McConnell's "Freudian" Slips Out

[Metaphor]

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]

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.

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201121

 

[Elixir]

It will be interesting to see how many people show up and hand out water just to get arrested for handing out water.

 

[Trausti]

It will be interesting to see how many people show up and hand out water just to get arrested for handing out water.

So you favor electioneering to people in line to vote?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201121

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ZiprHead]

It will be interesting to see how many people show up and hand out water just to get arrested for handing out water.

So you favor electioneering to people in line to vote?

Electioneering of the type you are speaking about is already illegal.

 

[laughing dog]

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]

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.

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201121

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]

(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]

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]

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.

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201121

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]

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]

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.

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201121

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201121

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.