Voter Suppression efforts in full swing

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
5,483
Points
113
I get right now that you think it is costing your "side" votes in voter to ask people to have an ID.

So you're saying every vote in the history of the country was fraudulent because no ID so therefore the whole country is illegitimate and meaningless. Right?
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
14,649
Reaction score
4,687
Points
113
So you're saying every vote in the history of the country was fraudulent because no ID so therefore the whole country is illegitimate and meaningless. Right?
No, I never said and I can't even begin to understand where you pulled that from.

I think it is 100% Constitutional and proper for a state to decide whether or not an ID is required to vote. It's a decision that should be left to the individual states.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
5,483
Points
113
No, I never said and I can't even begin to understand where you pulled that from.

I think it is 100% Constitutional and proper for a state to decide whether or not an ID is required to vote. It's a decision that should be left to the individual states.

Why the need to change the rules when there has NEVER been widespread voter fraud found?

It because the Republican number crunchers dig into the data and look for ways to make it harder to vote for groups they don't want to vote. This isn't rocket science, EVERYONE knows why they are doing it.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
11,519
Reaction score
3,263
Points
113
Why the need to change the rules when there has NEVER been widespread voter fraud found?
You're seriously asking this question when the Dems rushed to change the voting processes in a number of states after going down in flames in 2016? Are you for f'ng real?
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
5,483
Points
113
You're seriously asking this question when the Dems rushed to change the voting processes in a number of states after going down in flames in 2016? Are you for f'ng real?
List the changes.
Most were only for Covid.
Show me that no Republican controlled states made similar changes.

If you can do that I might believe you.
 


Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
14,649
Reaction score
4,687
Points
113
Why the need to change the rules when there has NEVER been widespread voter fraud found?

It because the Republican number crunchers dig into the data and look for ways to make it harder to vote for groups they don't want to vote. This isn't rocket science, EVERYONE knows why they are doing it.
There are constantly changes to how we vote. There have certainly been changes to allow more mail-in voting. Some people may or may not like that. I don't think you're really following here, I am not advocating for any particular changes, I am advocating that making those changes is a decision that should be left to the particular states. I think you have tunnel vision right now on Georgia.

So lets talk about PA for the last election. They opened up mail-in voting in a way where EVERYONE knew it would help Democrats. Everyone. Many people (especially Conservatives) wanted the Federal Government to do something about it. I was NOT for the changes made in PA, but I believe it was up to PA to decide how they want to run their elections.

You're trying to debate with me on particular changes. I'm saying those debates should be had at the state level. I don't believe either one of us live in Georgia, we should leave the debate for how people are elected in Georgia to the people in Georgia.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
5,483
Points
113
There are constantly changes to how we vote. There have certainly been changes to allow more mail-in voting. Some people may or may not like that. I don't think you're really following here, I am not advocating for any particular changes, I am advocating that making those changes is a decision that should be left to the particular states. I think you have tunnel vision right now on Georgia.

So lets talk about PA for the last election. They opened up mail-in voting in a way where EVERYONE knew it would help Democrats. Everyone. Many people (especially Conservatives) wanted the Federal Government to do something about it. I was NOT for the changes made in PA, but I believe it was up to PA to decide how they want to run their elections.

You're trying to debate with me on particular changes. I'm saying those debates should be had at the state level. I don't believe either one of us live in Georgia, we should leave the debate for how people are elected in Georgia to the people in Georgia.
Did any Red States open up mail in voting?
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
14,649
Reaction score
4,687
Points
113
List the changes.
Most were only for Covid.
Show me that no Republican controlled states made similar changes.

If you can do that I might believe you.
I don't think you're willing to have an adult conversation about this. If you think every time a change that is made yb a Democrat it is for altruistic reasons and every time a change is made by a Republican it's to disenfranchise people, the debate is just not something you can really engage.

If you believe PA would have rushed for drastic changes in elections that would hurt Democrats, you're a mark.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
14,649
Reaction score
4,687
Points
113
Did any Red States open up mail in voting?
Holy hell. . . I'm not arguing about the particular changes. I'm arguing that the changes should be made at the state level.

There are changes to how people are elected every single year. Some years they are small and some years they are much bigger. My argument is that the VENUE For those changes should be within a state.
 



Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
5,483
Points
113
I don't think you're willing to have an adult conversation about this. If you think every time a change that is made yb a Democrat it is for altruistic reasons and every time a change is made by a Republican it's to disenfranchise people, the debate is just not something you can really engage.

If you believe PA would have rushed for drastic changes in elections that would hurt Democrats, you're a mark.
I am not denying the left does it.

But to me there is a moral difference between making it easier for more people to vote and pursuing policies designed to prevent people from voting.

That is the big difference. Democrats NEVER try to make it more difficult for Republicans to vote. For Republicans its standard operation procedure.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
5,483
Points
113
Holy hell. . . I'm not arguing about the particular changes. I'm arguing that the changes should be made at the state level.

There are changes to how people are elected every single year. Some years they are small and some years they are much bigger. My argument is that the VENUE For those changes should be within a state.
Should states be free to violate the US constitution if they see fit???

To me this is an Equal Protection argument.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,707
Reaction score
4,634
Points
113
No, I never said and I can't even begin to understand where you pulled that from.

I think it is 100% Constitutional and proper for a state to decide whether or not an ID is required to vote. It's a decision that should be left to the individual states.
Wallys attempts to rephrase or reframe things are about this worst thing on this site. He must have learned from her.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,707
Reaction score
4,634
Points
113
I am not denying the left does it.

But to me there is a moral difference between making it easier for more people to vote and pursuing policies designed to prevent people from voting.

That is the big difference. Democrats NEVER try to make it more difficult for Republicans to vote. For Republicans its standard operation procedure.
The only people these policies are designed to prevent from voting are those ineligible to vote.

Democrats CAN’T “make it harder” for Republicans to vote. They absolutely would if they could.
 



Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
5,483
Points
113
Wallys attempts to rephrase or reframe things are about this worst thing on this site. He must have learned from her.
Sorry if I don't get my reasoning out in one post. You of course are perfect, just like the market.🙄🙄🙄🤣🤣🤣
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
5,483
Points
113
Democrats CAN’T “make it harder” for Republicans to vote. They absolutely would if they could.
Absurd and you know it.

That or you are just projecting your elitist bs on everyone else.

Probably the second.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
14,649
Reaction score
4,687
Points
113
Should states be free to violate the US constitution if they see fit???

To me this is an Equal Protection argument.
I never said that. States should be allowed to do anything that does not violate the Constitution. That's the limit. That's federalism.

Nothing being done in Georgia is even close to resembling a violation of the Constitution. No one with anything close to a fully functioning brain would make this argument. It's why they want to pass federal legislation, they know it doesn't violate the Constitution.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
5,483
Points
113
I never said that. States should be allowed to do anything that does not violate the Constitution. That's the limit. That's federalism.

Nothing being done in Georgia is even close to resembling a violation of the Constitution. No one with anything close to a fully functioning brain would make this argument. It's why they want to pass federal legislation, they know it doesn't violate the Constitution.
Maybe because its open to interpretation, with our current Supreme court they will surely be allowed.

If you target ways Black people vote does it violate the constitution?

If you make it more difficult for poor people to vote does it violate the constitution?

Is it in the spirit of the Constitution?
Valid questions I think.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
23,196
Reaction score
6,931
Points
113
When Republicans in Georgia try to ensure an R will win next time no matter what, they're not deciding things for the rest of us?
Georgia voting is less strict than many States - New York and Delaware to name just two. You do a great job of parroting what CNN told you, but that is as far as your understanding goes. Fraud.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,707
Reaction score
4,634
Points
113
Absurd and you know it.

That or you are just projecting your elitist bs on everyone else.

Probably the second.
Give me an example of a rule that Democrats could implement that would make it harder for Republicans to vote. I think you’ll quickly understand. Although….
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
23,196
Reaction score
6,931
Points
113
No, I never said and I can't even begin to understand where you pulled that from.

I think it is 100% Constitutional and proper for a state to decide whether or not an ID is required to vote. It's a decision that should be left to the individual states.
Dems struggle to get IDs. I guess 🤷‍♂️
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,707
Reaction score
4,634
Points
113
Sorry if I don't get my reasoning out in one post. You of course are perfect, just like the market.🙄🙄🙄🤣🤣🤣
We don’t care about your reasoning. It would just be nice if you wouldn’t constantly and incorrectly state the reasoning of others.
 


Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
5,483
Points
113
Give me an example of a rule that Democrats could implement that would make it harder for Republicans to vote. I think you’ll quickly understand. Although….
Yes, I agree. Its almost impossible to make it difficult for the wealthy and priveledged to vote.

You just admitted to basically everything I have been saying. Good work...
 


Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,395
Reaction score
5,483
Points
113
We don’t care about your reasoning. It would just be nice if you wouldn’t constantly and incorrectly state the reasoning of others.
Maybe you need to be more clear about what you are saying🤷🏼‍♂️

Feel free to clarify what you mean, I don't mind.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,524
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
Who should define "free" and "fair"? Should the great people of California define "free and fair" for the people of Florida? Should Brussels decide for the UK?
Yes, we should define "free" and "fair". Certainly things like gerrymandering, or making voting more difficult for one type of legal voter versus other types of legal voters, or putting partisan powers in control of vote counting and/or authorizations are NOT free or fair. Those are some of the things Republicans strongly push today.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,524
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
You're seriously asking this question when the Dems rushed to change the voting processes in a number of states after going down in flames in 2016? Are you for f'ng real?
Which voting processes did the Dems rush to change? Do you know, or are you just regurgitating a line of propaganda?

It is notable that Republicans made the rules for 2020 in the states they controlled, which outnumber the number of Dem-controlled states.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,707
Reaction score
4,634
Points
113
Maybe you need to be more clear about what you are saying🤷🏼‍♂️

Feel free to clarify what you mean, I don't mind.
The next time you decide to wildly misstate what someone else is saying, maybe ask them what they mean if you are unclear.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,707
Reaction score
4,634
Points
113
Yes, I agree. Its almost impossible to make it difficult for the wealthy and priveledged to vote.

You just admitted to basically everything I have been saying. Good work...
Republicans are all wealthy and privileged? Swing and a miss. Congrats on sensing a trap and bailing on your point, but you’ll have to do better than this garbage post.
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
4,276
Reaction score
4,424
Points
113
Give me an example of a rule that Democrats could implement that would make it harder for Republicans to vote. I think you’ll quickly understand. Although….
How about we combine rural red counties and provide only one place to vote. Long distance to travel, long lines, fewer hours with the voting booth open. Make it illegal to hand out water to those standing in long lines.

You know...like Repugnicans have done, or are trying to do, to urban voters.
 




Top Bottom