The US Politics/Elections Thread 2.0

[downzy]

Maybe Democrats wouldn’t ask for gun restrictions if there weren’t so many mass shootings.

Ted Cruz puts down another marker to remind everyone he’s easily the worst person in the senate. 

[Padme]

On 3/24/2021 at 12:23 AM, downzy said:

Maybe Democrats wouldn’t ask for gun restrictions if there weren’t so many mass shootings.

Ted Cruz puts down another marker to remind everyone he’s easily the worst person in the senate. 

The problem is that people (including the crazy ones) are buying assault weapons as we speak. Why? Because they are afraid of retrictions. Confiscation is not an option. And if Second Amendment groups go to court. They might end up geting what they want.

I don't see an easy solution 

[downzy]

You would think that if Republicans wanted to avoid drawing parallels between voter suppression laws and America’s longstanding ties with racism and slavery, they would avoid moments like this one:

But I’m starting to think the associations aren’t a guileless accident but an intentional nod to values of their constituents. Signing a bill to reduce voting access that will disproportionately affect blacks with a painting of a slave plantation isn’t something you somehow just miss.

This will be the lasting impact of Trump. The dog whistles that drove much of Republican’s electability from Nixon through Reagan through W. Bush are now blow horns thanks to Trump.  Race based suppression no longer needs to be whispered. It can be spoken at full volume (the louder the better).

[ToonGuns]

I'll fully admit I'm not American and don't have all the facts available to me, but looking from the outside in I genuinely don't understand how anyone can or why anyone would ever want to even pretend to justify any reality where people should legally be able to purchase guns. To non Americans it just seems so completely farcical everytime there is a mass shooting that nothing is ever done about it.

[Padme]

6 hours ago, downzy said:

You would think that if Republicans wanted to avoid drawing parallels between voter suppression laws and America’s longstanding ties with racism and slavery, they would avoid moments like this one:

But I’m starting to think the associations aren’t a guileless accident but an intentional nod to values of their constituents. Signing a bill to reduce voting access that will disproportionately affect blacks with a painting of a slave plantation isn’t something you somehow just miss.

This will be the lasting impact of Trump. The dog whistles that drove much of Republican’s electability from Nixon through Reagan through W. Bush are now blow horns thanks to Trump.  Race based suppression no longer needs to be whispered. It can be spoken at full volume (the louder the better).

Of all the bullshit about these restrictions, the one that is absolutely insane and ridiculous is that people are not allowed get food and water while waiting in line at the polls. WTF???? How can it be illegal if I give a bottle of water to someone who is just standing in line? 

I'm assuming there will be lawsuits 

[Jakey Styley]

15 hours ago, downzy said:

You would think that if Republicans wanted to avoid drawing parallels between voter suppression laws and America’s longstanding ties with racism and slavery, they would avoid moments like this one:

But I’m starting to think the associations aren’t a guileless accident but an intentional nod to values of their constituents. Signing a bill to reduce voting access that will disproportionately affect blacks with a painting of a slave plantation isn’t something you somehow just miss.

This will be the lasting impact of Trump. The dog whistles that drove much of Republican’s electability from Nixon through Reagan through W. Bush are now blow horns thanks to Trump.  Race based suppression no longer needs to be whispered. It can be spoken at full volume (the louder the better).

This is an extremely unfair take by the media and Democrats. The law hardly restricts voting access, in some ways it expands it. Weekend early voting is expanded one more weekend. It makes ballot drop boxes a permanent fixture in elections, meaning more options than there were before the pandemic. Mail in ballots are still available for anyone who requests them, even without a reason, which makes it less restrictive in that regard than many states.

Doing away with the practice of signature matching in mail in ballots, which results in many rejected ballots (many of which are from black voters), is a good move. Voters only need to write their state ID number instead. IDs are free to obtain in Georgia. What’s the problem?

The food and water thing is to prevent electioneering in lines by interest groups. The media is, as to be expected, ignoring that the law instead allows poll workers to provide a water station at the polls, because the story of evil Republicans denying parched minorities water is too juicy to not run.

 There are elements of the law which I don’t like, but no election is perfect. The whole Jim Crow comparison that’s being loudly tossed around is plainly hysterical.

[downzy]

On 3/27/2021 at 3:02 AM, Jakey Styley said:

This is an extremely unfair take by the media and Democrats. The law hardly restricts voting access, in some ways it expands it. Weekend early voting is expanded one more weekend. It makes ballot drop boxes a permanent fixture in elections, meaning more options than there were before the pandemic. Mail in ballots are still available for anyone who requests them, even without a reason, which makes it less restrictive in that regard than many states.

Doing away with the practice of signature matching in mail in ballots, which results in many rejected ballots (many of which are from black voters), is a good move. Voters only need to write their state ID number instead. IDs are free to obtain in Georgia. What’s the problem?

The food and water thing is to prevent electioneering in lines by interest groups. The media is, as to be expected, ignoring that the law instead allows poll workers to provide a water station at the polls, because the story of evil Republicans denying parched minorities water is too juicy to not run.

 There are elements of the law which I don’t like, but no election is perfect. The whole Jim Crow comparison that’s being loudly tossed around is plainly hysterical.

So you're leaving out a lot of context that makes much of your assessment of the new Georgia law, in my opinion, far off the mark.

But before we even get into that, understand the context of why this law came into being.  

There was no problem with election security in Georgia.  Outside the ravings of a lunatic ex-President and his sycophants, there was no evidence of widespread (or even statistically insignificant) examples of voter fraud that would warrant any revisions to how Georgia conducts business with respect to election integrity. 

This law is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.  The impetus for this new law is solely the result of Trump's lie about losing Georgia.  It's Kemp's best (and perhaps only) effort to win re-election next year. 

Moreover, if you what you claim is true, that this law is actually expansive, rather than suppressive, of voter access, then why is it so highly partisan ?  Why does it only have the support of Republicans?  Wouldn't a law that expanded voting access be supported by Democrats?

Where Georgia is now is where Virginia was ten years ago.  The demographic changes in Georgia will make it increasingly difficult for Republicans to win state-wide elections at first and eventually more local and regional elections.  Republicans can see the writing on the wall (they only need to look at Virginia) and know that they can only hold power for a bit longer by tinkering with how elections are conducted.  

Now let's look at what the new law does and understand why I vehemently disagree with your assessment.

With respect to you claim that weekend early voting is expanded to one more weekend, my understanding is that it only applies to the general election.  Since outside the vote for President, most elections in Georgia usually require a runoff election, where early voting has been greatly reduced.  Under the new law, early voting for run-off elections will now be limited to just one week.  Moreover, run-offs must now occur within four weeks after the general, leaving very little time to get absentee ballots out and returned.  

In terms of absentee voting, unless you're a member of the military, over 65, living overseas, or have a disability, your ability to vote absentee has now been cut by more than half in terms of how long you have to send in an application.  Absentee ballots will only be mailed out three to four weeks before the election.  Not only that, your absentee ballot must now be received two weeks earlier than the previous deadline.  So the window of voting by an absentee ballot has been greatly curtailed.  By my estimation that leaves two, maybe three weeks, to receive and then submit an absentee ballot to make the deadline.  It's a good thing America has a well run public mail system to manage this much smaller window of time.  Oh wait...

I honestly don't how you came to the conclusion that the law improves access to vote drop boxes.  Under the new law drop-off boxes must now be housed inside early-voting buildings.  In the 2020 general and runoff elections, drop off boxes were accessible 24 hours a day up until the day of voting.  Now, access to a drop-off box will be limited to the working hours of an early-voting voting site, which is limited to 9AM to 5PM (it can be expanded to 7AM to 7PM in some cases).  Since many people of colour work multiple jobs that keep them busy from 9A to 5P, this is just another barrier for them to vote using drop-off boxes.   

The new law also requires the removal of these boxes four days prior to the election.  That will certainly increase wait times in predominately urban and black counties and districts that were already incredibly underserved with respect to access to polling sites.  In 2020, the average wait time to vote in predominately white neighbourhoods was 6 minutes.  In predominately non-white districts the average wait time was 51 minutes.  Don't you think that these limitations on drop boxes will make the problem even worse for minority voters?

With respect to replacing the signature match with an identification match, you're simply replacing one system that demonstrated no issues with voter security with one that puts in another arbitrary and unnecessary step to vote that will most certainly cause a drop in black and minority voting.  Let's be clear: of the millions of absentee votes, only 250 or so were flagged as suspicious.  The previous signature match system worked.  

As for the new system, it's estimated that over 200,000 people in Georgia do not have a drivers license or state ID, with a majority of that number being people of colour.  It is estimated that 1 percent of absentee voters ballots are rejected.  That works out to around 49,000 votes if we go by 2020 numbers.  But I think that's probably way higher than what was actually seen in 2020.  It was reported that of the first 1 million absentee votes to come by the end of October, only 429 were rejected.  What's more, those individuals who did have their votes rejected were contacted and given an opportunity to address the problem.

Sorry, but are you seriously going to contend that people were waiting in line, in some cases for hours, to vote because they were promised a can of coke or a cookie?  Let's be real.  As I mentioned earlier, wait times for predominately districts was nearly nine times longer than white districts.  How is it a problem if people are passing out drinks or snacks for those waiting in line because Republicans choose to underserve these people?  Do you honestly think a can of coke or a sandwich would change a person's vote?   Republicans could have included in their law stipulations that ensured even wait lines for all districts by ensuring the necessary resources.  But they didn't.  They went the other way by denying anyone but a polling worker to set up a "water station.  And let's be honest, if these voting sites don't have the resources to process long voter lines quickly, do you think they have the time and resources to set up water stations.  Moreover, what does a "water station" look like at a voter site where lines wrap around the block?  This is essentially a law that asks certain people in Georgia not to ask for food or drinks while they wait to vote, since many other Georigans don't have to wait.

This is to say nothing about the ban on mobile polling sites, the transfer of authority on running elections from local officials to a state board, and the ability of anyone to challenge any vote for whatever reason.  

Again, if this law was actually about expanding voting access, you wouldn't see Republicans voting for en mass.  Forget the details.  Just look at who supports it and who opposes it.  Who needs less black people voting and who wants more.  And ask how that law serves who's agenda.  

 

 

[downzy]

 

[downzy]

I think he’s back using meth...

 

[Padme]

Two U.S. Capitol police officers sue Trump because of the January 6th attack

https://us.cnn.com/2021/03/30/politics/us-capitol-police-sue-trump/index.html

[downzy]

Trump could have announced he took the vaccine. But he didn’t. Instead he stayed silent as President because he still wanted the support of these nutjobs:

 

[Dazey]

4 hours ago, downzy said:

Trump could have announced he took the vaccine. But he didn’t. Instead he stayed silent as President because he still wanted the support of these nutjobs:

 

The asian woman in the video looks like John Travolta in Hairspray.  

[downzy]

13 minutes ago, Dazey said:

The asian woman in the video looks like John Travolta in Hairspray.  

Are we sure it’s not him?

[Dazey]

33 minutes ago, downzy said:

Are we sure it’s not him?

It's uncanny isn't it?  

 

[downzy]

Interesting excerpt from former Speaker of the House John Boehner's upcoming book:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/02/john-boehner-book-memoir-excerpt-478506

I'm sure he has plenty of negative things to say about Obama and Democrats, but interesting to hear his take on all the freshman nutjobs that joined the GOP ranks in the 2010 midterms.  

Looking forward to reading his book.

[AxlisOld]

On 3/29/2021 at 10:17 AM, downzy said:

I think he’s back using meth...

 

I'm sick of you spreading bullshit.

 

 

 

He used crack

[Ace Nova]

On 3/27/2021 at 11:43 PM, downzy said:

 

On 3/27/2021 at 11:43 PM, downzy said:

 

As for the new system, it's estimated that over 200,000 people in Georgia do not have a drivers license or state ID, with a majority of that number being people of colour.  It is estimated that 1 percent of absentee voters ballots are rejected.  That works out to around 49,000 votes if we go by 2020 numbers.  But I think that's probably way higher than what was actually seen in 2020.  It was reported that of the first 1 million absentee votes to come by the end of October, only 429 were rejected.  What's more, those individuals who did have their votes rejected were contacted and given an opportunity to address the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

What I never understood is "why" do 200,000 people in the state of Georgia not have official state (or Federal) ID's?  Every state I've ever lived in mandates having an official ID on your person (State or Federal) whenever you're out in public. 

And if the Democratic party is concerned that 200,000 people don't have official ID's, why not pass legislature making the ID's free of charge and easier to obtain for these 200,000 people?   Wouldn't that make more sense and benefit the constituents more (in their daily lives as well) vs "not needing an ID once every two years to vote"? 

 

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

What I never understood is "why" do 200,000 people in the state of Georgia not have official state (or Federal) ID's?  Every state I've ever lived in mandates having an official ID on your person (State or Federal) whenever you're out in public. 

And if the Democratic party is concerned that 200,000 people don't have official ID's, why not pass legislature making the ID's free of charge and easier to obtain for these 200,000 people?   Wouldn't that make more sense and benefit the constituents more (in their daily lives as well) vs "not needing an ID once every two years to vote"? 

Democrats don't hold a majority in Georgia or they probably would.

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Democrats don't hold a majority in Georgia or they probably would.

Meh.  If they can't pass legislature, they could easily start up a charity/non profit and eventually get most of those 200,000 ID's out to people.  There is little to no reason for an adult not to have an ID living in the U.S., in the year 2021.   

You want to talk about being disenfranchised?  I'm not sure I would feel like I "belonged" either if I never had an official state ID.  Official state ID's are empowering, especially to those that never had one, imo  So how about we start with making sure every single citizen has an official ID?  

[downzy]

17 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

Every state I've ever lived in mandates having an official ID on your person (State or Federal) whenever you're out in public. 

Sorry, but what?

I've never heard of such laws.  Are you telling me that it is illegal for someone to walk around in public without having any form or ID on them?  I know it's generally required to have a drivers license on you whenever you drive, but there's no such law that I'm aware of that requires a person possess on them at all times while out in public a state-sanctioned form of identification.

17 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

Wouldn't that make more sense and benefit the constituents more (in their daily lives as well) vs "not needing an ID once every two years to vote"? 

I generally don't disagree on principle with the notion that some form of identification is needed to vote.  We have personal ID requirements here in Canada.  My issue here is why should this be a party concern?  Moreover, if the current system hasn't demonstrated any real or considerable instances of voter fraud, why change it?  Again, this seems to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.  Until someone can demonstrate that voter ID laws reduce in any meaningful way levels of election fraud, I don't really see the point in forcing the issue if the government isn't also going to commit to making it happen.  My issue involves the motive for it.  Georgian Republicans say it's to ensure the system is secure and safe from fraud.  But we both know that's not why they're doing it.  If they were really concerned about election security, send out voter ID cards anytime people register to vote.  But that's not what they're doing.  

[downzy]

17 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

So how about we start with making sure every single citizen has an official ID? 

If that was the first course of action then I'd be fully supportive of voter ID cards being required to vote.  But they're coming at it from the wrong direction.  And I think we both know the reason for that.  

Ultimately, I'm not sure it's really going to matter all that much in a state like Georgia.  Biden's biggest gains in the state were not with African-American and minority dominated counties (though they certainly helped).  The biggest gains were in largely suburban communities populated largely by college-educated white people.  The Trump and Republican base is getting older and smaller.  Sure, Trump was able to drive nearly every one of them out, but he also drove the opposing side out as well.  This dynamic does not get better for Republicans.  Demographics are not on their side.  Georgia today is where Virginia was ten to twelve years ago.  It's going blue and it will stay blue.  

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, downzy said:

Sorry, but what?

I've never heard of such laws.  Are you telling me that it is illegal for someone to walk around in public without having any form or ID on them?  I know it's generally required to have a drivers license on you whenever you drive, but there's no such law that I'm aware of that requires a person possess on them at all times while out in public a state-sanctioned form of identification.

 Without ID you can't buy a fucking beer or a drink in many US states. It might not be a formal law, but it gores by the name of Soulmonster's Law. 

[downzy]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

 Without ID you can't buy a fucking beer or a drink in many US states. It might not be a formal law, but it gores by the name of Soulmonster's Law. 

Yeah, there are provisions that allow businesses to demand identification for certain transactions or entrance for services, but I'm not aware of any law that requires American citizens to carry state-sanctioned identification when in public.  

[downzy]

“Stay out of politics!!!  But keep giving us money...”

I literally laughed out loud when I saw this tweet. FFS. 

[-W.A.R-]

What is he going to do if they don't? Cut their taxes?