|
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 |
United States43728 Posts
On April 07 2021 01:03 Cbole wrote: automatically assume that every thing a conservative does is either done with the intent of racism, or inherently bad.
When they’re continuing the policies that were explicitly motivated for racist purposes they can’t ask for the benefit of the doubt. When they end felon disenfranchisement they can ask for me to trust them. You can’t ask to be trusted around the cookie jar while actively shoving stolen cookies into your mouth. You can’t claim not to be pursuing racist disenfranchisement policies anymore while still actively supporting the racist disenfranchisement policies you already passed.
They’re not getting the assumption of racism because they’re conservatives. The causality is backwards. They’re conservatives because they’re supporters of racism. I don’t disapprove of conservative policies because they’re supported by conservatives, I disapprove of conservatives because of their awful policies. If they came up with some good policies I’d be fine with them.
|
On April 07 2021 01:16 Gorsameth 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. "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.
Yeah, I think there's a very important distinction here:
"Not my president" vs. Trump was pointing out that Trump doesn't represent my personal views (or the views of the majority of Americans). This is different than "Not THE president" vs. Biden, which was the INCORRECT assertion that Biden fraudulently became president by stealing the election from Trump.
Cbole, if a Republican wants to say "Biden doesn't represent my views", then that's 100% understandable. But this idea that Biden's presidency is illegal or illegitimate is just... wrong. And just because Republicans are questioning the election results of both 2016 and 2020 doesn't mean there's any validity to their accusations. There's no mass voter fraud. Trump created a task force during his first term to try and find election rigging against him in the 2016 election - they found nothing. Dozens of futile lawsuits in 2020 demonstrated the same thing - that Trump and his followers are just sore losers (or sore winners, as per 2016).
|
On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: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.
People don't trust the election process because they don't understand the election process, and they trust Donald Trump instead of security officials who have said, repeatedly, that the most recent election was one of the most secure elections ever. The only way to dispel these myths is to educate people on this, which includes being able to establish - and communicate - that this lack of trust is unfounded.
|
United States43728 Posts
On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: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.
If the problem was lack of trust in the election then the solution would be for both major parties to point to the huge amount of money and time spent looking for voter fraud and the immaterial amount of voter fraud found. They could reassure the population that voter fraud doesn’t happen. The solution is not to make it harder for people to vote to appease people who believe a lie.
If I claimed that there was a meteor heading for the earth and you checked with NASA and showed no meteor exists you would surely not argue that we should calm the people I had concerned by giving me a huge government contract to build meteor bunkers. You would not reward me for my lies in the name of calming the people. You would tell me that if I really cared about calming the people I would admit to them that I made up the meteor thing.
The Republicans made up voter fraud. They made it up in 2016 when Trump alleged that millions of illegal immigrants voted and that he won the popular vote if you excluded those. They made it up in 2020 when they claimed mail in ballots fraudulent. In both instances they spent a colossal amount of money trying to prove their claims and in both cases they proved in the inverse. Rather than admit they made it up they’re now asking to be rewarded for their lies. If you can’t see a problem with this I have a meteor bunker to sell you.
|
On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: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.
So in your eyes, all that is necessary is to mislead enough people and suddenly the result of misinformation is justified and proper?
|
On April 07 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: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. People don't trust the election process because they don't understand the election process, and they trust Donald Trump instead of security officials who have said, repeatedly, that the most recent election was one of the most secure elections ever. The only way to dispel these myths is to educate people on this, which includes being able to establish - and communicate - that this lack of trust is unfounded.
And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany.
Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering.
Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't.
Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps.
|
On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: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.
So you are advocating to change legislation based on feelings and not facts?
|
On April 07 2021 01:43 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: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. People don't trust the election process because they don't understand the election process, and they trust Donald Trump instead of security officials who have said, repeatedly, that the most recent election was one of the most secure elections ever. The only way to dispel these myths is to educate people on this, which includes being able to establish - and communicate - that this lack of trust is unfounded. And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany. Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering. Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't. Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps.
Definitely. Every time I've voted in person, I walked up to the people who were proctoring the process, gave them my name, and they checked me off their list - a paper trail - before voting at the actual machine. Granted, my precincts have never been super large, and I've never needed to wait in line for longer than a half hour, but I have no problem with a paper trail or record for who is voting. I feel like Republicans will just move the goalposts again though, and continue to insist that the election isn't secure. It's really frustrating when they refuse to engage in good faith.
|
On April 07 2021 01:43 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: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. People don't trust the election process because they don't understand the election process, and they trust Donald Trump instead of security officials who have said, repeatedly, that the most recent election was one of the most secure elections ever. The only way to dispel these myths is to educate people on this, which includes being able to establish - and communicate - that this lack of trust is unfounded. And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany. Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering. Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't. Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps.
Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever.
Regardless, I do not want this to be a rehash of what happened on the election. To reiterate and clarify, I absolutely, totally, 100% believe the correct person won, and the actions of Donald Trump in the following months stoked the fire. That is not what I am asking or debating.
The entire reason I brought up was to establish that there are people who question the integrity of the election, and that that is the reason for the Georgia bill. Regardless of the background as to why the bill was passed, it has been.
With that being said, I would like to ask again, how does the Georgia bill disenfranchise voters? The only legitimate answer that could be the case that was brought up was regarding voter rolls.
|
On April 07 2021 01:10 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Sorry, I don't really know the answer beyond what I've seen on international news sites, so I can't say I'm knowledgeable enough on the subject. Farv did point out another point though:
On April 06 2021 22:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
On April 07 2021 02:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 02:14 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:43 Simberto wrote:On April 07 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: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. People don't trust the election process because they don't understand the election process, and they trust Donald Trump instead of security officials who have said, repeatedly, that the most recent election was one of the most secure elections ever. The only way to dispel these myths is to educate people on this, which includes being able to establish - and communicate - that this lack of trust is unfounded. And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany. Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering. Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't. Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps. Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. Regardless, I do not want this to be a rehash of what happened on the election. To reiterate and clarify, I absolutely, totally, 100% believe the correct person won, and the actions of Donald Trump in the following months stoked the fire. That is not what I am asking or debating. The entire reason I brought up was to establish that there are people who question the integrity of the election, and that that is the reason for the Georgia bill. Regardless of the background as to why the bill was passed, it has been. With that being said, I would like to ask again, how does the Georgia bill disenfranchise voters? The only legitimate answer that could be the case that was brought up was regarding voter rolls. The people questioning it are doing so based on false pretenses, ones that you continue to state as fact. Why would you change laws to stop something that didn't happen instead of having those people who know what happened be honest with people? Sourcing any of your "stories" about these mail in stuff would also be handy, because if it is just people making things up it really is not relevant.
Again, I am not trying to derail the conversation any further on any of the election stuff. Merely trying to understand why and how the Georgia bill is seen as disenfranchising voters. I am happy tp have this conversation another time, but it seems like posters (including yourself) are focusing in on the election fraud claims, rather than my intended purpose of bringing it up as a background for the Georgia bill.
To counter your point about doing anything election related, there is currently HR1 put forth by Democrats with the stated goal of:
This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government
If integrity and security were not in question, why change it? According to your logic.
Full disclaimer here: I have only heard about HR1, I have not read it. I am using the stated goal only as a counter-argument to refusing to change or update a law without any damages, that is generally supported by those against the GA bill.
|
|
|
On April 07 2021 03:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 03:00 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 02:41 JimmiC wrote:On April 07 2021 02:14 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:43 Simberto wrote:On April 07 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: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. People don't trust the election process because they don't understand the election process, and they trust Donald Trump instead of security officials who have said, repeatedly, that the most recent election was one of the most secure elections ever. The only way to dispel these myths is to educate people on this, which includes being able to establish - and communicate - that this lack of trust is unfounded. And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany. Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering. Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't. Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps. Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. Regardless, I do not want this to be a rehash of what happened on the election. To reiterate and clarify, I absolutely, totally, 100% believe the correct person won, and the actions of Donald Trump in the following months stoked the fire. That is not what I am asking or debating. The entire reason I brought up was to establish that there are people who question the integrity of the election, and that that is the reason for the Georgia bill. Regardless of the background as to why the bill was passed, it has been. With that being said, I would like to ask again, how does the Georgia bill disenfranchise voters? The only legitimate answer that could be the case that was brought up was regarding voter rolls. The people questioning it are doing so based on false pretenses, ones that you continue to state as fact. Why would you change laws to stop something that didn't happen instead of having those people who know what happened be honest with people? Sourcing any of your "stories" about these mail in stuff would also be handy, because if it is just people making things up it really is not relevant. Again, I am not trying to derail the conversation any further on any of the election stuff. Merely trying to understand why and how the Georgia bill is seen as disenfranchising voters. I am happy tp have this conversation another time, but it seems like posters (including yourself) are focusing in on the election fraud claims, rather than my intended purpose of bringing it up as a background for the Georgia bill. To counter your point about doing anything election related, there is currently HR1 put forth by Democrats with the stated goal of: This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government If integrity and security were not in question, why change it? According to your logic. Full disclaimer here: I have only heard about HR1, I have not read it. I am using the stated goal only as a counter-argument to refusing to change or update a law without any damages, that is generally supported by those against the GA bill. You have strawman'd my point sir. It is not that everything is perfect and nothing should change. It is that the basis for the bill you want to discuss, and the reasons for that bill are made up. You say this is needed to "help voter confidence", but this bill will not do that because it does not address the elephant in the room that you keep dancing away from, that all they have to do is say " Trump was lying, there was not voter fraud, we checked and investigated, publicly and privately with a over 300 million dollar war chest. We filed copious lawsuits and checked every angle. The election was fair a honest, just this time the Democrats won". That from the Republican party would do far more for voter confidence than a bill in one state that is addressing issues that did not happen. The bill you bring up seems fine, clearly money has too much influence in your political system and clearly states to get rid of gerrymandering for partisan reasons. Apparently though according to republicans independent redistricting commissions are not fair? And auto enrolling voters is not fair because more of those voters are Democratic? Does that sound like people interested in fair elections, or people only concerned with winning with unpopular policy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_ActSo you see the difference, this Bill is about dealing with issues that are real, and the other one is not.
Voter ID has been a very hot issue for a while in the United States. If you disagree with the premise as to why it was brought up this time, that is fine, but that does not inherently make the bill bad. So I ask again, why is this bill considered to be Jim Crow on steroids, according to Joe Biden, and destroying democracy?
As far as HR1 goes, again I have not read deeply into the bill, but from what I can see based of the wikipedia article you linked is that it directly infringes upon states running their elections, which is something expressly granted by the Constitution. Also, it expands mail in voting which I can see being another issue. However, I digress. My knowledge is not enough to get into a deep debate about that.
|
On April 07 2021 03:51 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 03:30 JimmiC wrote:On April 07 2021 03:00 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 02:41 JimmiC wrote:On April 07 2021 02:14 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:43 Simberto wrote:On April 07 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 07 2021 01:03 Cbole wrote:
[quote]
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. People don't trust the election process because they don't understand the election process, and they trust Donald Trump instead of security officials who have said, repeatedly, that the most recent election was one of the most secure elections ever. The only way to dispel these myths is to educate people on this, which includes being able to establish - and communicate - that this lack of trust is unfounded. And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany. Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering. Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't. Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps. Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. Regardless, I do not want this to be a rehash of what happened on the election. To reiterate and clarify, I absolutely, totally, 100% believe the correct person won, and the actions of Donald Trump in the following months stoked the fire. That is not what I am asking or debating. The entire reason I brought up was to establish that there are people who question the integrity of the election, and that that is the reason for the Georgia bill. Regardless of the background as to why the bill was passed, it has been. With that being said, I would like to ask again, how does the Georgia bill disenfranchise voters? The only legitimate answer that could be the case that was brought up was regarding voter rolls. The people questioning it are doing so based on false pretenses, ones that you continue to state as fact. Why would you change laws to stop something that didn't happen instead of having those people who know what happened be honest with people? Sourcing any of your "stories" about these mail in stuff would also be handy, because if it is just people making things up it really is not relevant. Again, I am not trying to derail the conversation any further on any of the election stuff. Merely trying to understand why and how the Georgia bill is seen as disenfranchising voters. I am happy tp have this conversation another time, but it seems like posters (including yourself) are focusing in on the election fraud claims, rather than my intended purpose of bringing it up as a background for the Georgia bill. To counter your point about doing anything election related, there is currently HR1 put forth by Democrats with the stated goal of: This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government If integrity and security were not in question, why change it? According to your logic. Full disclaimer here: I have only heard about HR1, I have not read it. I am using the stated goal only as a counter-argument to refusing to change or update a law without any damages, that is generally supported by those against the GA bill. You have strawman'd my point sir. It is not that everything is perfect and nothing should change. It is that the basis for the bill you want to discuss, and the reasons for that bill are made up. You say this is needed to "help voter confidence", but this bill will not do that because it does not address the elephant in the room that you keep dancing away from, that all they have to do is say " Trump was lying, there was not voter fraud, we checked and investigated, publicly and privately with a over 300 million dollar war chest. We filed copious lawsuits and checked every angle. The election was fair a honest, just this time the Democrats won". That from the Republican party would do far more for voter confidence than a bill in one state that is addressing issues that did not happen. The bill you bring up seems fine, clearly money has too much influence in your political system and clearly states to get rid of gerrymandering for partisan reasons. Apparently though according to republicans independent redistricting commissions are not fair? And auto enrolling voters is not fair because more of those voters are Democratic? Does that sound like people interested in fair elections, or people only concerned with winning with unpopular policy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_ActSo you see the difference, this Bill is about dealing with issues that are real, and the other one is not. Voter ID has been a very hot issue for a while in the United States. If you disagree with the premise as to why it was brought up this time, that is fine, but that does not inherently make the bill bad. So I ask again, why is this bill considered to be Jim Crow on steroids, according to Joe Biden, and destroying democracy? As far as HR1 goes, again I have not read deeply into the bill, but from what I can see based of the wikipedia article you linked is that it directly infringes upon states running their elections, which is something expressly granted by the Constitution. Also, it expands mail in voting which I can see being another issue. However, I digress. My knowledge is not enough to get into a deep debate about that.
Dude. You really, really need to reevaluate the basis of your positions. You are basing your positions on republican talking points which are usually dishonest takes on the issues at best, and quite often simply complete falsehoods.
You keep jumping between reasons, arguments, and what the constitution says fluidly. Unlike what you have learned from the republican media, "the constitution says so" as an argument does not kill a discussion and give you the win. Sometimes what a constitution says may be wrong, or need to be amended. After all, you have a lot of amends to the constitution in the US, too. If you want to make an argument, say why you think something should be the way it is. Use ethics, or philosophy, or goals, or arguments. Not just that the constitution says something.
I am from Germany. I don't care that your constitution says that the states should run their own elections. They clearly suck at it, and whenever the republicans get to make more rules on a state level, they abuse that to do gamey stuff that makes them win more elections at the cost of making those elections less democratic.
What problem do you think that the Georgia Bill solves, and through what mechanism do you think it solves that problem? So far, you seem to mostly claim that it might not be completely racist. What you seem to completely miss is that the republicans are attacking democracy through a death by thousand cuts method. Every single one of their bills, if viewed from a very specific angle (and ignoring a lot of implications) may possibly not be the worst. But they all work together to make sure that people who would vote for them have a harder time working.
What you need to see here is the context. Republicans just lost an election in Georgia, and then start to make new rules that make it harder for the people who vote against them to vote. How does that not immediately trigger your bullshit detector?
Do you not agree that voting should be as easy as possible? Then why constantly have new laws combating fake problems that make voting harder for real people?
Why is mail-in voting another issue? We have had mail-in voting in Germany for ages.There are exactly zero problems with it. And no one questions its legitimacy. And especially during a pandemic where having lots of people at the same spot is a very bad idea, mail-in voting is a really good solution. I do generally prefer to cast my vote in person if possible, but mail-in voting does not stop me from doing so, it just gives me another option in case i can not or do not want to vote in person.
|
On April 07 2021 04:30 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 03:51 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 03:30 JimmiC wrote:On April 07 2021 03:00 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 02:41 JimmiC wrote:On April 07 2021 02:14 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:43 Simberto wrote:On April 07 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
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. People don't trust the election process because they don't understand the election process, and they trust Donald Trump instead of security officials who have said, repeatedly, that the most recent election was one of the most secure elections ever. The only way to dispel these myths is to educate people on this, which includes being able to establish - and communicate - that this lack of trust is unfounded. And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany. Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering. Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't. Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps. Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. Regardless, I do not want this to be a rehash of what happened on the election. To reiterate and clarify, I absolutely, totally, 100% believe the correct person won, and the actions of Donald Trump in the following months stoked the fire. That is not what I am asking or debating. The entire reason I brought up was to establish that there are people who question the integrity of the election, and that that is the reason for the Georgia bill. Regardless of the background as to why the bill was passed, it has been. With that being said, I would like to ask again, how does the Georgia bill disenfranchise voters? The only legitimate answer that could be the case that was brought up was regarding voter rolls. The people questioning it are doing so based on false pretenses, ones that you continue to state as fact. Why would you change laws to stop something that didn't happen instead of having those people who know what happened be honest with people? Sourcing any of your "stories" about these mail in stuff would also be handy, because if it is just people making things up it really is not relevant. Again, I am not trying to derail the conversation any further on any of the election stuff. Merely trying to understand why and how the Georgia bill is seen as disenfranchising voters. I am happy tp have this conversation another time, but it seems like posters (including yourself) are focusing in on the election fraud claims, rather than my intended purpose of bringing it up as a background for the Georgia bill. To counter your point about doing anything election related, there is currently HR1 put forth by Democrats with the stated goal of: This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government If integrity and security were not in question, why change it? According to your logic. Full disclaimer here: I have only heard about HR1, I have not read it. I am using the stated goal only as a counter-argument to refusing to change or update a law without any damages, that is generally supported by those against the GA bill. You have strawman'd my point sir. It is not that everything is perfect and nothing should change. It is that the basis for the bill you want to discuss, and the reasons for that bill are made up. You say this is needed to "help voter confidence", but this bill will not do that because it does not address the elephant in the room that you keep dancing away from, that all they have to do is say " Trump was lying, there was not voter fraud, we checked and investigated, publicly and privately with a over 300 million dollar war chest. We filed copious lawsuits and checked every angle. The election was fair a honest, just this time the Democrats won". That from the Republican party would do far more for voter confidence than a bill in one state that is addressing issues that did not happen. The bill you bring up seems fine, clearly money has too much influence in your political system and clearly states to get rid of gerrymandering for partisan reasons. Apparently though according to republicans independent redistricting commissions are not fair? And auto enrolling voters is not fair because more of those voters are Democratic? Does that sound like people interested in fair elections, or people only concerned with winning with unpopular policy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_ActSo you see the difference, this Bill is about dealing with issues that are real, and the other one is not. Voter ID has been a very hot issue for a while in the United States. If you disagree with the premise as to why it was brought up this time, that is fine, but that does not inherently make the bill bad. So I ask again, why is this bill considered to be Jim Crow on steroids, according to Joe Biden, and destroying democracy? As far as HR1 goes, again I have not read deeply into the bill, but from what I can see based of the wikipedia article you linked is that it directly infringes upon states running their elections, which is something expressly granted by the Constitution. Also, it expands mail in voting which I can see being another issue. However, I digress. My knowledge is not enough to get into a deep debate about that. Dude. You really, really need to reevaluate the basis of your positions. You are basing your positions on republican talking points which are usually dishonest takes on the issues at best, and quite often simply complete falsehoods. You keep jumping between reasons, arguments, and what the constitution says fluidly. Unlike what you have learned from the republican media, "the constitution says so" as an argument does not kill a discussion and give you the win. Sometimes what a constitution says may be wrong, or need to be amended. After all, you have a lot of amends to the constitution in the US, too. If you want to make an argument, say why you think something should be the way it is. Use ethics, or philosophy, or goals, or arguments. Not just that the constitution says something. I am from Germany. I don't care that your constitution says that the states should run their own elections. They clearly suck at it, and whenever the republicans get to make more rules on a state level, they abuse that to do gamey stuff that makes them win more elections at the cost of making those elections less democratic. What problem do you think that the Georgia Bill solves, and through what mechanism do you think it solves that problem? So far, you seem to mostly claim that it might not be completely racist. What you seem to completely miss is that the republicans are attacking democracy through a death by thousand cuts method. Every single one of their bills, if viewed from a very specific angle (and ignoring a lot of implications) may possibly not be the worst. But they all work together to make sure that people who would vote for them have a harder time working. What you need to see here is the context. Republicans just lost an election in Georgia, and then start to make new rules that make it harder for the people who vote against them to vote. How does that not immediately trigger your bullshit detector? Do you not agree that voting should be as easy as possible? Then why constantly have new laws combating fake problems that make voting harder for real people? Why is mail-in voting another issue? We have had mail-in voting in Germany for ages.There are exactly zero problems with it. And no one questions its legitimacy. And especially during a pandemic where having lots of people at the same spot is a very bad idea, mail-in voting is a really good solution. I do generally prefer to cast my vote in person if possible, but mail-in voting does not stop me from doing so, it just gives me another option in case i can not or do not want to vote in person.
Why have any law regarding an election? Any law makes it harder.
I asked a specific question to begin this conversation about a specific law. I have stayed consistent on that question, except when addressing what I perceived as reasons for the bill, to which I regret since it detracted from the point. To the rest of your rant, you did not address what specifically, about this bill, is so egregious that it is destroying democracy.
Who cares about the Constitution? The Constitution is the governing document. Is it perfect? No. Was it made perfect? No. But the way to change it was provided in the form of amendments, and until an amendment does change it, the words will remain the law of the land.
|
On April 07 2021 02:14 Cbole wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 01:43 Simberto wrote:On April 07 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: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. People don't trust the election process because they don't understand the election process, and they trust Donald Trump instead of security officials who have said, repeatedly, that the most recent election was one of the most secure elections ever. The only way to dispel these myths is to educate people on this, which includes being able to establish - and communicate - that this lack of trust is unfounded. And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany. Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering. Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't. Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps. Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. Regardless, I do not want this to be a rehash of what happened on the election. To reiterate and clarify, I absolutely, totally, 100% believe the correct person won, and the actions of Donald Trump in the following months stoked the fire. That is not what I am asking or debating. The entire reason I brought up was to establish that there are people who question the integrity of the election, and that that is the reason for the Georgia bill. Regardless of the background as to why the bill was passed, it has been. With that being said, I would like to ask again, how does the Georgia bill disenfranchise voters? The only legitimate answer that could be the case that was brought up was regarding voter rolls.
Do you have a source for the bolded part?
|
|
|
On April 07 2021 04:54 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 02:14 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:43 Simberto wrote:On April 07 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: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. People don't trust the election process because they don't understand the election process, and they trust Donald Trump instead of security officials who have said, repeatedly, that the most recent election was one of the most secure elections ever. The only way to dispel these myths is to educate people on this, which includes being able to establish - and communicate - that this lack of trust is unfounded. And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany. Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering. Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't. Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps. Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. Regardless, I do not want this to be a rehash of what happened on the election. To reiterate and clarify, I absolutely, totally, 100% believe the correct person won, and the actions of Donald Trump in the following months stoked the fire. That is not what I am asking or debating. The entire reason I brought up was to establish that there are people who question the integrity of the election, and that that is the reason for the Georgia bill. Regardless of the background as to why the bill was passed, it has been. With that being said, I would like to ask again, how does the Georgia bill disenfranchise voters? The only legitimate answer that could be the case that was brought up was regarding voter rolls. Do you have a source for the bolded part?
Not to get off topic, again, I am not debating the election or the outcome. Here are some sources to back the claim, this is as far as I will discuss.
For the first claim:
https://thenewamerican.com/michigan-judge-secretary-of-state-broke-law-with-absentee-ballot-directive-in-2020-election/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-rules-virginia-election-law-changes-illegal
For the second:
https://electionwiz.com/2021/02/16/maricopa-county-continues-stonewalling-ariz-senate/
https://headlines360.news/2021/03/09/ballot-shredding-happens-in-georgia-to-destroy-evidence/
|
On April 07 2021 04:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 03:51 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 03:30 JimmiC wrote:On April 07 2021 03:00 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 02:41 JimmiC wrote:On April 07 2021 02:14 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:43 Simberto wrote:On April 07 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 07 2021 01:26 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
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. People don't trust the election process because they don't understand the election process, and they trust Donald Trump instead of security officials who have said, repeatedly, that the most recent election was one of the most secure elections ever. The only way to dispel these myths is to educate people on this, which includes being able to establish - and communicate - that this lack of trust is unfounded. And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany. Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering. Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't. Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps. Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. Regardless, I do not want this to be a rehash of what happened on the election. To reiterate and clarify, I absolutely, totally, 100% believe the correct person won, and the actions of Donald Trump in the following months stoked the fire. That is not what I am asking or debating. The entire reason I brought up was to establish that there are people who question the integrity of the election, and that that is the reason for the Georgia bill. Regardless of the background as to why the bill was passed, it has been. With that being said, I would like to ask again, how does the Georgia bill disenfranchise voters? The only legitimate answer that could be the case that was brought up was regarding voter rolls. The people questioning it are doing so based on false pretenses, ones that you continue to state as fact. Why would you change laws to stop something that didn't happen instead of having those people who know what happened be honest with people? Sourcing any of your "stories" about these mail in stuff would also be handy, because if it is just people making things up it really is not relevant. Again, I am not trying to derail the conversation any further on any of the election stuff. Merely trying to understand why and how the Georgia bill is seen as disenfranchising voters. I am happy tp have this conversation another time, but it seems like posters (including yourself) are focusing in on the election fraud claims, rather than my intended purpose of bringing it up as a background for the Georgia bill. To counter your point about doing anything election related, there is currently HR1 put forth by Democrats with the stated goal of: This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government If integrity and security were not in question, why change it? According to your logic. Full disclaimer here: I have only heard about HR1, I have not read it. I am using the stated goal only as a counter-argument to refusing to change or update a law without any damages, that is generally supported by those against the GA bill. You have strawman'd my point sir. It is not that everything is perfect and nothing should change. It is that the basis for the bill you want to discuss, and the reasons for that bill are made up. You say this is needed to "help voter confidence", but this bill will not do that because it does not address the elephant in the room that you keep dancing away from, that all they have to do is say " Trump was lying, there was not voter fraud, we checked and investigated, publicly and privately with a over 300 million dollar war chest. We filed copious lawsuits and checked every angle. The election was fair a honest, just this time the Democrats won". That from the Republican party would do far more for voter confidence than a bill in one state that is addressing issues that did not happen. The bill you bring up seems fine, clearly money has too much influence in your political system and clearly states to get rid of gerrymandering for partisan reasons. Apparently though according to republicans independent redistricting commissions are not fair? And auto enrolling voters is not fair because more of those voters are Democratic? Does that sound like people interested in fair elections, or people only concerned with winning with unpopular policy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_ActSo you see the difference, this Bill is about dealing with issues that are real, and the other one is not. Voter ID has been a very hot issue for a while in the United States. If you disagree with the premise as to why it was brought up this time, that is fine, but that does not inherently make the bill bad. So I ask again, why is this bill considered to be Jim Crow on steroids, according to Joe Biden, and destroying democracy? As far as HR1 goes, again I have not read deeply into the bill, but from what I can see based of the wikipedia article you linked is that it directly infringes upon states running their elections, which is something expressly granted by the Constitution. Also, it expands mail in voting which I can see being another issue. However, I digress. My knowledge is not enough to get into a deep debate about that. Yes it does, it makes it illegal for states to run unfair elections. You want states to have that right? Yes it does, intention matters because it is the best indication for how it will be used. And like 4 or 5 people explained to you why that is. It is destroying democracy because it is trying to give legitimatcy to the lie that the election was not fair and needs changes because of it. It also chips away everytime someone, especially in power, continues to repeat the lie as if it is a legitimate point of view.
Georgia certified their results and sent electors for Biden. Biden received their electoral votes. There is no admittance from Georgia that their election was illegitimate or stolen. If the state wants to strengthen their election integrity, per the Constitution, it is their perogative. The state is not barred from passing election laws simply because there was controversy previous to them passing a law.
If you have issues with the law itself, GREAT! I look forward to hearing your rationale ABOUT THE BILL rather than just repeating that you don't think the election was stolen. I have already stated multiple times that I do not believe it was stolen. So AGAIN, I ask, WHAT, SPECIFICALLY, IS YOUR ISSUE WITH THE BILL, not with the people passing it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
