Voter Suppression

[Bullneck 19454]

14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

While what's going on in Georgia is getting all the news, we need to pay more attention to what's going on here at home.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/01/texas-voting-restrictions-legislature/

A couple of amendments affirming the right to vote were struck down by Republicans in the Senate found on pp 21-22.

Floor Amendment No. 4
Amend CSSB 7 (senate committee printing) by adding the following appropriately numbered SECTION to ARTICLE 1 of the bill and renumbering subsequent SECTIONS of ARTICLE 1 accordingly:
SECTIONi____.iiChapter 1, Election Code, is amended by adding Section 1.0055 to read as follows:
Sec.i1.0055.ii RIGHT TO VOTE. Every citizen of this state, who is qualified to vote under the Texas Constitution and the provisions of this code, has a fundamental right to vote in any election for which the voter is eligible.
HINOJOSA MENE´NDEZ
ALVARADO MILES
BLANCO POWELL
ECKHARDT WEST
GUTIERREZ WHITMIRE
JOHNSON ZAFFIRINI
LUCIO
The amendment to CSSB 7 was read and failed of adoption by the following vote: Yeas 13, Nays 18.
Yeas:iiAlvarado, Blanco, Eckhardt, Gutierrez, Hinojosa, Johnson, Lucio, Mene´ndez, Miles, Powell, West, Whitmire, Zaffirini.
Nays:iiBettencourt, Birdwell, Buckingham, Campbell, Creighton, Hall, Hancock, Huffman, Hughes, Kolkhorst, Nelson, Nichols, Paxton, Perry, Schwertner,
Seliger, Springer, Taylor.

Senator Hinojosa offered the following amendment to the bill:
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 SENATE JOURNAL 521
Floor Amendment No. 5
Amend CSSB 7 (senate committee printing) by adding the following appropriately numbered SECTION to ARTICLE 3 of the bill and renumbering subsequent SECTIONS of ARTICLE 3 accordingly:
SECTIONi___.iiSubchapter A, Chapter 65, Election Code, is amended by adding Section 65.0001 to read as follows:
Sec.i65.0001. RIGHT TO HAVE VOTE COUNTED. Every eligible voter who casts a ballot in an election has a fundamental right to have the voter s vote counted. ’
HINOJOSA MENE´NDEZ
ALVARADO MILES
BLANCO POWELL
ECKHARDT WEST
GUTIERREZ WHITMIRE
JOHNSON ZAFFIRINI
LUCIO
The amendment to CSSB 7 was read and failed of adoption by the following vote:  Yeas 13, Nays 18.
Yeas:iiAlvarado, Blanco, Eckhardt, Gutierrez, Hinojosa, Johnson, Lucio, Mene´ndez, Miles, Powell, West, Whitmire, Zaffirini.
Nays:iiBettencourt, Birdwell, Buckingham, Campbell, Creighton, Hall, Hancock, Huffman, Hughes, Kolkhorst, Nelson, Nichols, Paxton, Perry, Schwertner, Seliger, Springer, Taylor.

TLDR version: Texas Republican don't everyone should be able to vote?  Got it.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

I would honestly like more info on this argument of "they're actually making it EASIER to vote!".  Please, bring the evidence.  The 7am-7pm thing has already been debunked.  Are they just continuing on with that like we didn't already figure out it was bullshit several pages ago?

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2153]

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I would honestly like more info on this argument of "they're actually making it EASIER to vote!".  Please, bring the evidence.  The 7am-7pm thing has already been debunked.  Are they just continuing on with that like we didn't already figure out it was bullshit several pages ago?

it seems to me the strategy is needle in a haystack.  introduce 100 different changes, 10 of them effective at suppression, 90 of them who knows, so the discussion of it is an unfocused cacophony without centralization of reasons for opposing.  

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20838]

Is it just me, or doesn't it seem like this is going to backfire on Republicans?  The harder they try to make it to vote the harder people are going to try to vote. 

[HornOnTheBayou 9057]

24 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

it seems to me the strategy is needle in a haystack.  introduce 100 different changes, 10 of them effective at suppression, 90 of them who knows, so the discussion of it is an unfocused cacophony without centralization of reasons for opposing.  

That's exactly what's happening. And it has the added bonus of getting the media to chase the wrong story. The "no serving food or drink in voting lines" is of course evil and ridiculous, but it's the shiny object everyone is focused on because it makes for a good headline. What should be focused on is the ability of the state legislature to overturn rulings by county officials.

[lmao 178]

Posted in the wrong thread but can you not be a fan of the voter laws in GA while also believing calling them "Jim Crow on steroids" and "Jim Eagle" is hyperbolic?

[GRHorn 105]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, lmao said:

Posted in the wrong thread but can you not be a fan of the voter laws in GA while also believing calling them "Jim Crow on steroids" and "Jim Eagle" is hyperbolic?

Yes. 
 

Who cares. You think the right wing hate machine cares? 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

 

I read it. Not surprisingly, it’s designed to limit black voters and take power away from local officials in black counties like Fulton county and hand it to the White supremacists that are in charge of the state.
 

 Any other questions troll? 

[hobbes2702 13352]

49 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I read it. Not surprisingly, it’s designed to limit black voters and take power away from local officials in black counties like Fulton county and hand it to the White supremacists that are in charge of the state.
 

 Any other questions troll? 

I have a question. What the fuck does it take to get banned on here? Apparently continually doing nothing but trolling doesn’t do it anymore. There’s no honest discussion, no rebuttal to anyone who engages. Just click bait Twitter headlines anD nothing else. 

[jimmyjazz 46982]

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I have a question. What the fuck does it take to get banned on here? Apparently continually doing nothing but trolling doesn’t do it anymore. There’s no honest discussion, no rebuttal to anyone who engages. Just click bait Twitter headlines anD nothing else. 

Well, we could neg bomb him to Bolivia.

[Neonmoon 38130]

To protect voter integrity = we are implementing new (barriers/restrictions/regulations)

Since there is no evidence whatsoever of illegal voting, and trust me, they’ve fucking looked, you can erase the left side of the equation. Once you realize there is no illegal voting and no threat to voter integrity, you are left with this 

To protect voter integrity = we are implementing new (barriers/restrictions/regulations)

What effects will these new restrictions have? Hmmm? It truly is a mystery 

[GRHorn 105]

2 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

I read it. Not surprisingly, it’s designed to limit black voters and take power away from local officials in black counties like Fulton county and hand it to the White supremacists that are in charge of the state.
 

 Any other questions troll? 

Ah yes. The white supremacists. You’re not a serious person Jimmy. 

[jimmyjazz 46982]

Alright, I'll start.  Neg bombing every chance I get.

Fuck you, GRHorn.  You do not argue in good faith.  You're nothing but a troll and you need to leave.  If immamac won't do it, we'll try.

[GRHorn 105]

2 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

I read it. Not surprisingly, it’s designed to limit black voters and take power away from local officials in black counties like Fulton county and hand it to the White supremacists that are in charge of the state.
 

 Any other questions troll? 

How is it designed to limit black voters? There’s more early voting access. Offers no excuse absentee ballots. Makes drop boxes permanent fixtures in voting. 
 

I can see why people see state level trying to take power over local as problematic, but Jim Crow on steroids and let’s boycott everything is fucking dumb though. 

[GRHorn 105]

2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

I have a question. What the fuck does it take to get banned on here? Apparently continually doing nothing but trolling doesn’t do it anymore. There’s no honest discussion, no rebuttal to anyone who engages. Just click bait Twitter headlines anD nothing else. 

I did rebut. I don’t rebut every single poster. If I post something, 10 people reply. I’m not going to respond to each one.

Sharing a WSJ editorial that people here disagree with may be uncomfortable for y’all, but it’s far from trolling. 

[Horn Dog 10156]

7 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I would honestly like more info on this argument of "they're actually making it EASIER to vote!".  Please, bring the evidence.  The 7am-7pm thing has already been debunked.  Are they just continuing on with that like we didn't already figure out it was bullshit several pages ago?

The key is  expand voting access and make the primary consideration be “counties” not people, while restricting voting where bottlenecks occur because of density and high numbers.  More numerous rural/sparsely populated counties get expanded access while a few more populous/urban counties get restricted access per capita.  That way you can claim that “we are making it easier to vote!”  and technically be correct,  although anyone with a brain knows this is obviously false if voting access for all voters is the primary concern.

[Willfully Horn 8205]

4 hours ago, lmao said:

Posted in the wrong thread but can you not be a fan of the voter laws in GA while also believing calling them "Jim Crow on steroids" and "Jim Eagle" is hyperbolic?

For such beliefs to be defensible, IMO, it is first necessary to address:

 

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

it’s designed to limit black voters and take power away from local officials in black counties like Fulton county and hand it to the White supremacists that are in charge of the state.
 

 

This new line of voter suppression includes hamstringing counties where POC are the majority. I think it is reasonable, and is not hyperbolic, to view this development as Jim Crow II.

17 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

How is it designed to limit black voters? There’s more early voting access. Offers no excuse absentee ballots. Makes drop boxes permanent fixtures in voting. 
 

I can see why people see state level trying to take power over local as problematic, but Jim Crow on steroids and let’s boycott everything is fucking dumb though. 

Subjecting election results to the control of gerrymandered representatives and state Senators. How do you think this last election would have played out if these new controls had been in place?

State government nullification of the will of the voters? That’s steroidal oppression. 

Edited April 3, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Tense

[Willfully Horn 8205]

Voting machines can generate a paper transcript of one’s vote. I used such technology in Hays County, and could see for myself that my vote was correctly recorded. That paper ‘trail’ went into a lockbox backup.

This is how voting machine technology gains public confidence.

This is where we can find bipartisan agreement.

[aggie08 21734]

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

How is it designed to limit black voters? There’s more early voting access.

Imagine being dump enough to believe that the GOP is rushing through voting laws nationwide using #FRAUD!!! as the impetus to make voting easier in urban areas.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

7 hours ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

it seems to me the strategy is needle in a haystack.  introduce 100 different changes, 10 of them effective at suppression, 90 of them who knows, so the discussion of it is an unfocused cacophony without centralization of reasons for opposing.  

Exactly; plus, if they can overturn as was stated above, then further disenfranchisement becomes a feature not a bug. 

[NWBuck 8621]

For the "yOu didN'T EveN rEAD iT" crowd, here's a bit of a deeper examination and response:

 

[staboner 5067]

On 4/4/2021 at 7:42 AM, jimmyjazz said:

Alright, I'll start.  Neg bombing every chance I get.

Fuck you, GRHorn.  You do not argue in good faith.  You're nothing but a troll and you need to leave.  If immamac won't do it, we'll try.

you are getting warmer

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 4/3/2021 at 4:45 PM, GRHorn said:

How is it designed to limit black voters? There’s more early voting access. Offers no excuse absentee ballots. Makes drop boxes permanent fixtures in voting. 
 

I can see why people see state level trying to take power over local as problematic, but Jim Crow on steroids and let’s boycott everything is fucking dumb though. 

Why should I bother with answering your dumb troll questions? The law is obviously specifically designed to hinder minority votes and is founded on the big lie that trump actually won the election. Anyone who’s thinks otherwise is a moron a liar or both. There is simply no point in engaging with someone like you pretend to be. 

[jimmyjazz 46982]

3 hours ago, staboner said:

you are getting warmer

 

If you have some big knowledge to drop on me, feel free.

[GRHorn 105]

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Why should I bother with answering your dumb troll questions? The law is obviously specifically designed to hinder minority votes and is founded on the big lie that trump actually won the election. Anyone who’s thinks otherwise is a moron a liar or both. There is simply no point in engaging with someone like you pretend to be. 

I’m not going to convince many (any?) people here that it’s being overblown. The point is reasonable minds can disagree with the CR groupthink on this issue without being “white supremacists”. Here’s a thread from a national correspondent for Slate. 

And yes, moving the MLB all star game to the local citizen’s detriment was silly political grandstanding. 

[Satchel 6982]

11 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I’m not going to convince many (any?) people here that it’s being overblown. The point is reasonable minds can disagree with the CR groupthink on this issue without being “white supremacists”. Here’s a thread from a national correspondent for Slate. 

And yes, moving the MLB all star game to the local citizen’s detriment was silly political grandstanding. 

What do you see as the predicate for Georgia Republicans used to make sweeping changes to election laws they codified?

[Biff Tannen 46063]

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Why should I bother with answering your dumb troll questions? The law is obviously specifically designed to hinder minority votes and is founded on the big lie that trump actually won the election. Anyone who’s thinks otherwise is a moron a liar or both. There is simply no point in engaging with someone like you pretend to be. 

You can’t reason with them. They’re halfwits. 

[Brisketexan 106634]

What do you see as the predicate for Georgia Republicans used to make sweeping changes to election laws they codified?

He doesn’t. He’s a troll.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He doesn’t. He’s a troll.

Ironically, my halfwit quote is from the hobbit and is specifically talking about trolls. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

39 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ironically, my halfwit quote is from the hobbit and is specifically talking about trolls. 

It’s too bad a little sunlight won’t turn him to stone. 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

On 4/3/2021 at 8:16 AM, JimmyJames said:

Looks like no new super bowl for Jerry world then. 

Which is a shame, because that's about the only way the Cowboys would see one in person.

 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

On 4/3/2021 at 12:03 PM, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Is it just me, or doesn't it seem like this is going to backfire on Republicans?  The harder they try to make it to vote the harder people are going to try to vote. 

There is a good possibility that if they fuck around, they could actually make it harder on the olds who vote R, whereas the younger folks who vote D can adapt quickly and overcome/get the word out through social media/etc.

[TheStoicPaisano 9948]

This feels like the Dems exhausting remedies and revealing the need for a superseding HR1. I don’t know if they’re performing more towards the public or Manchin & the Dangerous Creature.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Mannnnnnn, y’all are so lucky.

[LABEVO 928]

6 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Mannnnnnn, y’all are so lucky.


 

Should have started this after he lost to Cruz for the senate instead of sulking. Better late than never though. 

[Bookman 4754]

I wonder if frivolously challenging one's voting rights in Georgia could be considered a tort.

[Nivek 17331]

On 4/4/2021 at 4:25 PM, NWBuck said:

For the "yOu didN'T EveN rEAD iT" crowd, here's a bit of a deeper examination and response:

 

So Stacey Abrams and about 100 others just needs to challenge every Republican vote to nullify it then.  So the effect will be that the entire state of Georgia will have zero votes.   Land of the free.

[Js1 86950]

 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

18 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

Is Rob M, the MLB commissioner, going to give up his Augusta National membership? 🤔 

[LABEVO 928]

 

Edited April 7, 2021 by LABEVO

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Is Rob M, the MLB commissioner, going to give up his Augusta National membership? 🤔 

No.

Any other questions? 

[JimmyJames 12271]

13 minutes ago, LABEVO said:

 

“White voters are better voters than black voters.” - The 2021 Republican Party finally admits the truth about what it believes.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

1 hour ago, LABEVO said:

 

I mean, the answer is yes.  But not in the way the people who read the National Review think.

[JimmyJames 12271]

I love all these claims by lying Republican assholes that they are expanding voting in Georgia. Sure it does. For voters located in white areas of the state. It severely restricts voting in black areas. But since there are less areas where blacks constitute the majority, then we’re expanding voting overall! 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

16 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

No.

Any other questions? 

Yes. 

Why not, given the circumstances and his statements around those circumstances? 

Essentially, make Rob M. confirm that he doesn't personally care about voter supression and is only operating out of pandering sentiment towards the issues of the day and don't allow him to weasel out of it personally, while making operational/professional decisions and stances that contradict and point to hypocrisy, personally.

It feels like in 2021, there is no corporate veil. We pierce these days, so that is what is informing my question.

Edited to add; his respect points would go through the roof and I'd think the world of him if he said "No, I'm not going to do anything personally and it's none of your business, quite frankly. I'm charged to lead this organization and do right by it and that's what I'm doing."

Edited April 7, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

35 minutes ago, LABEVO said:

 

Kevin D Williamson as the author. I'm so surprised. I actually had to read it to see if he was advocating for white male only voting because that would be on brand for him.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I mean, the answer is yes.  But not in the way the people who read the National Review think.

I was going to say; liberals were yelling this to high heaven when all the rubes and poor uneducated people blew everyone's minds and actually elected Trump.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

On 4/3/2021 at 5:48 PM, GRHorn said:

I did rebut. I don’t rebut every single poster. If I post something, 10 people reply. I’m not going to respond to each one.

Sharing a WSJ editorial that people here disagree with may be uncomfortable for y’all, but it’s far from trolling. 

It is a fucking editorial, i.e. an opinion piece.  It isn't news, it isn't fact.  Shut the fuck up.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I mean, the answer is yes.  But not in the way the people who read the National Review think.

This right here.