Voter Suppression efforts in full swing

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
20,495
Reaction score
3,122
Points
113
Reasonable voter ID laws are fine. Most of these states have strict voter ID laws meant to disenfranchise just enough people. Like demanding your original birth certificate to get an ID, no copies allowed. If there is a misspelling or apostrophe in the wrong place, no vote for you until you revise your birth certificate. Allowing gun permits but not college ID's etc.

The vast majority of rural and suburban voters have never stood in a line longer than 60 minutes to vote. A large chunk of urban voters have. Especially in the south. This is not an accident. It's intentional. And GA is doing all they can to make sure it continues.

The 2020 election in GA went fine. It underwent huge scrutiny and a re-count. Almost no issues. Why are these changes needed? They're not. GA QOP'ers know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.
I love how you throw out non-specific, but dramatic, accusations without ANY examples of how minorities are disenfranchised.

I can’t respond to non-specific accusations b/c you haven’t provided an example. But even if you can give an example, you don’t get to just extrapolate that to every time someone stands in line to vote.

The Georgia election WAS NOT ”fine” and there are many questions about the integrity of the election. The election laws were manipulated by Stacy Abrams and her activist groups with a consent decree agreed to by a weak Secretary of State of Georgia. The legislature is required by the state and US Constitutions to make election law. Not consent decrees.

But you have no concerns about the integrity of the election b/c your side won...so all is well.

The fact is that the signature verification process ONLY compared signatures from the absentee ballot request, and NOT historical signatures, to the absentee ballot signatures, and no voter ID was required...unless you voted in-person. Then a voter ID was required.

You’re big on polls. Pew Research says 75% of those polled are in favor of voter ID. Almost 70% of blacks believe in voter ID.

You need an ID to pick up tickets at Will Call, but it just too much to ask for howie to require people to provide an ID.

You’re pathetic!
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
55,891
Reaction score
12,287
Points
113
The Georgia election WAS NOT ”fine” and there are many questions about the integrity of the election. The election laws were manipulated by Stacy Abrams and her activist groups with a consent decree agreed to by a weak Secretary of State of Georgia. The legislature is required by the state and US Constitutions to make election law. Not consent decrees.
What "integrity questions" were there about the election results in Georgia? Pleas share. Stacy Abrams personally "manipulated" the election laws? Talk about pathetic.

I'm in favor of reasonable voter ID laws, as most people are. If you have moved or your ID is expired, you should be able to show proof of residency another way. MN has a law like this and has high voter turnout and no issue. Most QOP voter ID laws passed in the last 10 years are super-strict. We know why. It's not about election security.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
20,495
Reaction score
3,122
Points
113
What "integrity questions" were there about the election results in Georgia? Pleas share. Stacy Abrams personally "manipulated" the election laws? Talk about pathetic.

I'm in favor of reasonable voter ID laws, as most people are. If you have moved or your ID is expired, you should be able to show proof of residency another way. MN has a law like this and has high voter turnout and no issue. Most QOP voter ID laws passed in the last 10 years are super-strict. We know why. It's not about election security.
What part of the Georgia law and voter ID is it that violates your standard for voter ID?

Proof of residency isn’t proof of citizenship or even official state residency. I have proof of residency in Illinois and Florida. Should I be allowed to vote in both states?

I already stated the integrity issues. The state’s consent decree, pushed on Georgia by Stacy Abrams, did not require signature verification to historical signatures. It allowed comparison only to absentee ballot requests. Why would that be? Why not allow to compare to historical signatures like they do when you vote in-person?
 




stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,024
Reaction score
6,169
Points
113
You heard about the pandemic, right?

What Republican repeal of the VRA are you talking about?

And stop lying about what the Georgia law does. It actually expands days, hours, and allows for water/food, just not inducements by activists while near the polls.

The 2013 repeal of the Voting Rights Act? Yeah....I get it. Stick your head in the sand and ignore how the right pushed it through and then proceeded to close polling places....affecting the inner city areas the most.

False. It's not limited to "activists".

The new right wing playbook. Limit the number of minority votes....and make it as miserable as possible for those who try. Five hour waits are just not good enough for the old white man party.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
20,495
Reaction score
3,122
Points
113
The 2013 repeal of the Voting Rights Act? Yeah....I get it. Stick your head in the sand and ignore how the right pushed it through and then proceeded to close polling places....affecting the inner city areas the most.

False. It's not limited to "activists".

The new right wing playbook. Limit the number of minority votes....and make it as miserable as possible for those who try. Five hour waits are just not good enough for the old white man party.
There was NO REPEAL of the VRA. The US Supreme Court ruled that the discriminatory circumstances that existed when it was passed in the 1960’s didn’t apply to today’s circumstances of equal protections.

You really aren’t bright.

The Republicans didn’t repeal anything.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,024
Reaction score
6,169
Points
113
There was NO REPEAL of the VRA. The US Supreme Court ruled that the discriminatory circumstances that existed when it was passed in the 1960’s didn’t apply to today’s circumstances of equal protections.

You really aren’t bright.

The Republicans didn’t repeal anything.

Sure they did. Repubs fought against the VRA....and when the ruling was made....right wing states immediately moved to start shutting down polling places.

Just because Alex Jones and the other old white men said otherwise doesn't make it true. You're just regurgitating the bullshit that the other dotards feed you.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,024
Reaction score
6,169
Points
113
The Republicans didn't directly throw out the VRA, their appointed SCOTUS justices did. And then Republican legislatures throughout the South rushed to close polling places in minority areas and on college campuses as fast as they could. You ignore this, because you can't defend the open racism behind it.

They added a couple early voting days to give you a talking point to ignore all the other terrible crap in the bill.

Bingo. And now since too many people voted by mail....the righties need to work to shut that down as much as possible too. If five hour lines weren't bad enough. Just a disgusting tactic used by the old white man party. If you listen closely....you can hear all the proud boys and white supremacists celebrating.
 



KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
20,495
Reaction score
3,122
Points
113
Sure they did. Repubs fought against the VRA....and when the ruling was made....right wing states immediately moved to start shutting down polling places.

Just because Alex Jones and the other old white men said otherwise doesn't make it true. You're just regurgitating the bullshit that the other dotards feed you.
Even howie pointed out it wasn’t a repeal. duh

He just whined about courts that he was praising a few months ago. It appears his strong opinions depend on who the courts’ judgment favors.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,024
Reaction score
6,169
Points
113
Even howie pointed out it wasn’t a repeal. duh

He just whined about courts that he was praising a few months ago. It appears his strong opinions depend on who the courts’ judgment favors.

They repealed parts of the VRA. You do know what the word means, right?

You realized this happened in 2013, right? And furthermore....what does that have to do with the court rulings against the wild trash that Trump and the dotards were throwing out?
 


KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
20,495
Reaction score
3,122
Points
113
They repealed parts of the VRA. You do know what the word means, right?

You realized this happened in 2013, right? And furthermore....what does that have to do with the court rulings against the wild trash that Trump and the dotards were throwing out?
Aaaa, the Senate was controlled by the Democrats in 2013. There was no repeal of the VRA passed by Congress. None.
 



stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,024
Reaction score
6,169
Points
113
Aaaa, the Senate was controlled by the Democrats in 2013. There was no repeal of the VRA passed by Congress. None.

Supreme court rolled back parts of the VRA. Look up the definition of repeal you clown.

to rescind or annul by authoritative act

 



KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
20,495
Reaction score
3,122
Points
113
Supreme court rolled back parts of the VRA. Look up the definition of repeal you clown.

to rescind or annul by authoritative act

So you agree with my previous post (#1417).

“Come on man”, you claimed Republicans “repealed” the VRA.

US Supreme Courts don’t “repeal” law. Congress does.

You can backpedal faster than an NFL DB.

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
 


stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,024
Reaction score
6,169
Points
113
So you agree with my previous post (#1417).

“Come on man”, you claimed Republicans “repealed” the VRA.

US Supreme Courts don’t “repeal” law. Congress does.

You can backpedal faster than an NFL DB.

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

I see the problem here. You can't read. The definition of repeal is as follows: to rescind or annul by authoritative act.

That is exactly what the supreme court did. I understand where your confusion comes from however. Right wing alternate facts. Food for clowns.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
55,891
Reaction score
12,287
Points
113
Coming Soon!: Trump Airlines. We'll get you there in 2 hours, maybe less!*

*We fly only unfixed Boeing 737's. Our on time rate is 10%. We plan to go bankrupt by June 2022. No refunds*
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
20,495
Reaction score
3,122
Points
113
But...The QOP is the "Party of the working man!"
From the StLouis Dispatch article:

McConnell said: “My advice to the corporate CEOs of America is to stay out of politics. Don’t pick sides in these big fights.”
McConnell warned companies there could be risks for turning on the party...

...“Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order,” McConnell told a news conference in his home state of Kentucky.


howie is such a victim. A victim of lefty narratives and spin. I suppose it would be too much to read his actual quotes when you can just imagine what he means via some lefty’s Tweet.
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
3,855
Reaction score
3,900
Points
113
So you agree with my previous post (#1417).

“Come on man”, you claimed Republicans “repealed” the VRA.

US Supreme Courts don’t “repeal” law. Congress does.

You can backpedal faster than an NFL DB.

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Good lord.

I can't decide if you're thus stupid, or this dishonest.

Could be both, I guess.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
20,495
Reaction score
3,122
Points
113
I see the problem here. You can't read. The definition of repeal is as follows: to rescind or annul by authoritative act.

That is exactly what the supreme court did. I understand where your confusion comes from however. Right wing alternate facts. Food for clowns.
You’re really dumb. You prove it here everyday.

There are no Republican or Democrat Justices. Just Supreme Court Justices.

Right howie?
 


howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
55,891
Reaction score
12,287
Points
113
Love those hypotheticals. Nope, the GOP doesn’t own the media. It would be “voting crisis” if a Republican legislature tried to do that.

The new legislation reduces the hypothetical political motivated takeovers of elections, not increase them. That’s what really bothers Democrats.
Just hypotheticals. Sure. Because the QOP hasn't shown they'll go to extreme measures to win at any cost. Liar. Fraud.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
55,891
Reaction score
12,287
Points
113
You just spent 3 months telling us that COURTS said Joe Biden won and to get over it, and NOW you complain about a fairly balanced US Supreme Court decision?
The gutting of the VRA was a terrible decision and it was made 10+ years ago. Biden winning changes nothing about it.
 


KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
20,495
Reaction score
3,122
Points
113
The gutting of the VRA was a terrible decision and it was made 10+ years ago. Biden winning changes nothing about it.
But but the courts said so....so it must make a difference. 1000 judges ruled against Trump. There’s no evidence....😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
55,891
Reaction score
12,287
Points
113
I already stated the integrity issues. The state’s consent decree, pushed on Georgia by Stacy Abrams, did not require signature verification to historical signatures. It allowed comparison only to absentee ballot requests. Why would that be? Why not allow to compare to historical signatures like they do when you vote in-person?
People's signatures change over time. Is yours the same as it was 10 years ago?

If the signature on the ballot matches the application, the idea that it should be rejected because a 75 year old poll worker thinks it doesn't quite match a signature from 10 years ago isn't preventing fraud. It's just kicking out random legal votes.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
55,891
Reaction score
12,287
Points
113
Another vague insult accusation post from howie. Quality info.😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
You think all of this BS is necessary to prevent fraud you've shown no evidence of.

But the law changes enabling the QOP to cheat and over-rule county election boards should be ignored because it's only hypothetical. Fraud.
 




Top Bottom