|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 06 2021 19:04 Simberto wrote:
Do you disagree that the republicans generally try to find gamey ways to play the US election system to win elections, rather than trying to appeal to a majority of the voters?
Because that is what i gather from all this. Republicans regularly try to add additional requirements and complicated stuff to the system, often fiddling on many interlocking screws in different spots to increase their chances of winning.
A sane election system would focus on making voting as easy as possible. If you require an ID, make it very easy to get a national ID. Have enough polling places everywhere so people don't have to wait in line. Make it easy to vote by mail, especially during a pandemic. Voting day should be holiday or a sunday.
All of these are very obvious things to do if you want to make voting easier. But instead the republicans always push for IDs here, but not making it easier to get IDs, gerrymandering there, less polling places in cities, no absentee voting, ...
This, in addition to the generally clear ability to turn 180° on any issue if it leads to them winning more, means that to me, the burden of proof is on republicans to show me that any changes they attempt to make to the election system are not just a sneaky way to try to win more, with all the rhetoric behind it just being leaves in the wind.
Basically, at this point i simply do not believe that republicans do anything based on any ethical, moral, philosophical or other principles beyond simply winning. Then, once they win, they use the power they gain to get as much money as possible from poor people to rich people, with a bunch of hateful bullshit on top to make sure that their base of bigoted assholes still votes for them to enable them to keep this going.
My personal opinion on most of the conversations in this topic is that it boils down to who is passing the legislation. This entire thread has a very big Democrat bias (or at least liberal bias. It seems some do not support current Dems but spout off talking points or pull harder toward the socialist part of the party), rather than the legislation or consequences itself.
Considering the huge amount of integrity questions surrounding the most recent election that are still ongoing by a non-insignificant amount of people, I think that trying to strengthen the trust in elections. This makes two presidebtial elections now, won by either party, where significant questions have arisen and shoring those up in any meaningful way goes a lot further for uniting the country and destroying the great ideological divide that we have.
Beyond that, and this part is a little bit off topic, I think it is getting increasingly scary about how polarized people are getting. I'm not speaking necessarily of elected officials, but moreso to the ordinary person expecting their elected officials to follow party politics rather than their constituents, and placing the status quo policies for their party above all else, including even the Constitution.
Back on topic: From my knowledge, gerrymandering has been a real problem on the Republican side over the years. That is undoubtedly true. However, to my knowledge that is not in play with this bill. The bill actually expands voting timeframes, not limits them, and the voter ID requirements are also subverted by providing the last 4 of your SSN and your birthdate. Again, with regards to voter rolls, that could be a potential problem I did not consider and cannot comment on, but the whole idea that this is Jim Crow and actively seeking to destroy Democracy seems like at best ignorance of the bill's contents and at worst intentional, inflammatory misinformation to degrade any credibility of one side vs the other, which again I think is the bigger issue.
Further, both parties are actively trying to make it so their side wins more. As you mentioned, gerrymandering was a big one for the Republicans, and so has their history of limiting voters. But the Democrats are also actively trying to do that to, and I would argue in much more obviously illegal ways. For example, DC statehood is explicitly against what is written in the constitution, but that is a constant push by the Democrats. The compromise given, non-federal buildings rejoining Maryland (who ceded land for DC) and giving those citizens representation in government, is pretty much shut down immediately by the Dems because DC statehood essentially makes them a shoo-win for the Senate, since it grants them 2 additional Senators.
Or the idea of removing the electoral college, which was created as a safeguard against the rule of the masses, since almost uniformly high-density population areas (re:cities) vote Democrat, and low-density population areas vote Republican. Personally, I do believe the electoral college needs some reform so people voting on one side of the political isle still have representation regardless of which way their state leans, but the outright abolishment is a pretty clear cut path for Democrats to win more.
|
There is absolutely zero question regarding the integrity of the recent elections. They were fair and square. Those are just facts. The only people who claim otherwise are the ones that passed this legislation.
You can’t be at the same time lying your teeth out to cast doubt on the election and then pretend that you pass a legislation because you care about the trust people have about that same election. That just doesn’t work.
Look, it’s quite simple: when republicans are lying, it’s not having a “liberal bias” to point it out. Facts are not an opinion.
|
What I get from the thread is that, given the lack of evidence to a need for change plus historical considerations, any republican proposal reguarding election rules in Georgia does not deserve to be considered.
As for the details, from what I understand the changes to absentee voting seem to be the most egregious ones (I assume absentee voting was predominantly democrat), but changes to early voting and being able to offer water and food to people in line also seem pretty bad, both changes that penalize working and poor voters.
|
On April 06 2021 22:41 Sbrubbles wrote:
What I get from the thread is that, given the lack of evidence to a need for change plus historical considerations, any republican proposal reguarding election rules in Georgia does not deserve to be considered.
As for the details, from what I understand the changes to absentee voting seem to be the most egregious ones (I assume absentee voting was predominantly democrat), but changes to early voting and being able to offer water and food to people in line also seem pretty bad, both changes that penalize working and poor voters.
Another really bad component of the law is that it takes power away from the Secretary of State and gives it to the legislature. Given that, in the wake of the prior election, the Secretary of State was basically the only Republican in Georgia willing to tell Trump "no" when he asked for favorable electoral fraud and the legislature repeatedly signaled that it would do what Trump asked were it legally able, those power shifting changes are great cause for concern.
Despite what some posters have asserted without support, there are careful and deliberate divisions of power present in state election laws that have been destroyed by the new bill.
|
|
|
|
|
If you wanted to seem credible you'd be better off saying "3 of the last 6 elections have had doubt on them" in order to bring in the hanging chad fiasco of 2000. The Last two elections have only really had doubt on them as a tactic from trump to gin legitimacy for his wild evidence-free claims about them.
Plus trying to act like you want every and only citizens to vote and then trying to rail against citizens in DC and PR from voting is pretty incoherent. You need to separate the messages that you want to stay on or else you cross the streams and things get confusing for you. Voter ID is a great point that the left doesn't go after hard enough on getting everyone documented easier but making a drivers licence the thing that is suppose to be your state ID doesn't work if it gets revoked or you're dealing with the DMV close to election day.
If there was a real voteing scandel like the right keeps explaining to people on how easy it should be it would be a lot easier to justify voteing restrictions. Instead its coming from a state that had its presidential votes go in the opposite way of the party that is passing this legislature, which is a really bad look and is deserving of the backlash regardless of whats actually in the bill.
|
On April 06 2021 21:45 Cbole wrote:Or the idea of removing the electoral college, which was created as a safeguard against the rule of the masses, since almost uniformly high-density population areas (re:cities) vote Democrat, and low-density population areas vote Republican. Personally, I do believe the electoral college needs some reform so people voting on one side of the political isle still have representation regardless of which way their state leans, but the outright abolishment is a pretty clear cut path for Democrats to win more. Safeguarding against the masses had nothing to do with city-rural divide or political parties (which didn't even exist at the time) but about the belief the masses were to stupid to be trusted to vote for the best candidate.
Electors were to safeguard the system from people voting for incompetent/dangerous individuals. If you had shown the last 5 years to the Founding Fathers they would likely have questioned why on earth the electors voted for him, regardless of what the general election result was.
Your making a bunch of assumptions on a modern interpretation of how an electoral college might function with little regard for the time it was written in and the known opinions of those who wrote it.
|
United States43990 Posts
On April 07 2021 00:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2021 21:45 Cbole wrote:Or the idea of removing the electoral college, which was created as a safeguard against the rule of the masses, since almost uniformly high-density population areas (re:cities) vote Democrat, and low-density population areas vote Republican. Personally, I do believe the electoral college needs some reform so people voting on one side of the political isle still have representation regardless of which way their state leans, but the outright abolishment is a pretty clear cut path for Democrats to win more. Safeguarding against the masses had nothing to do with city-rural divide or political parties (which didn't even exist at the time) but about the belief the masses were to stupid to be trusted to vote for the best candidate. Electors were to safeguard the system from people voting for incompetent/dangerous individuals. If you had shown the last 5 years to the Founding Fathers they would likely have questioned why on earth the electors voted for him, regardless of what the general election result was. Your making a bunch of assumptions on a modern interpretation of how an electoral college might function with little regard for the time it was written in and the known opinions of those who wrote it.
This. It’s modeled on the English system where you vote for MPs and the MPs select a government on behalf of their voters. The electors weren’t meant to be party loyalists, they were meant to be people who could be trusted to select a President who they believed could best represent their constituents. The whole purpose of the electoral college was built on the assumption that if 40% of the country wants an incestuous grifting game show host to be in charge they instead put someone like Jeb Bush (experienced, well connected, popular with their same interests) in office. That purpose has been lost.
He’s confused the Senate and the EC.
|
On April 07 2021 00:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 00:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2021 21:45 Cbole wrote:Or the idea of removing the electoral college, which was created as a safeguard against the rule of the masses, since almost uniformly high-density population areas (re:cities) vote Democrat, and low-density population areas vote Republican. Personally, I do believe the electoral college needs some reform so people voting on one side of the political isle still have representation regardless of which way their state leans, but the outright abolishment is a pretty clear cut path for Democrats to win more. Safeguarding against the masses had nothing to do with city-rural divide or political parties (which didn't even exist at the time) but about the belief the masses were to stupid to be trusted to vote for the best candidate. Electors were to safeguard the system from people voting for incompetent/dangerous individuals. If you had shown the last 5 years to the Founding Fathers they would likely have questioned why on earth the electors voted for him, regardless of what the general election result was. Your making a bunch of assumptions on a modern interpretation of how an electoral college might function with little regard for the time it was written in and the known opinions of those who wrote it. This. It’s modeled on the English system where you vote for MPs and the MPs select a government on behalf of their voters. The electors weren’t meant to be party loyalists, they were meant to be people who could be trusted to select a President who they believed could best represent their constituents. The whole purpose of the electoral college was built on the assumption that if 40% of the country wants an incestuous grifting game show host to be in charge they instead put someone like Jeb Bush (experienced, well connected, popular with their same interests) in office. That purpose has been lost. He’s confused the Senate and the EC.
Another historical point of the EC is that in a world where it takes weeks or months to get from one place to another, a lot of stuff can happen while that travel happens.
Electors in whom their constituents trust can adjust to that information. Maybe a candidate has died in the meantime, or returned Jesus wants to become president.
Of course, this is also no longer relevant. Voters nowadays can have up-to date information minutes before they cast their votes, and decide based on that information.
|
On April 06 2021 22:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
There is absolutely zero question regarding the integrity of the recent elections. They were fair and square. Those are just facts. The only people who claim otherwise are the ones that passed this legislation.
You can’t be at the same time lying your teeth out to cast doubt on the election and then pretend that you pass a legislation because you care about the trust people have about that same election. That just doesn’t work.
Look, it’s quite simple: when republicans are lying, it’s not having a “liberal bias” to point it out. Facts are not an opinion.
Whew. Did not expect such a hostile reply.
1) Regardless of if you agree or not, there has been a question for both this election and the one in 2016. That is a fact. I personally believe there was some suspicious behavior that occured but the correct person won, and that courts were correct in not hearing cases, or overturning the election.
That being said, it is undeniable that in certain states, certain groups overstepped their powers to initiate how the election was run in regards to mail-in voting. Disenfranchising those voters who voted legally because the people who instituted the policy overstepped would have been a terrible solution, so again I agree it should not be overturned. But to say there is no right to question the integrity of the election and everything was done right seems like a stretch.
2) I would like an explanation as to how I am lying through my teeth? When over two elections people on both sides of the aisle has screamed fraud and claimed "not-my-president," I don't think it is unreasonable to combat that.
3) It isn't liberal bias to point out when one side is lying, no. However, it is to say that the Georgia bill is worse than the Jim Crow era, and automatically assume that every thing a conservative does is either done with the intent of racism, or inherently bad.
|
United States43990 Posts
On April 07 2021 01:03 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2021 22:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
There is absolutely zero question regarding the integrity of the recent elections. They were fair and square. Those are just facts. The only people who claim otherwise are the ones that passed this legislation.
You can’t be at the same time lying your teeth out to cast doubt on the election and then pretend that you pass a legislation because you care about the trust people have about that same election. That just doesn’t work.
Look, it’s quite simple: when republicans are lying, it’s not having a “liberal bias” to point it out. Facts are not an opinion. Whew. Did not expect such a hostile reply. 1) Regardless of if you agree or not, there has been a question for both this election and the one in 2016. That is a fact. I personally believe there was some suspicious behavior that occured but the correct person won, and that courts were correct in not hearing cases, or overturning the election. That being said, it is undeniable that in certain states, certain groups overstepped their powers to initiate how the election was run in regards to mail-in voting. Disenfranchising those voters who voted legally because the people who instituted the policy overstepped would have been a terrible solution, so again I agree it should not be overturned. But to say there is no right to question the integrity of the election and everything was done right seems like a stretch. 2) I would like an explanation as to how I am lying through my teeth? When over two elections people on both sides of the aisle has screamed fraud and claimed "not-my-president," I don't think it is unreasonable to combat that. 3) It isn't liberal bias to point out when one side is lying, no. However, it is to say that the Georgia bill is worse than the Jim Crow era, and automatically assume that every thing a conservative does is either done with the intent of racism, or inherently bad.
Nobody in 2016 claimed Trump didn’t win, Hillary conceded that night. They claimed that he won with a minority of the votes, support of a hostile foreign power, and after direct interference by the FBI. It was nothing like 2020 when Trump literally claimed that Biden hadn’t won and refused to concede. Equating the two is a lie.
|
On April 07 2021 01:03 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2021 22:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
There is absolutely zero question regarding the integrity of the recent elections. They were fair and square. Those are just facts. The only people who claim otherwise are the ones that passed this legislation.
You can’t be at the same time lying your teeth out to cast doubt on the election and then pretend that you pass a legislation because you care about the trust people have about that same election. That just doesn’t work.
Look, it’s quite simple: when republicans are lying, it’s not having a “liberal bias” to point it out. Facts are not an opinion. Whew. Did not expect such a hostile reply. 1) Regardless of if you agree or not, there has been a question for both this election and the one in 2016. That is a fact. I personally believe there was some suspicious behavior that occured but the correct person won, and that courts were correct in not hearing cases, or overturning the election. That being said, it is undeniable that in certain states, certain groups overstepped their powers to initiate how the election was run in regards to mail-in voting. Disenfranchising those voters who voted legally because the people who instituted the policy overstepped would have been a terrible solution, so again I agree it should not be overturned. But to say there is no right to question the integrity of the election and everything was done right seems like a stretch. 2) I would like an explanation as to how I am lying through my teeth? When over two elections people on both sides of the aisle has screamed fraud and claimed "not-my-president," I don't think it is unreasonable to combat that.
3) It isn't liberal bias to point out when one side is lying, no. However, it is to say that the Georgia bill is worse than the Jim Crow era, and automatically assume that every thing a conservative does is either done with the intent of racism, or inherently bad.
Liberals are not claiming fraud in 2016 in the face of illegal votes. Liberals point out that a hostel government hacked our election parties and released damming information to hurt just one side and help the other. This part isnt up for debate, all our agencies AND congress have confirmed that they did. The only part up for debate (I say this because he isn't in jail) Is that Trump knew and welcomed it.
That is a HUGE difference and not even comparable to the lies in 2020 about voter fraud
|
On April 06 2021 22:41 Sbrubbles wrote:
As for the details, from what I understand the changes to absentee voting seem to be the most egregious ones (I assume absentee voting was predominantly democrat), but changes to early voting and being able to offer water and food to people in line also seem pretty bad, both changes that penalize working and poor voters.
I just wany to explain this part. The majority of what I hear from Repunlicans is that absentee is not bad, mass mail in voting is. The distinction is that absentee you have to request and establish a need, whereas in some states and what is being proposed is for mail in voting to be sent to every registered voter. The idea was that this is more prone to fraud because of lack of verification as to who was actually sending the ballot in, especially if necessary voter roll upkeep is not done. There were stories last year of people receiving ballots for others who haven't lived at that address in years, or people receiving multiple ballots at multiple addresses. There were others who went to vote in person and were told that they had already received a mail-in for that person
The other issue was processing times. A lot of people submitted ballots before the second debate, which I know people were upset about.
|
On April 07 2021 01:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 01:03 Cbole wrote:On April 06 2021 22:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
There is absolutely zero question regarding the integrity of the recent elections. They were fair and square. Those are just facts. The only people who claim otherwise are the ones that passed this legislation.
You can’t be at the same time lying your teeth out to cast doubt on the election and then pretend that you pass a legislation because you care about the trust people have about that same election. That just doesn’t work.
Look, it’s quite simple: when republicans are lying, it’s not having a “liberal bias” to point it out. Facts are not an opinion. Whew. Did not expect such a hostile reply. 1) Regardless of if you agree or not, there has been a question for both this election and the one in 2016. That is a fact. I personally believe there was some suspicious behavior that occured but the correct person won, and that courts were correct in not hearing cases, or overturning the election. That being said, it is undeniable that in certain states, certain groups overstepped their powers to initiate how the election was run in regards to mail-in voting. Disenfranchising those voters who voted legally because the people who instituted the policy overstepped would have been a terrible solution, so again I agree it should not be overturned. But to say there is no right to question the integrity of the election and everything was done right seems like a stretch. 2) I would like an explanation as to how I am lying through my teeth? When over two elections people on both sides of the aisle has screamed fraud and claimed "not-my-president," I don't think it is unreasonable to combat that. 3) It isn't liberal bias to point out when one side is lying, no. However, it is to say that the Georgia bill is worse than the Jim Crow era, and automatically assume that every thing a conservative does is either done with the intent of racism, or inherently bad. Nobody in 2016 claimed Trump didn’t win, Hillary conceded that night. They claimed that he won with a minority of the votes, support of a hostile foreign power, and after direct interference by the FBI. It was nothing like 2020 when Trump literally claimed that Biden hadn’t won and refused to concede. Equating the two is a lie.
Hmm perhaps I was misremembering. I will take the loss on that one, I just remember a lot of questions surrounding the election, specifically with Russian interference but admittedly I was never particularly interested in the politics of it.
I don't think that changes the general point that if people are losing faith in the elections (regardless of ideology) at a massive rate, the best thing to do is shore up doubt. And I think the Georgia bill at least attempts to do that, and again going back to the original question I would like to understand how it doesn't.
|
On April 07 2021 01:03 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2021 22:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
There is absolutely zero question regarding the integrity of the recent elections. They were fair and square. Those are just facts. The only people who claim otherwise are the ones that passed this legislation.
You can’t be at the same time lying your teeth out to cast doubt on the election and then pretend that you pass a legislation because you care about the trust people have about that same election. That just doesn’t work.
Look, it’s quite simple: when republicans are lying, it’s not having a “liberal bias” to point it out. Facts are not an opinion. Whew. Did not expect such a hostile reply. 1) Regardless of if you agree or not, there has been a question for both this election and the one in 2016. That is a fact. I personally believe there was some suspicious behavior that occured but the correct person won, and that courts were correct in not hearing cases, or overturning the election. That being said, it is undeniable that in certain states, certain groups overstepped their powers to initiate how the election was run in regards to mail-in voting. Disenfranchising those voters who voted legally because the people who instituted the policy overstepped would have been a terrible solution, so again I agree it should not be overturned. But to say there is no right to question the integrity of the election and everything was done right seems like a stretch. 2) I would like an explanation as to how I am lying through my teeth? When over two elections people on both sides of the aisle has screamed fraud and claimed "not-my-president," I don't think it is unreasonable to combat that. 3) It isn't liberal bias to point out when one side is lying, no. However, it is to say that the Georgia bill is worse than the Jim Crow era, and automatically assume that every thing a conservative does is either done with the intent of racism, or inherently bad.
You need to bring some actual evidence that there was anything at all untoward happening during these elections if you want to be taken seriously.
|
On April 07 2021 01:03 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2021 22:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
There is absolutely zero question regarding the integrity of the recent elections. They were fair and square. Those are just facts. The only people who claim otherwise are the ones that passed this legislation.
You can’t be at the same time lying your teeth out to cast doubt on the election and then pretend that you pass a legislation because you care about the trust people have about that same election. That just doesn’t work.
Look, it’s quite simple: when republicans are lying, it’s not having a “liberal bias” to point it out. Facts are not an opinion. Whew. Did not expect such a hostile reply. 1) Regardless of if you agree or not, there has been a question for both this election and the one in 2016. That is a fact. I personally believe there was some suspicious behavior that occured but the correct person won, and that courts were correct in not hearing cases, or overturning the election. That being said, it is undeniable that in certain states, certain groups overstepped their powers to initiate how the election was run in regards to mail-in voting. Disenfranchising those voters who voted legally because the people who instituted the policy overstepped would have been a terrible solution, so again I agree it should not be overturned. But to say there is no right to question the integrity of the election and everything was done right seems like a stretch. 2) I would like an explanation as to how I am lying through my teeth? When over two elections people on both sides of the aisle has screamed fraud and claimed "not-my-president," I don't think it is unreasonable to combat that. 3) It isn't liberal bias to point out when one side is lying, no. However, it is to say that the Georgia bill is worse than the Jim Crow era, and automatically assume that every thing a conservative does is either done with the intent of racism, or inherently bad. "Not my President" was people distancing themselves from Trump, cause he is a blithering idiot and he lost the popular vote.
No one that mattered even somewhat ever disputed the ballots or the result itself. The election process was not questioned, fraud was not an argument.
The complaint centred around a Russian (dis)information campaign, which is a proven fact at this point even supported by the Republican majority Senate Intelligence committee.
The arguments that Hillary would have won without that Russian campaign or the untimely FBI messaging is a result of the thin margins of victory and no different from claiming Trump could have won his re-election if Covid hadn't happened.
Neither has anything to do with the integrity of the election process itself.
|
On April 07 2021 00:01 Sermokala wrote:
Plus trying to act like you want every and only citizens to vote and then trying to rail against citizens in DC and PR from voting is pretty incoherent. You need to separate the messages that you want to stay on or else you cross the streams and things get confusing for you. Voter ID is a great point that the left doesn't go after hard enough on getting everyone documented easier but making a drivers licence the thing that is suppose to be your state ID doesn't work if it gets revoked or you're dealing with the DMV close to election day.
If there was a real voteing scandel like the right keeps explaining to people on how easy it should be it would be a lot easier to justify voteing restrictions. Instead its coming from a state that had its presidential votes go in the opposite way of the party that is passing this legislature, which is a really bad look and is deserving of the backlash regardless of whats actually in the bill.
I never railed against citizens in DC voting and I never mentioned Puerto Rico. Do not put words in my mouth, please. I said, specifically, that there has been alternative proposals to DC statehood, which imo make more sense considering the establishment of DC as the seat of government, that are not being considered as part of the Democratic platform because it does not sway elections in their favor enough. That is not railing against DC voting.
On the last few points, firstly it makes sense that the side that feels there are problems with a specific part of the election attempts to change that part. Its the same with Democrats trying to abolish the EC and putting forth HR1 as it is with Republicans with the Georgia bill. Each side sees different issues, that each side wants a solution for.
Lastly, I have explained that the Georgia bill puts forth provisions for people who do not have a driver's license. This is a nonargument, if you don't have a driver's license or even a state ID you are still able to vote if you verify your identity with your SSN and date of birth, which is not in any way gated by an economic status.
|
|
|
On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 01:03 Cbole wrote:On April 06 2021 22:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
There is absolutely zero question regarding the integrity of the recent elections. They were fair and square. Those are just facts. The only people who claim otherwise are the ones that passed this legislation.
You can’t be at the same time lying your teeth out to cast doubt on the election and then pretend that you pass a legislation because you care about the trust people have about that same election. That just doesn’t work.
Look, it’s quite simple: when republicans are lying, it’s not having a “liberal bias” to point it out. Facts are not an opinion. Whew. Did not expect such a hostile reply. 1) Regardless of if you agree or not, there has been a question for both this election and the one in 2016. That is a fact. I personally believe there was some suspicious behavior that occured but the correct person won, and that courts were correct in not hearing cases, or overturning the election. That being said, it is undeniable that in certain states, certain groups overstepped their powers to initiate how the election was run in regards to mail-in voting. Disenfranchising those voters who voted legally because the people who instituted the policy overstepped would have been a terrible solution, so again I agree it should not be overturned. But to say there is no right to question the integrity of the election and everything was done right seems like a stretch. 2) I would like an explanation as to how I am lying through my teeth? When over two elections people on both sides of the aisle has screamed fraud and claimed "not-my-president," I don't think it is unreasonable to combat that. 3) It isn't liberal bias to point out when one side is lying, no. However, it is to say that the Georgia bill is worse than the Jim Crow era, and automatically assume that every thing a conservative does is either done with the intent of racism, or inherently bad. You need to bring some actual evidence that there was anything at all untoward happening during these elections if you want to be taken seriously.
Again, whether anything did or did not happen is not the point. The point I was making is that there are a SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT TRUST THE ELECTION PROCESS. Whether it is founded or not is beside the point. Trying to reinforce election practices should be something that can be universally agreed upon, regardless of side, which in my opinion the Georgia bill does.
I understand everyone is this thread has a liberal bias. I admitted from the very beginning I lean conservative. I would appreciate it, very much, if people either provided evidence that this bill will disenfranchise people, and explain to me why it is a bad thing to verify identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
