- Joined
- Jul 23, 2018
- Messages
- 42,487
- Reaction score
- 27,989
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
^ Not a very Christian thing to say about another human being.Stacey Abrams is a dipshit.
^ Not a very Christian thing to say about another human being.Stacey Abrams is a dipshit.
^ Not a very Christian thing to say about another human being.
Logic fail. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
If a GOP-controlled states has the Constitutional right to change voting laws, then just what are you objecting to? You must be in love with the idea that GOP-controlled states are racist because they are adjusting voting laws following a year of pandemic-related voting restrictions. If you knew anything at all about what is going on in Texas, then you would see the new voting laws are a lot less restrictive than the laws in Biden's home state of DE.
I'm just saying that's completely irrelevant and whining nonsense.I'm just saying the Reps do a better job of it than the Dems. Dems are ******s.
Trump deflection aside, what you said about Stacy Abrams is NOT a Christian thing to do, "full contact politics", or not. You're just making excuses for your non-Christian like behavior towards another child of your God, simply due to her political lean.If I was criticising Trump you wouldn't have a word to say about it.
This is full contact politics, if you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.
What you said about Stacy Abrams is NOT a Christian thing to do, "full contact politics", or not. You're just making excuses for your non-Christian like behavior towards another child of your God.
I am not like Senile Biden who declared GOP voting laws to be Jim Crow on steroids.In which case, I would object to the restriction in DE. But you haven't made the case TX v DE.
Citation needed for your positive claim "most of the people on your side of the aisle are flaming heretics...........," or asinine positive claim is dismissed as nonsense.I don't care about what YOU think "non-Christian" behavior is, most of the people on your side of the aisle are flaming heretics and you don't know the difference.
I'm just saying that's completely irrelevant and whining nonsense.
I am not like Senile Biden who declared GOP voting laws to be Jim Crow on steroids.
Whatever that means.
I have already looked at TX v DE voting laws and TX is less restrictive.
Do you own homework.
What's your point.? You're going to complain anyway regardless of the TX voting rules. You would've loved to be on that plane with all of the other cowardly TX representatives knowing they had a weak case but they had to do something foolish.
So they went to D.C. to see the Wizard but the Wizard was too busy.
So they simply infected other Democratic colleagues with the virus.
You can define subjective, right?I can prove it relevant to the subject of the OP while you can't prove it irrelevant. You can't prove it nonsense, because it is true and relevant. You can say I'm complaining, by definition, but you can't prove by definition I'm whining. You can't refute anything I said. I just gave you a point-by-point opportunity to try.
And you reached that conclusion without making any comparisons between blue state voting laws, like in DE, and the proposed and passed red state , as in TX, voting laws which you say are Jim Crow 2.0.The voting laws are Jim Crow 2.0. They are designed to lower the number of black people voting. Period. That is the effect. Also, it lowers the number of many white people with less facility to meet the demands of the new voting reqs. Reps/cons and the plutocracy never cared about low-income con voters, either.
If you looked at TX v DE voting laws, than you can cite the diffs and give links to ref. Otherwise, you're not providing the evidence necessary to support you claim and the claim is thus unfounded and need not be debated further. Without you supplying what is your burden, I also need not respond to the more you ask of me on other points you raise. See you on another thread.
The legislation requires more counties to offer at least 12 hours of early voting each weekday of the last week of early voting, but sets a new window of 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. for voting.
Might be worth moving to the south for a bit...Ok, so you don't actually have a response to the OP then (which has nothing to do with IDs). That's fine, why are you in this thread exactly then?
However, I like that you brought up the word victimized ...
I just detailed a way to victimize every GOP voter in Georgia. But its Georgia's fault for writing easily exploitable laws.
The interesting thing about the way the Georgia law is written, is that if I were to live there, I could victimize GOP voters over and over with no legal consequences to me.
Marking this post for if the Dems do something like suggested.GA law doesn't create any advantage for one party over another. It equally applies to all.
Obviously too many democrats work night shifts and voted after 9pm in 2020.And you reached that conclusion without making any comparisons between blue state voting laws, like in DE, and the proposed and passed red state , as in TX, voting laws which you say are Jim Crow 2.0.
You say the effect is "designed to lower the number of black people voting."
How can you possibly know that when voting has not even taken place.?
You are a typical Progressive parroting Pelosi talking points without doing research before a single vote is cast.
I have done my research and you have not. You want to spout talking points without make comparisons. You have no idea how TX voting laws will limit the number of black votes case BECAUSE VOTING HAS NOT STARTED YET! YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS!!
Biden’s Home State of Delaware Has Stricter Voting Laws than Texas
Biden’s Home State of Delaware Has Stricter Voting Laws than Texas
The voting laws in Biden's home state of Delaware, where he served as a Senator for 30 years, has much stricter voting laws.www.breitbart.com
A comparison of Texas Senate Bill 7 and Delaware voting laws reveals that Delaware voting laws are not just stricter but much narrower. In Texas, according to the Texas Tribune, early voting is actually increased under the legislation:
You can define subjective, right?
And you reached that conclusion without making any comparisons between blue state voting laws, like in DE, and the proposed and passed red state , as in TX, voting laws which you say are Jim Crow 2.0.
You say the effect is "designed to lower the number of black people voting."
How can you possibly know that when voting has not even taken place.?
You are a typical Progressive parroting Pelosi talking points without doing research before a single vote is cast.
I have done my research and you have not. You want to spout talking points without make comparisons. You have no idea how TX voting laws will limit the number of black votes case BECAUSE VOTING HAS NOT STARTED YET! YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS!!
Biden’s Home State of Delaware Has Stricter Voting Laws than Texas
Biden’s Home State of Delaware Has Stricter Voting Laws than Texas
The voting laws in Biden's home state of Delaware, where he served as a Senator for 30 years, has much stricter voting laws.www.breitbart.com
A comparison of Texas Senate Bill 7 and Delaware voting laws reveals that Delaware voting laws are not just stricter but much narrower. In Texas, according to the Texas Tribune, early voting is actually increased under the legislation:
What a ****ing clown show of an argument. The original claim was made by you, that Democrats do not gerrymander as much as Republicans. Its obvious they are going to gerrymander more as they control more states. More effectively is the actual argument and that is entirely subjective. Just like you calling your own party ******s, which his whining about your own party and a subjective term.Objectively, you can't prove what I pointed out in my last post, which assertions are otherwise "subjective". I asked you to provide proof of what you say, which is your burden in debate, and which you have refused to provide. What you say is therefor unfounded and dismissed, without need for further debate. See you on another thread.
Is it? They figured they would set it up so they could challenge enough Democrat votes to keep Democrats from winning...that was indeed their strategy...and that might backfire considering that there are a butt load of Democrats in Atlanta.If I were a Georgia voter, I would start a grassroots organization to repeatedly challenge every Republican voter's right to vote and absolutely flood the offices with requests... two months before the election. Perhaps that sort of thing would help the Georgia GOP realize what they created and perhaps come up with something more reasonable.
It's petty bull crap.
Calling things anti-voting doesn't make it so.This is one of the worst parts of the new Georgia anti-voting law...
Section 21-2-230 - Challenge of persons on list of electors by other electors; procedure; hearing; right of appeal, Ga. Code § 21-2-230 | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Section 21-2-230 - Challenge of persons on list of electors by other electors; procedure; hearing; right of appeal, Ga. Code § 21-2-230, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal databasecasetext.com
If I were a Georgia voter, I would start a grassroots organization to repeatedly challenge every Republican voter's right to vote and absolutely flood the offices with requests... two months before the election. Perhaps that sort of thing would help the Georgia GOP realize what they created and perhaps come up with something more reasonable.
If you find this strategy shocking, perhaps you should reconsider your support for the Georgia anti-voting laws...
Calling things anti-voting doesn't make it so.