Every Republican Voter in Georgia should have their right to vote challenged (its legal too!)

[Logician Man]

Stacey Abrams is a dipshit.

^ Not a very Christian thing to say about another human being.

 

[it's just me]

^ Not a very Christian thing to say about another human being.

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.

 

[bluesmoke]

Logic fail. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Exactly. There could be unicorn. And God and other supernatural being. Mermaids. You got me there.

 

[bluesmoke]

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.

In which case, I would object to the restriction in DE. But you haven't made the case TX v DE.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I'm just saying the Reps do a better job of it than the Dems. Dems are ******s.

I'm just saying that's completely irrelevant and whining nonsense.

 

[Logician Man]

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.

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.

 

[it's just me]

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 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, so don't preach to me.

 

[jaypatriot]

In which case, I would object to the restriction in DE. But you haven't made the case TX v DE.

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.

 

[Logician Man]

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.

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.

 

[bluesmoke]

I'm just saying that's completely irrelevant and whining nonsense.

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.

 

[bluesmoke]

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.

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.

 

[OpportunityCost]

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.

You can define subjective, right?

 

[jaypatriot]

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.

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:

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.

 

[What if...?]

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.

Might be worth moving to the south for a bit...


Barely.

 

[What if...?]

GA law doesn't create any advantage for one party over another. It equally applies to all.

Marking this post for if the Dems do something like suggested.

 

[What if...?]

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:

Obviously too many democrats work night shifts and voted after 9pm in 2020.

That's how all republican voter suppression works.

 

[bluesmoke]

You can define subjective, right?

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.

 

[bluesmoke]

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:

I am against any state law that restricts voting without justification rather than facilitate voting, incl early voting. DE is no exception and should not be excused from criticism. But unlike DE, red states, not blue, like GA, TX and many others are passing law that makes it more difficult to exercise voting rights. In passing law that both restricts but may in one area facilitate ballot access, the only change should be to facilitate, not restrict. Restrictions apply to everybody, not just minorities, but affect black voters more:

Here's why voting rights activists say Georgia's new election law targets Black voters

Limits on drop boxes. New identification requirements. Restrictions on out-of-precinct voting. Voting rights advocates say a new Georgia law strikes at the political power of African Americans in a key battleground state.

www.cnn.com

Georgia’s New Voting Law Aims to Restrict Black Vote, Justice Department Says in Court Filing — BrownWatch

From [ HERE ] The Biden administration sued the state of Georgia on Friday, alleging its new voting law aims to restrict the rights of Black voters, marking the administration’s first such challenge to Republican-backed efforts in multiple states to tighten voting laws. The lawsuit, filed in federa

www.brown-watch.com

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THE NEED FOR RESTRICTIVE VOTING, ALL PREMISED ON VOTER FRAUD AND IRREGULATIES. I NEED NOT ARGUE THE IMPACT OF VOTER RESTRICTION ON MINORITIES. WE ALL KNOW IT WILL REQUIRE MORE OF EVERYBODY THAN BEFORE WITHOUT BEING WARRANTED BY ANY EVIDENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO JUSTIFY THE RESTRICTION.

 

[OpportunityCost]

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.

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.

My counterclaim was simple and easily identified---Democrats gerrymander too. Cases brought in Illinois and Maryland point this out.

I hope I don't see you in another thread, your arguments are terrible and you cant identify the difference objective and subjective comments---obviously calling your own party "******s" is subjective but here we have you arguing otherwise.

 

[ClaraD]

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.

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.

 

[American]

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 database

casetext.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.

 

[bluesmoke]

Calling things anti-voting doesn't make it so.

The evidence is that the law makes voting more difficult than before and has potential to upset voter access even more. That's why the law is anti-voting and why calling it anti-voting is appropriate for being supported by evidence of fact.