Oy gevalt. I've already produced such a list in this thread.
McConnell's "Freudian" Slips Out
- Thread starter Jarhyn
- Start date
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:
I did not realise this was a hidden test of my search engine skills, which apparently I failed.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 29,838
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Democratic Socialist Atheist
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
- 9,070
- Gender
- No pls.
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Any argument in the modern age which one hopes not to embarrass oneself in is a hidden test of search engine skills.
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.What??
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.
Post 135
Because voter fraud is something that happens at elections, and alien abductions have never happened.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.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.
If you want me to discuss a specific voting reform bill, I am happy to do so.
Trausti
Contributor
What is wrong with this?
Trausti
Contributor
So you favor electioneering to people in line to vote?
laughing dog
Contributor
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?
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.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 29,838
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Democratic Socialist Atheist
Thank you. I'll take a look.
(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.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 29,838
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Democratic Socialist Atheist
Electioneering of the type you are speaking about is already illegal.
laughing dog
Contributor
In other words, you have no evidence.
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
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?
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.
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'.
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
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
No need to reconfirm you have no evidence.
Cool irrelevant story.
Who do you think will enforce the law as written? And why do you think this a new problem?
Trausti
Contributor
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.
I have no evidence for a claim I did not make, true.
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
- 14,645
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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
The point is that your bringing up the topic was pretty much pointless.
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
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.
Helping people in need is not harassment.
That minorities do not vote at the same rate as white voters is consistent with "suppression tactics" but is also consistent with other hypotheses.
No, any connection between the two is your speculation.
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.
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.
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
The notion that suppressing votes is not a force in GOP voting reform efforts is counterfactual. This link
When Republicans tell the Truth about Voting Integrity provides numerous quotes.
When Republicans tell the Truth about Voting Integrity provides numerous quotes.
laughing dog
Contributor
"Maybes" are not evidence, it is you guessing.
No, it does not.
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
- 14,645
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
It is offering the possibilities that you have already silently rejected when you assumed your conclusions in your premises.
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'.
That you are incapable of entertaining an idea without believing it is your own problem.
You are now assuming that there is an undue burden created on 'minorities' by voting reform laws.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 9,070
- Gender
- No pls.
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Maybe we can answer that question by looking at statistics:
Large Racial Turnout Gap Persisted in 2020 Election
70.9 percent of white voters cast ballots compared with only 58.4 percent of nonwhite voters — a disparity that will worsen with new restrictive voting laws.
www.brennancenter.org
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- 14,645
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Racial disparities are more pronounced in most elections, with 2008, 2012 and 2020 being exceptions.Maybe we can answer that question by looking at statistics:
Large Racial Turnout Gap Persisted in 2020 Election
70.9 percent of white voters cast ballots compared with only 58.4 percent of nonwhite voters — a disparity that will worsen with new restrictive voting laws.
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.
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:
Texas AG on why he supports the Big Lie: "We're done in Texas if anyone can vote" | Boing Boing
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who’s been peddling “voter fraud” and the Big Lie alongside Donald Trump since day one, is no longer pretending that there are valid reasons for…
boingboing.net
Lower turnout by a particular group does not mean that they are being 'suppressed'. You are begging the question.
What, including voter reform laws proposed by Democrats?
I did not realise the United States had perfected everything about voting and therefore any change by definition would make things worse.
If the real reason is something else but is still a good reason, there is no reason to categorically reject anything.
No, framing your question in a way that assumes the conclusion is assuming conclusions.
I did not claim any particular law was made for any particular reason.
I did claim that it was possible to have good reasons to reform voting laws, and when I was asked for an example of those reasons, I provided some.
laughing dog
Contributor
Continuing evasion via straw man duly noted.