• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

McConnell's "Freudian" Slips Out

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Is that about it, Metaphor? Are we in a game to deduce your peculiar lawyer-like criteria? Is it bigger than a breadbox?

In #134 I linked to three specific articles that focused on just a single one of the GOP's plethora of suppression methods. He'd previously complained that he didn't know how to Google to find the name of the County that now has a single polling station.
I did not 'complain'. I said I did not know what you were talking about. You didn't provide a county or a link.

For context, swammerdami wrote:
The GOP is clever enough — if "clever" is an appropriate word to describe blatantly criminal malice — to suppress black votes without legislation that explicitly contains the word "black." Recently I read of a county with very large area that will be given only a single polling place in future elections. Any bets on what the demographics of that county are, Mr. Metaphor? In some states, voters had to queue for several hours to vote in some precincts, while there were no delays in affluent neighborhoods. Why?
I did not realise this was a hidden test of my search engine skills, which apparently I failed.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,425
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?
Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.
Okay, I've reread the entire thread and I see no such list posted by you. Care to point to the post number?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,798
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I did not realise this was a hidden test of my search engine skills, which apparently I failed.
Any argument in the modern age which one hopes not to embarrass oneself in is a hidden test of search engine skills.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
What?? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: So it's "prejudiced" and "angry" to post links to NPR and NIH.GOV. To get your attention, I'll need to link to an InfoWars YouTube?
The links are not the problem. The framing of voting reform as always and only about unnecessary hurdles to block the votes of everyone but white people is the problem. When you assume your conclusions in your premises, you are begging the question.
The sub-topic ("stasis of the argument" if you prefer) was your disbelief that the GOP was deliberately suppressing the votes of those likely to vote D. I presented evidence and wondered if you'd do more than briefly skim the articles with a smirk.
No. You referred to something you 'recently read' and then expected me to do your legwork. You then at a later point pretended you had provided the specifics you were talking about all along.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,653
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
No. You referred to something you 'recently read' and then expected me to do your legwork. You then at a later point pretended you had provided the specifics you were talking about all along.

What absolute drivel!!! I have read many dozens of articles on various voter suppression techniques used by the GOP. You have now effectively admitted that you have read ZERO such articles, if we exclude articles by GOP liars, and articles you were unable to comprehend.

What is with "[Swammi's] legwork"?? As if I'm on a mission to educate Metaphor and am remiss in my duties. :)

But after you admitted that you didn't know how to use search engines, I DID provide you with links. Instead of actually ... gasp! ... reading those articles and learning something, you contend — or so it seems — that I should have helped you with your Googling EARLIER. :)

Why, pray tell, should I have? You DO have the links now ... and still have not clicked.


ETA: By now I've got a pretty good handle on you. You will click now just so you can write "Nanner nanner nanner; I DID click." No. You need to READ the articles and either (a) Admit that you were egregiously wrong, or (b) refute the articles' conclusions.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,408
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Please do explain why reducing voter fraud is more important than reducing, say, alien abductions.
Because voter fraud is something that happens at elections, and alien abductions have never happened.

You can’t prove alien abductions never happen any more than you can prove significant voter fraud in us federal elections.
I give up on your (hopefully) intentionally obtuse argumentation, meta.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Ple
Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?
Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.
Okay, I've reread the entire thread and I see no such list posted by you. Care to point to the post number?
Post 135
Post 135 lists
Those include reducing cost, reducing fraud, equalising voting access between different demographics and geographies, aligning with other states.

Do you have any evidence that any of those reasons are driving voter reform in the USA? For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
No. You referred to something you 'recently read' and then expected me to do your legwork. You then at a later point pretended you had provided the specifics you were talking about all along.

What absolute drivel!!! I have read many dozens of articles on various voter suppression techniques used by the GOP. You have now effectively admitted that you have read ZERO such articles, if we exclude articles by GOP liars, and articles you were unable to comprehend.

What is with "[Swammi's] legwork"?? As if I'm on a mission to educate Metaphor and am remiss in my duties. :)
Your legwork is making a claim like 'I recently read', then not providing the name of the county or a link. If you have the expectation that I should spend any time or effort greater than zero finding out what county you meant, your expectation is ludicrous.

But after you admitted that you didn't know how to use search engines, I DID provide you with links. Instead of actually ... gasp! ... reading those articles and learning something, you contend — or so it seems — that I should have helped you with your Googling EARLIER. :)

Why, pray tell, should I have? You DO have the links now ... and still have not clicked.
You don't need to 'help me' with Google. You need to help yourself in understanding that it is not the duty of the people you are trying to persuade to make your arguments for you.

If you want me to discuss a specific voting reform bill, I am happy to do so.
 

Trausti

Contributor
Warning Level 1
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?

What is wrong with this?

No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:

(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;

(2) Within any polling place; or

(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.

 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,408
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
It will be interesting to see how many people show up and hand out water just to get arrested for handing out water.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?

What is wrong with this?

No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:

(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;

(2) Within any polling place; or

(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.

Actually, the relevant question is "What is right with it"?

How is it right that water cannot be offered to a voter who has been standing in line for hours in hot weather even when no solicitation is attached?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Post 135 lists
Those include reducing cost, reducing fraud, equalising voting access between different demographics and geographies, aligning with other states.

Do you have any evidence that any of those reasons are driving voter reform in the USA? For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?
I did not say my list was exhaustive.

The stated reason for Georgia's law is to prevent people electioneering to voters who are waiting in line (and therefore are a captive audience). I can understand that providing goods to people while they are waiting in line to vote is undesirable as it could influence their vote in a way we don't want their vote influenced.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,425
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?
Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.
Okay, I've reread the entire thread and I see no such list posted by you. Care to point to the post number?
Post 135
Thank you. I'll take a look.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,653
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
If you want me to discuss a specific voting reform bill, I am happy to do so.

(1) I'll pretend your offer is sincere. Discuss the bill known as H.R. 1.

(2) It was YOU who denied that the GOP deliberately suppresses voters likely to vote D. I provided evidence to the contrary. You continue to refuse to read the provided articles, instead quibbling, I guess, that you needed the links sooner. (Why? You don't read them anyway.) What a joke you've turned into.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Post 135 lists
Those include reducing cost, reducing fraud, equalising voting access between different demographics and geographies, aligning with other states.

Do you have any evidence that any of those reasons are driving voter reform in the USA? For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?
I did not say my list was exhaustive.
In other words, you have no evidence.
The stated reason for Georgia's law is to prevent people electioneering to voters who are waiting in line (and therefore are a captive audience). I can understand that providing goods to people while they are waiting in line to vote is undesirable as it could influence their vote in a way we don't want their vote influenced.
If that were the case, the law would allow such provisions when there is no solicitation.

Moreover, in 2016, when Trump won GA, the state had no problem with the handing out of water to people waiting in line to vote. Yet, in 2020, when Biden won, and a black man won election to the Senate, all of sudden, this is a problem.
 

Trausti

Contributor
Warning Level 1
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?

What is wrong with this?

No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:

(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;

(2) Within any polling place; or

(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.

Actually, the relevant question is "What is right with it"?

How is it right that water cannot be offered to a voter who has been standing in line for hours in hot weather even when no solicitation is attached?

Poll workers are allowed to give water in that event. Why do you assume that voters are too stupid to bring their own water if they think there’ll be a wait? Why do you so badly want to accost people standing in line to vote?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
(1) I'll pretend your offer is sincere. Discuss the bill known as H.R. 1.

(2) It was YOU who denied that the GOP deliberately suppresses voters likely to vote D. I provided evidence to the contrary. You continue to refuse to read the provided articles, instead quibbling, I guess, that you needed the links sooner. (Why? You don't read them anyway.) What a joke you've turned into.
I denied that McConnell uttered a falsehood. I also said that to make the claim that voter reform bills are always just Republicans deliberately suppressing the vote of people who would likely vote Democrat is a claim that needs to be evidenced, and it's quite a strong claim.

If HR1 is this, I think it is large enough to warrant its own thread on its merits and its problems.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
In other words, you have no evidence.
I did not claim that every possible good reason was included in my list, no. That's why I used the word 'includes' and not 'constitutes'.
If that were the case, the law would allow such provisions when there is no solicitation.
There are many laws that ban what would otherwise be a benign act because in the context, it would be too difficult to enforce what it is really meant to enforce.

For example, in some States in Australia it is an offense to be seen with a mobile phone in your hands while you are driving. The law is really meant to target people who are texting and driving (for example) and not just people who are looking at the time, but the cameras that detect violations cannot distinguish between such cases.

Similarly, poll workers are not law enforcement officials. Putting poll workers in the position of adjudicating what is and is not 'electioneering' imposes a burden on them as well as the potential for corruption, whereas not providing the physical handover of food and water in a defined distance is far more objective and easier to enforce and less open to corruption.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?

What is wrong with this?

No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:

(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;

(2) Within any polling place; or

(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.

Actually, the relevant question is "What is right with it"?

How is it right that water cannot be offered to a voter who has been standing in line for hours in hot weather even when no solicitation is attached?

Poll workers are allowed to give water in that event. Why do you assume that voters are too stupid to bring their own water if they think there’ll be a wait? Why do you so badly want to accost people standing in line to vote?
Why do you assume poll workers will give water in that event? Why do you assume voters will know the wait time? And why do you wish to possibly dehydrate voters?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
In other words, you have no evidence.
I did not claim that every possible good reason was included in my list, no. That's why I used the word 'includes' and not 'constitutes'.
No need to reconfirm you have no evidence.
If that were the case, the law would allow such provisions when there is no solicitation.
There are many laws that ban what would otherwise be a benign act because in the context, it would be too difficult to enforce what it is really meant to enforce.

For example, in some States in Australia it is an offense to be seen with a mobile phone in your hands while you are driving. The law is really meant to target people who are texting and driving (for example) and not just people who are looking at the time, but the cameras that detect violations cannot distinguish between such cases.
Cool irrelevant story.
Similarly, poll workers are not law enforcement officials. Putting poll workers in the position of adjudicating what is and is not 'electioneering' imposes a burden on them as well as the potential for corruption, whereas not providing the physical handover of food and water in a defined distance is far more objective and easier to enforce and less open to corruption.
Who do you think will enforce the law as written? And why do you think this a new problem?
 

Trausti

Contributor
Warning Level 1
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?

What is wrong with this?

No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:

(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;

(2) Within any polling place; or

(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.

Actually, the relevant question is "What is right with it"?

How is it right that water cannot be offered to a voter who has been standing in line for hours in hot weather even when no solicitation is attached?

Poll workers are allowed to give water in that event. Why do you assume that voters are too stupid to bring their own water if they think there’ll be a wait? Why do you so badly want to accost people standing in line to vote?
Why do you assume poll workers will give water in that event? Why do you assume voters will know the wait time? And why do you wish to possibly dehydrate voters?

The law specifically says poll workers can give water. But you knew that. This is a non-issue used for a moral panic. Please, when people are in line to vote leave them alone. Do not harass people.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
In other words, you have no evidence.
I did not claim that every possible good reason was included in my list, no. That's why I used the word 'includes' and not 'constitutes'.
No need to reconfirm you have no evidence.
I have no evidence for a claim I did not make, true.

If that were the case, the law would allow such provisions when there is no solicitation.
There are many laws that ban what would otherwise be a benign act because in the context, it would be too difficult to enforce what it is really meant to enforce.

For example, in some States in Australia it is an offense to be seen with a mobile phone in your hands while you are driving. The law is really meant to target people who are texting and driving (for example) and not just people who are looking at the time, but the cameras that detect violations cannot distinguish between such cases.
Cool irrelevant story.
Similarly, poll workers are not law enforcement officials. Putting poll workers in the position of adjudicating what is and is not 'electioneering' imposes a burden on them as well as the potential for corruption, whereas not providing the physical handover of food and water in a defined distance is far more objective and easier to enforce and less open to corruption.
Who do you think will enforce the law as written? And why do you think this a new problem?
My story was not irrelevant but directly relevant as to why the provision you appear to object to might be written the way it does.

I can see you had no good faith intent when you posted your question, and I am now sorry that I gave you a good faith response.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,018
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The speaker wishes the listener to think that African Americans are not having their vote suppressed.
They're not, and the evidence that they're not is that they vote at the same rate as the general electorate.

Now, even if McConnell was wrong about "suppression", he might be mistaken, and not have told a lie. Though I understand that some posters on here have extraordinary difficulty in understanding that not all counterfactual statements are lies.
Except that minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters. The fact that they came close in a couple of recent elections is exactly what has triggered the plethora of new voting laws in certain states, and the elimination of voting places in ‘certain’ neighborhoods, the sudden need to ensure that voters do not have access to water or food while they wait, sometimes for many hours to vote.

Unlike you, I have actually served as a poll worker during an ejection. My specific job was exactly to challenge any improper voter or any individual who attempted d to influence voters within the proscribed distance of the polling station.

I’ve also been challenged at my polling place, quite rightly, too. I had forgotten that I had a campaign button ( for a school referendum) on my jacket as I entered the building. I was called out and I removed the offending button—and apologized, very sheepishly. I’ve also taken part in recounting —by hand—a narrowly contested local contest. I saw firsthand that the other candidate’s representative was keenly interested in any ‘stray marks’ on ballots if they were not for gmhus candidate. Such challenges accounted for the only discrepancy between the original tally and the tally after the recount—abs it remained insufficient to alter the results. The recount was done under the direct supervision of the county auditor. Make no mistake: poll workers take their work very seriously and are not shy in the least at speaking up if they see anything improper or any deviation from the rules.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
In other words, you have no evidence.
I did not claim that every possible good reason was included in my list, no. That's why I used the word 'includes' and not 'constitutes'.
No need to reconfirm you have no evidence.
I have no evidence for a claim I did not make, true.
The point is that your bringing up the topic was pretty much pointless.
If that were the case, the law would allow such provisions when there is no solicitation.
There are many laws that ban what would otherwise be a benign act because in the context, it would be too difficult to enforce what it is really meant to enforce.

For example, in some States in Australia it is an offense to be seen with a mobile phone in your hands while you are driving. The law is really meant to target people who are texting and driving (for example) and not just people who are looking at the time, but the cameras that detect violations cannot distinguish between such cases.
Cool irrelevant story.
Similarly, poll workers are not law enforcement officials. Putting poll workers in the position of adjudicating what is and is not 'electioneering' imposes a burden on them as well as the potential for corruption, whereas not providing the physical handover of food and water in a defined distance is far more objective and easier to enforce and less open to corruption.
Who do you think will enforce the law as written? And why do you think this a new problem?
My story was not irrelevant but directly relevant as to why the provision you appear to object to might be written the way it does.

I can see you had no good faith intent when you posted your question, and I am now sorry that I gave you a good faith response.
Your response avoided my point about why this was not an issue in 2016. It avoids the relevant critique that you think that making poll workers adjucating what is and is not electioneering is burdensome, since they are already supposed to do so, and it burdensome for them to enforce this law as written. In simple terms, your "good faith" response shows a complete lack of knowledge of the actual situation

But you continue to do what you do - impute false intentions to make insulting accusations to distract from the inadequacy of your responses.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?

What is wrong with this?

No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:

(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;

(2) Within any polling place; or

(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.

Actually, the relevant question is "What is right with it"?

How is it right that water cannot be offered to a voter who has been standing in line for hours in hot weather even when no solicitation is attached?

Poll workers are allowed to give water in that event. Why do you assume that voters are too stupid to bring their own water if they think there’ll be a wait? Why do you so badly want to accost people standing in line to vote?
Why do you assume poll workers will give water in that event? Why do you assume voters will know the wait time? And why do you wish to possibly dehydrate voters?

The law specifically says poll workers can give water. But you knew that. This is a non-issue used for a moral panic.
Only to sociopaths. There is reason to believe poll workers will have enough water to distribute, that they will distribute water, or that they are able to identify all the people who made need it.

Please, when people are in line to vote leave them alone. Do not harass people.
Helping people in need is not harassment.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Except that minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters.
That minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters is consistent with "suppression tactics" but is also consistent with other hypotheses.
The fact that they came close in a couple of recent elections is exactly what has triggered the plethora of new voting laws in certain states, and the elimination of voting places in ‘certain’ neighborhoods, the sudden need to ensure that voters do not have access to water or food while they wait, sometimes for many hours to vote.
No, any connection between the two is your speculation.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Your response avoided my point about why this was not an issue in 2016.
Maybe it was an issue in 2016. Maybe it's only recently become an issue. Maybe it's long overdue. Maybe it's just additional legislative certainty about something that was already forbidden.

It avoids the relevant critique that you think that making poll workers adjucating what is and is not electioneering is burdensome, since they are already supposed to do so, and it burdensome for them to enforce this law as written. In simple terms, your "good faith" response shows a complete lack of knowledge of the actual situation
Yes, they are already supposed to do so. And preventing the provision of food and water by outside people to people waiting in line to vote will prevent the possibility of any electioneering via that method, and reduce the burden on poll workers. It will also eliminate any possible discretionary exercise of partisan bias by poll workers in that regard.

But you continue to do what you do - impute false intentions to make insulting accusations to distract from the inadequacy of your responses.
I discussed Georgia's law and the reason it was made. That you assumed your conclusions in your premises and that I did not automatically fall in line is your problem and not mine.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Your response avoided my point about why this was not an issue in 2016.
Maybe it was an issue in 2016. Maybe it's only recently become an issue. Maybe it's long overdue. Maybe it's just additional legislative certainty about something that was already forbidden.
"Maybes" are not evidence, it is you guessing.
It avoids the relevant critique that you think that making poll workers adjucating what is and is not electioneering is burdensome, since they are already supposed to do so, and it burdensome for them to enforce this law as written. In simple terms, your "good faith" response shows a complete lack of knowledge of the actual situation
Yes, they are already supposed to do so. And preventing the provision of food and water by outside people to people waiting in line to vote will prevent the possibility of any electioneering via that method, and reduce the burden on poll workers. It will also eliminate any possible discretionary exercise of partisan bias by poll workers in that regard.
No, it does not.
But you continue to do what you do - impute false intentions to make insulting accusations to distract from the inadequacy of your responses.
I discussed Georgia's law and the reason it was made. That you assumed your conclusions in your premises and that I did not automatically fall in line is your problem and not mine.
Please stop projecting your MO onto others. Your argument is long on supposition and devoid of actual evidence in order to defend your position,
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,018
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Except that minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters.
That minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters is consistent with "suppression tactics" but is also consistent with other hypotheses.
The fact that they came close in a couple of recent elections is exactly what has triggered the plethora of new voting laws in certain states, and the elimination of voting places in ‘certain’ neighborhoods, the sudden need to ensure that voters do not have access to water or food while they wait, sometimes for many hours to vote.
No, any connection between the two is your speculation.
It is not my speculation. By looking at timelines of when voting by minorities approximated the voting rates of whites and comparing them to the sudden need to eliminate polling places, impose other restrictions certainly do point to a convenient timing.

However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
"Maybes" are not evidence, it is you guessing.
It is offering the possibilities that you have already silently rejected when you assumed your conclusions in your premises.
No, it does not.
Yes, it does. It is objectively easier to define what giving food and water to someone in line is than it is to define whether a particular exchange in line was 'electioneering'.
Please stop projecting your MO onto others. Your argument is long on supposition and devoid of actual evidence in order to defend your position,
That you are incapable of entertaining an idea without believing it is your own problem.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.
You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,798
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.
You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.
Maybe we can answer that question by looking at statistics:



When you pose it as "African Americans" and "all Americans" it's pretty close.

When you pose it as "Minorities and White Americans" it looks a lot different.

All his statement has leverage to deliver, regardless of any trickery on McConnell's part with their delivery, is that African Americans are not alone in having their vote suppressed.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
"Maybes" are not evidence, it is you guessing.
It is offering the possibilities that you have already silently rejected when you assumed your conclusions in your premises.
Asking for evidence is not assuming conclusions. It is asking for relevance. For some reason, you feel the need to confuse your lack of knowledge with actual evidence.
No, it does not.
Yes, it does. It is objectively easier to define what giving food and water to someone in line is than it is to define whether a particular exchange in line was 'electioneering'.

Please stop projecting your MO onto others. Your argument is long on supposition and devoid of actual evidence in order to defend your position,
That you are incapable of entertaining an idea without believing it is your own problem.
Nonsense. We are discussing actual laws in context. Claims of fact require evidence. Why you find that unreasonable or confusing is fascinating.

But you do you with your shitty accusations.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,200
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There are good reasons to reform voting laws and 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' is one of them but not the only one.

You can acknowledge that or falsely keep implying that 'reducing voter fraud' is the only good reason.
The stated reason for the Republican changes is "voter fraud". If the real reason is something else the changes should be categorically rejected without consideration.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,200
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
For example, how does GA's restriction on private entities providing water to people standing in line to vote addresses any of the reasons you listed?

What is wrong with this?

No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector [a voter], nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:

(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;

(2) Within any polling place; or

(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.


Do you not see that it precludes providing water to those standing in line?

The objective is to avoid using the polling place for campaigning, a quite reasonable objective. However, when they don't provide enough capacity and people need water it becomes unreasonable.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,200
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Poll workers are allowed to give water in that event. Why do you assume that voters are too stupid to bring their own water if they think there’ll be a wait? Why do you so badly want to accost people standing in line to vote?
Poll workers can only give water if they have water to give.

The true objective here is to discourage people from voting at certain polling stations.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,018
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.
You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.
Maybe we can answer that question by looking at statistics:



When you pose it as "African Americans" and "all Americans" it's pretty close.

When you pose it as "Minorities and White Americans" it looks a lot different.

All his statement has leverage to deliver, regardless of any trickery on McConnell's part with their delivery, is that African Americans are not alone in having their vote suppressed.
Racial disparities are more pronounced in most elections, with 2008, 2012 and 2020 being exceptions.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,200
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
However, motivation for changes in laws that might impose an undue burden on minorities is not relevant. If undue burdens are imposed, then the law is not upheld by the US constitution.
You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.

There is an undue burden created on the poor by voting reform laws. It's a poll tax masquerading as ensuring a fair vote. Just a few days ago another smoking gun on this:

 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
All his statement has leverage to deliver, regardless of any trickery on McConnell's part with their delivery, is that African Americans are not alone in having their vote suppressed.
Lower turnout by a particular group does not mean that they are being 'suppressed'. You are begging the question.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Asking for evidence is not assuming conclusions. It is asking for relevance. For some reason, you feel the need to confuse your lack of knowledge with actual evidence.
No, framing your question in a way that assumes the conclusion is assuming conclusions.
Continuing evasion via straw man duly noted.
 
Top Bottom