State politicians flee Texas to derail legislation on voting restrictions, abortion access

[Patooka]

I can't get a single person to admit that 'making it harder to vote' is not the same thing as 'subverting democracy'.

That's because making it harder to vote is subverting democracy.

It's like they cannot conceive of any world where making it harder to vote (for eligible voters) could be a side effect of other worthwhile goals

You're absolutely right, as I have yet to hear of any.

or that making it harder to vote (for non-eligible people) is a democracy-uplifting end in itself.

Well that's a loaded statement. "Harder to vote" and "eligible voters", are expressions used to subvert democracy all the time. Do a quick google search of Jim Crow laws and "purity of the vote" and you might get some context on what Texan Republicans are trying to do.

 

[Metaphor]

snipped

Do your nontributions have to be so obnoxiously large?

I don't think so. Especially when one so overtly tries to suppress instances of inconsistence in Texas legal practices.

What "inconsistencies" in "Texas legal practice"?

 

[Metaphor]

That's because making it harder to vote is subverting democracy.

Yep, we're done.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Do your nontributions have to be so obnoxiously large?

So why is it okay to drive-thru for liquor but not okay to drive-thru vote?

 

[Metaphor]

Do your nontributions have to be so obnoxiously large?

So why is it okay to drive-thru for liquor but not okay to drive-thru vote?

What a strange question. Perhaps 'drive thru' voting is grossly inefficient and would worsen waiting times, drive up costs, or both, for voters overall? Perhaps it unfairly privileges people with cars over people without them? Perhaps it is an unneeded encouragement of greenhouse gas emission? Perhaps it is not fair for voters unless it is available in every polling place? Perhaps it makes identity verification more difficult?

But more importantly, the idea that banning drive thru voting is a sign of the subversion of democracy is so mind-bogglingly bizarre I can't even.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Do your nontributions have to be so obnoxiously large?

So why is it okay to drive-thru for liquor but not okay to drive-thru vote?

What a strange question. Perhaps 'drive thru' voting is grossly inefficient and would worsen waiting times, drive up costs, or both, for voters overall? Perhaps it unfairly privileges people with cars over people without them? Perhaps it is an unneeded encouragement of greenhouse gas emission? Perhaps it is not fair for voters unless it is available in every polling place? Perhaps it makes identity verification more difficult?

But more importantly, the idea that banning drive thru voting is a sign of the subversion of democracy is so mind-bogglingly bizarre I can't even.

You seem to be feigning ignorance. Republicans are against making companies give a day off for voting. The same reason is behind banning drive-thru voting. Working class people who lack a flexible work day tend to be Democrats. Democrats will tend to vote drive-thru more. This is why Texas Republicans LIED about a fake 126,000 drive-thru votes. Therefore, this is just the latest battle in an electoral war and pretending not to know that or taking it out of context is disingenuous. So I am not the one with a nontribution around here, you are.

 

[Metaphor]

You seem to be feigning ignorance. Republicans are against making companies give a day off for voting.

So what? Is there some argument that companies should bear the financial burden of supporting electors? Democrats control the House, Senate, and Presidency. Why don't Democrats propose a national public holiday on election day? If you say 'the Republicans will simply filibuster it', why don't the Democrats kill the filibuster? Australia doesn't give a day off for voting, but it does have elections on Saturdays. Why don't the Democrats move election day to a Saturday?

Why are the Democrats so anti-democracy?

The same reason is behind banning drive-thru voting. Working class people who lack a flexible work day tend to be Democrats. Democrats will tend to vote drive-thru more.

Even if true, so what? Do you think it is irrelevant that drive-thru voting is implemented only in Democrat-heavy polling areas, while rural voters do not have that option? What about all the other reasons that it might be good not to have drive thru voting? Do they mean nothing to you?

When you asked me why drive-thru liquor but not drive-thru voting, did you intend simply to ignore everything I said?

This is why Texas Republicans LIED about a fake 126,000 drive-thru votes. Therefore, this is just the latest battle in an electoral war and pretending not to know that or taking it out of context is disingenuous. So I am not the one with a nontribution around here, you are.

Actually what you did was worse than a nontribution. You asked me a question and then ignored my answer and substituted your own answer. You didn't care what my answer was.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So what? Is there some argument that companies should bear the financial burden of supporting electors? Democrats control the House, Senate, and Presidency. Why don't Democrats propose a national public holiday on election day? If you say 'the Republicans will simply filibuster it', why don't the Democrats kill the filibuster? Australia doesn't give a day off for voting, but it does have elections on Saturdays. Why don't the Democrats move election day to a Saturday?

Why are the Democrats so anti-democracy?

Bullshit.

Even if true, so what? Do you think it is irrelevant that drive-thru voting is implemented only in Democrat-heavy polling areas, while rural voters do not have that option? What about all the other reasons that it might be good not to have drive thru voting? Do they mean nothing to you?

They do but they are completely irrelevant. Stop pretending to be ignorant of context.

When you asked me why drive-thru liquor but not drive-thru voting, did you intend simply to ignore everything I said?

You can't just pretend Republicans are suddenly against drive-thru voting for ad hoc reasons you are inventing after you take them out of context of their election propaganda about DRIVE-THRU VOTING. Duh!

This is why Texas Republicans LIED about a fake 126,000 drive-thru votes. Therefore, this is just the latest battle in an electoral war and pretending not to know that or taking it out of context is disingenuous. So I am not the one with a nontribution around here, you are.

Actually what you did was worse than a nontribution. You asked me a question and then ignored my answer and substituted your own answer. You didn't care what my answer was.

Your answer is a bunch of pretense that makes no sense because you are pulling arbitrary excuses out of your ass. It is clearly unproductive to discuss issues with you because you are engaging in activist apologetics, not a rational discussion attached to historical facts.

Back to ignore you go.

 

[Patooka]

That's because making it harder to vote is subverting democracy.

Yep, we're done.

You know, for someone who claims to be against authoritarianism you're pretty fucking ignorant on what making voting more difficult always leads to. I'll give you a hint; it starts with a and I used it in the previous sentence.

 

[Swammerdami]

@ Metaphor — Am I correct that you didn't even understand that the GOP-sponsored changes to voting rules are deliberately designed to suppress Democratic vote?

Have you read how in GOP-controlled states, deliberate election fraud by white Republicans gets a "slap on the wrist" while in Texas a black woman who cast a bad provisional ballot on advice of poll worker has been sentenced to five years in prison? A black man in a similar situation is now in jail on $100,000 bail?

I don't offer comments on Australian politics. Since you are intent on commenting on U.S. politics, it is good that you are learning in this thread that much of your information is wrong and confused.

Please: Take advantage of this new knowledge, revise your opinions, and post a more fact-based analysis. My estimation of your intelligence and sincerity will rise if you can do this.

 

[ZiprHead]

This is a strange thread coming from a "free speech advocate".

Really? You'll have to explain that.

Easy. You want to force the democratic legislators to go back and cast their votes. You want to force them to speak even though the laws of the legislative body they work for has given them the opportunity to not do so.

 

[ZiprHead]

10/10 Will recommend this post for anyone else willing to consume trash.

I've been racking my brain to think of an analogy that describes the premise of this thread. Basically, this is like specifically targeting jaywalkers in a region that is dominated by ISIS. Sure, the jaywalkers are being irresponsible but it takes some real cognitive dissonance to ignore the prevailing issues of the situation.

@ZiprHead, is the forum called 'talkfreethought', or is the forum called 'left wingers who cannot bear challenge or mild dissent even on a board where 90%+ of posters agree with and think exactly like them, and content-police every thread they don't like and hurl personal invective through the manufacture of unbelievably impolitic hyperbole'?

Get over yourself.

 

[Metaphor]

Back to ignore you go.

Better to be on 'ignore' rather than respond to your complete bad-faith bullshit as if you had any intention of listening to my answer.

 

[Metaphor]

This is a strange thread coming from a "free speech advocate".

Really? You'll have to explain that.

Easy. You want to force the democratic legislators to go back and cast their votes. You want to force them to speak even though the laws of the legislative body they work for has given them the opportunity to not do so.

No, I want to force them to do the jobs they were paid for. And if they refuse to do them, they should be fired and replaced with people who will do them.

 

[Metaphor]

@ Metaphor — Am I correct that you didn't even understand that the GOP-sponsored changes to voting rules are deliberately designed to suppress Democratic vote?

You are not correct. I understand the GOP is making electoral rules that it thinks are fairer. But even if it were making rules that specifically were to benefit the GOP, that does not mean the rules that it is proposing are a 'subversion of democracy'.

I also find it staggering to believe some of the existing rules are as they are.

Have you read how in GOP-controlled states, deliberate election fraud by white Republicans gets a "slap on the wrist" while in Texas a black woman who cast a bad provisional ballot on advice of poll worker has been sentenced to five years in prison? A black man in a similar situation is now in jail on $100,000 bail?

Have you read any of my posts? The Texas woman's situation is something the bill specifically addresses--the bill that the Democrats have so objected to, they subverted democracy to prevent it being passed.

I don't offer comments on Australian politics.

Congratulations. I don't give a shit what you comment on. I reject the epistemic imperialism Americans on this board are so eager to practice.

Since you are intent on commenting on U.S. politics, it is good that you are learning in this thread that much of your information is wrong and confused.

Name something I am wrong or confused on. Go on--I'll wait.

Please: Take advantage of this new knowledge, revise your opinions, and post a more fact-based analysis. My estimation of your intelligence and sincerity will rise if you can do this.

What facts have I gotten wrong?

 

[marc]

It is not ‘unevidenced opinion’, it is seeing the pattern of Republican voting bills over the past couple decades. Especially after SCOTUS struck down parts of the voting rights act.

This is a specific bill. If you think the bill is attacking the voters, explain the relevant parts of the bill that do that. I understand you don't need to explain your faith to fellow believers. I'm asking you to explain it to me.

yeeaaa, the insulting, condescending tone makes me soo eager to go over the details for you. And seeing the dodging when things are explained pretty much shows it to be a waste of time.

 

[Patooka]

You are not correct. I understand the GOP is making electoral rules that it thinks are fairer. But even if it were making rules that specifically were to benefit the GOP, that does not mean the rules that it is proposing are a 'subversion of democracy'.

Jesus Christ, listen to yourself. You're trying to argue that rules that deliberately provide an unfair advantage to one group of citizens is not a subversion of democracy. That's the very fucking definition of subverting democracy.

 

[Metaphor]

Jesus Christ, listen to yourself. You're trying to argue that rules that deliberately provide an unfair advantage to one group of citizens is not a subversion of democracy. That's the very fucking definition of subverting democracy.

No. It is your contention that the rules provide "an unfair advantage to one group of citizens". I do not believe them to do any such thing. Indeed, I believe they remove an unfair advantage that some citizens already had over others.

 

[Gospel]

@ZiprHead, is the forum called 'talkfreethought', or is the forum called 'left wingers who cannot bear challenge or mild dissent even on a board where 90%+ of posters agree with and think exactly like them, and content-police every thread they don't like and hurl personal invective through the manufacture of unbelievably impolitic hyperbole'?

thought is the key word buddy.

Are you implying my original post was 'thoughtless'?

You called my thread '10/10 trash'. Why? I think it's become a trash fire too, but probably not for the same reasons.

I can't get a single person to admit that 'making it harder to vote' is not the same thing as 'subverting democracy'. It's like they cannot conceive of any world where making it harder to vote (for eligible voters) could be a side effect of other worthwhile goals, or that making it harder to vote (for non-eligible people) is a democracy-uplifting end in itself.

Just because it won't end democracy doesn't automatically make it a good idea. It's an incredibly stupid one if you consider the reason why the bill was written. It's for the nonexistent widespread voter fraud. If we can make up things to fear and write laws for them is that not an issue for democracy in and of itself anyway?

 

[ZiprHead]

Easy. You want to force the democratic legislators to go back and cast their votes. You want to force them to speak even though the laws of the legislative body they work for has given them the opportunity to not do so.

No, I want to force them to do the jobs they were paid for. And if they refuse to do them, they should be fired and replaced with people who will do them.

They are doing their jobs by blocking a vote as the legislature rules allowed.