confusing laws to deny voters their ballot.   

Speaking only of Texas now:

How many people know what a provisional ballot is vs a limited ballot?

That a limited ballot can be cast up until, but not on election day? 

That a voter can take someone along to help them vote (translate, read, etc.) and they do not have to use the translator/reader provided by the polling place? 

That a felon who has met his/her obligations and terms of their sentence can be reinstated on the voter rolls?   

That some counties allow for county wide voting, and others don't, meaning you have to vote in the precinct you are registered in?  

Simply put, the more pointless limitations they can put on voting, the more ways to disenfranchise people and their votes.    

[Js1 86941]

12 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

b) "debt paid to society" once a person goes 'off paper', they have fully repaid the debt.  Their voting rights are reinstated.  It was never intended that losing voting rights for eternity would be like the scarlet A a former felon would have to bear.  

Unless you're Florida, in which case, voters overwhelmingly approve giving citizens with prior felony convictions their right vote once they complete the terms of their sentence (probation and parole included).

Then the legislature says FUCK YOU and makes them pay off all the fees unassociated with their sentence (drug tests, electric monitoring, medical care while in prison) before they can vote.  But they don't tell you what you owe or how to find out or how to pay. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6586]

27 minutes ago, Nivek said:

 

Well, I am glad the 13 colonies banded together on the basis of numbers.   That seems to be a prudent method for selecting membership.

 

 

Yeah, well, those colonists used to shit in a pot by their bed at night so I am not taking any advice from them!

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

50 is a good round number. 

So is 0. 

[Buzzrock 15115]

I can tell you in years past, in many states, mail in ballots were known to be Republican at a much higher rate.  Usually rich old people.

 


http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Walter-Sobchak-Did-Not-Know-That-At-The-Bowling-Ring-In-Big-Lebowski.gif
Edited March 3, 2021 by Buzzrock

[Buzzrock 15115]

Dammit

[DonkeyCigars 143]

3 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

 

At last count, 48% of Puerto Ricans preferred to remain independent, but that number is slowly declining. But it’s worth pointing out that almost half the inhabitants don’t want to be a state.

Then again that referendum was in 2020 and I don’t think I would have wanted to join Team America then either. 2021 might be a different story.

I don’t see why we need a 51st state from DC. Just shrink DC to cover the federal govt facilities and cede the rest of the territory to Maryland and Virginia.

 

This is where I am.

I find that just annexing PR as a state with a bill in congress is extremely problematic, stemming from PR being a territory and later commonwealth due to imperialism and colonialism. 

Let's let PR use their collective agency and voice and vote to join the United States of America as the 51st state. Whether you want to use a simple majority (51% and you are in, to the chagrin of 49% of those PR's who don't) or not is up for debate on what is the most fair and efficient. 

I think likely it will pass and you'd get your state, so not sure why people don't want to do the right thing here.

[bolverk 30231]

9 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

This is where I am.

I find that just annexing PR as a state with a bill in congress is extremely problematic, stemming from PR being a territory and later commonwealth due to imperialism and colonialism. 

Let's let PR use their collective agency and voice and vote to join the United States of America as the 51st state. Whether you want to use a simple majority (51% and you are in, to the chagrin of 49% of those PR's who don't) or not is up for debate on what is the most fair and efficient. 

I think likely it will pass and you'd get your state, so not sure why people don't want to do the right thing here.

"Annexation" is not how the process works and is not what is being proposed here. 

Quote

 

The details: Under the proposal, also supported by Puerto Rico's nonvoting member in the U.S. House, Jenniffer González-Colón (R-Puerto Rico), Congress would provide Puerto Rico a formal offer to become the 51st state.

• The legislation outlines the process for Puerto Rico's admission into the U.S, should it be ratified by Puerto Rico voters in a federally-sponsored, yes-or-no referendum.
• The plan sets a timeline for the future referendum vote, declaration of Puerto Rican statehood, and an election for the Puerto Rican congressional delegation.
• The outline is similar to the one set for Alaska and Hawaii in their quests for statehood.

 

 

 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

9 minutes ago, bolverk said:

"Annexation" is not how the process works and is not what is being proposed here. 

 

 

Awesome. That's good. Like, y'all, I'm for this.

What would be great, from a right thing to do point of view, would be to have the Yes votes carry into statehood (as is planned) but if the No votes carry, then PR is independent. The fuzzy middle ground is a vestige of our imperialistic past.

Edited March 3, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[DonkeyCigars 143]

20 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

what did this comment mean? "*to, you idiot"

@Js1, are you ever going to answer what this meant? Because you said it so passionately, I just have to know lol

[Satchel 6982]

If the the latest version of the VRA is passed, suppressionists will be cut off at the knees. This has to happen.

[SydneyCarton 49325]

11 minutes ago, Satchel said:

If the the latest version of the VRA is passed, suppressionists will be cut off at the knees. This has to happen.

And every red state will sue the fuck out of the bill and it will be taken to the Supreme Court and they'll overturn it. What am I missing?

[DonkeyCigars 143]

4 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

@Js1, are you ever going to answer what this meant? Because you said it so passionately, I just have to know lol

@Js1, are you Now_This'ing me?

[elfenix 34658]

On 3/2/2021 at 12:35 PM, DonkeyCigars said:

people in jail too vote

 

On 3/2/2021 at 2:13 PM, DonkeyCigars said:

what did this comment mean? "*to, you idiot"

there, now quit whining about it.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

there, now quit whining about it.

Thanks big dog. 

[thrillhammer 686]

8 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Help me with repub logic here? Many of these bills are being drawn up to limit voting behaviors that were really only utilized disproportionately by democratic leaning voters because we were in the midst of a 100 year pandemic and their leader told repubs not to. During normal times, practices like absentee/mail-in-voting and early voting are typically methods that republican leaning voters utilize in greater numbers. In a world where we're not in a once in a lifetime pandemic, won't some of these new laws make it more difficult for republicans to return to their old voting habits? 

conservative logic is more voters means less chance of winning.  limiting voters means better chance of winning.  instead of adopting policies that are popular and would  win elections, their only chance is to rig the elections instead.  

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

20 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

conservative logic is more voters means less chance of winning.  limiting voters means better chance of winning.  instead of adopting policies that are popular and would  win elections, their only chance is to rig the elections instead.  

It’s that simple. And they’re not conservative. They’re Republicans. There’s a difference.

[Satchel 6982]

57 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

And every red state will sue the fuck out of the bill and it will be taken to the Supreme Court and they'll overturn it. What am I missing?

Chief Justice Roberts might be less inclined to declare racism a thing of the past this time around since Republicans are being up front about their desire to suppress the voting prowess of black and brown people.

[SydneyCarton 49325]

7 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Chief Justice Roberts might be less inclined to declare racism a thing of the past this time around since Republicans are being up front about their desire to suppress the voting prowess of black and brown people.

Also, so only 5-4 then? Well golly that changes nothing. 

Edited March 3, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[Satchel 6982]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Also, so only 5-4 then? Well golly that changes nothing. 

One would hope that a Court majority would be hard pressed to look the other way when suppressionists openly testify to their intention of surgically limiting minority voting strength.

[Js1 86941]

Roberts is fine with laws that prevent black people from voting. But SCOTUS already punted the gerrymandering and said it’s not their job. 

[berlinerbaer 692]

4 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

And every red state will sue the fuck out of the bill and it will be taken to the Supreme Court and they'll overturn it. What am I missing?

This was my thought as well. My guess is that the new bills were designed with past court rulings in mind. The justices had to state why they ruled the way they did, so the new bills could use that as a legal framework on which to build something more robust.

 

[Js1 86941]

13 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

This was my thought as well. My guess is that the new bills were designed with past court rulings in mind. The justices had to state why they ruled the way they did, so the new bills could use that as a legal framework on which to build something more robust.

 

The House bill was written so each part is severable without throwing the whole law out. 

[tx 3 putt 78470]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Roberts is fine with laws that prevent black people from voting. But SCOTUS already punted the gerrymandering and said it’s not their job. 

 

Roberts is a deep sleeper agent with one mission, crush the voting rights in this country

https://www.vox.com/21211880/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-voting-rights-act-election-2020

[Satchel 6982]

Can Justice C-Barrett vote for denying a right when Republicans have told her their position is intended to do just that?

[atomheartbevo 90548]

On 3/2/2021 at 11:46 AM, Chad Fuck said:

True "holy shit" moment.

At least they are being open about it, and it will make for some nice soundbites.

Now the Dems need to clone Stacey Abrams and Beto for the other 48 states.