Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, massraider said:

You read stories about making it harder for people to vote, but when you actually read all the ways they are trying to suppress the vote, it's crazy.  

They know, just like the rest of us, the more people that vote, the worse it is for them.  It's been true my entire voting life (I'm 46).  The path of least resistance is to make voting harder.  The other option is to acknowledge their product sucks and it's probably time to change the wrapping AND the contents.  You know...actually doing their job!  Much easier to make it harder to vote against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 953
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Facts are bad now? The narrative in the quote I provided, including the portion I bolded, was undisputed. It wasn’t a case of the ACLU making an allegation and the State of North Carolina denying

You'd do yourself wonders if you'd take the time to look up the definitions of words/phrases rather than making them up to prop up the fear you seem to need everyone to be living in with you.  My  

The idea that the State of North Carolina was simply trying to promote general fairness, and not trying to suppress the black vote, is impossible to maintain with a straight face in light of the facts

6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'm not sure...observing the Trump rallies (yes, they are continuing to happen here) he has more support than he should :lol: 

I see these guys on an overpass on 95 in Ft Pierce waving both a Trump flag and a F Biden flag. I don’t understand their reasoning, and frankly I don’t care to, because Trump was the worst president we’ve had.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kal El said:

I see these guys on an overpass on 95 in Ft Pierce waving both a Trump flag and a F Biden flag. I don’t understand their reasoning, and frankly I don’t care to, because Trump was the worst president we’ve had.

I think most of what I see at our Friday get together is now all the Qanon guys who were left.  Lots of "Not my pedophile" signs and signs referencing human trafficking etc.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

I have no qualms about it and its something that the state legislature should discuss as being removed from the bill IMO. All of these items are being proposed. Doesn't mean they're all going to go through. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, massraider said:

Here's just one state:

This seems like a bit more than "requiring an ID to vote".  Have you heard "many people on both sides of the aisle" warn anyone about the dangers of Sunday morning voting?

The goal should always be to make it as easy as possible for Americans to vote.  No restrictions? Of course not. 

I'd like to know how any kind of large scale fraud can happen with mail in voting.  

Only thing on that list that's debatable is closing down early voting on Sundays. Even then it's more likely because they can't get volunteers to come in on a Sunday consistently or perhaps it's being suggested by a religious person who is believes Sundays are holy days. Not my thing but that would not surprise me. But that's something they can all discuss and negotiate on. 

Everything else seems perfectly fine to suggest. Not sure where the problem is. A vast majority of people vote on a single day out of the year and they find a way to get there to get it done. If there's an extra exception that a person needs to vote early or vote by mail in, I'm sure they can go through the steps to ensure that their vote is counted and verified.

Edited by Insein
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I think most of what I see at our Friday get together is now all the Qanon guys who were left.  Lots of "Not my pedophile" signs and signs referencing human trafficking etc.  

As much as you guys spout about Qanon, you're in here yelling about boogeymen suppressing the vote. Who in the last 50 years of this country that has wanted to vote has not been allowed to (other than criminals and even then it's debatable if they want to vote)?

Edited by Insein
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Insein said:

As much as you guys spout about Qanon, you're in here yelling about boogeymen suppressing the vote. Who in the last 50 years of this country that has wanted to vote has not been allowed to (other than criminals and even then it's debatable if they want to vote)?

Link please.

Then we can address the strawman of "wanted to vote has not been allowed to"...

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Link please.

Then we can address the strawman of "wanted to vote has not been allowed to"...

Link to what? The last couple posts you made about "They know, just like the rest of us, the more people that vote, the worse it is for them" as if that was evidence that they're suppressing the vote. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Insein said:

Despite the obvious bias by the writer of that article, I didn't see anything wrong with what was being proposed.

Republicans were fine with voting on Sundays for years. Then they lost 2 Senate seats. Now suddenly they don't want to allow voting on Sundays anymore. And they've offered no rationale or data showing that Sunday voting is somehow less secure than voting on other days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Republicans were fine with voting on Sundays for years. Then they lost 2 Senate seats. Now suddenly they don't want to allow voting on Sundays anymore. And they've offered no rationale or data showing that Sunday voting is somehow less secure than voting on other days.

And I'm sure it will get voted down. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Insein said:

As much as you guys spout about Qanon, you're in here yelling about boogeymen suppressing the vote. 

I don't think that's a nice way to describe the GOP.  

To say that of the GOP Georgia proposals, ONLY early Sunday voting debatable is astounding to me.

Quote

Prevent election officials from mailing absentee ballots until four weeks before the election.

Prohibit counties from accepting outside funding for elections.

Require absentee voters to get their ballot envelope signed by a witness and enclose a copy of their photo ID with the ballot.

None of these are even debatable, and are clearly a threat to free and fair elections, is that correct?

 

This is amazing to me.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Insein said:

Link to what? The last couple posts you made about "They know, just like the rest of us, the more people that vote, the worse it is for them" as if that was evidence that they're suppressing the vote. 

Found the problem....thanks :thumbup: 

The evidence that they are trying to suppress the vote is in things like removing voting options, removing places to drop off ballots etc.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Found the problem....thanks :thumbup: 

The evidence that they are trying to suppress the vote is in things like removing voting options, removing places to drop off ballots etc.  

If a party has to resort to such tactics instead of putting forth a candidate that will actually bring in voters, that’s a problem for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, massraider said:

I don't think that's a nice way to describe the GOP.  

To say that of the GOP Georgia proposals, ONLY early Sunday voting debatable is astounding to me.

None of these are even debatable, and are clearly a threat to free and fair elections, is that correct?

 

This is amazing to me.  

They are clearly debatable because you are debating that they are needed. I'm not hearing your argument as to why they are not good ideas though?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Found the problem....thanks :thumbup: 

The evidence that they are trying to suppress the vote is in things like removing voting options, removing places to drop off ballots etc.  

Updating voting laws to make them more secure is not suppressing the vote. I don't see any voting options being removed (aside from the Sunday one which will probably not pass if it's been there for years without a sufficient reason why). Even then that is not "suppressing the vote." What percentage of voters can't vote now because a Sunday option for early voting was removed?

You are used to the mantra that any law change in relation to elections is "suppressing the vote" if it requires changes to the system. By that logic we could say the vote was "suppressed" here in PA as many counties suddenly changed voting machines this past election after decades of using the same tried and true methods. Many voters were confused and took a lot longer to make sure they voted correctly. Even then some didn't feel comfortable that their vote was cast correctly. Is that voter suppression in your opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

who was the Republican that flat out admitted a few years back that the point of all of the voter ID laws was to suppress Democratic votes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, joffer said:

who was the Republican that flat out admitted a few years back that the point of all of the voter ID laws was to suppress Democratic votes?

Who was the Democrat that said he had put together the biggest voter fraud organization in history? They should get together and hang out. Probably have.

 

Edited by Insein
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Insein said:
13 minutes ago, joffer said:

who was the Republican that flat out admitted a few years back that the point of all of the voter ID laws was to suppress Democratic votes?

Who was the Democrat that said he had put together the biggest voter fraud organization in history? They should get together and hang out. Probably have.

If you have to use a slip of the tongue to make your case, it's usually a sign that the case wasn't very strong and that you should gracefully bow out of the discussion.

I mean, you may as well have said Who was the Democrat who claimed there were 57 states?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

CPAC voter fraud speaker says there are "probably" people threatening to kill their grandfathers over absentee ballots: "OK Grandpa, if you don’t vote the way we want, you’re not going to get your insulin this afternoon."

Hmmm.

I had not considered the potential for fraud among Woke, Murderous Grandchildren.  

 

May need to reevaluate.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

If you have to use a slip of the tongue to make your case, it's usually a sign that the case wasn't very strong and that you should gracefully bow out of the discussion.

I mean, you may as well have said Who was the Democrat who claimed there were 57 states?

Exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Insein said:

Updating voting laws to make them more secure is not suppressing the vote.

It is when the "updating" is done in a suppressing way :shrug:

1 hour ago, Insein said:

I don't see any voting options being removed (aside from the Sunday one which will probably not pass if it's been there for years without a sufficient reason why).

Then pay attention.  

 

1 hour ago, Insein said:

What percentage of voters can't vote now because a Sunday option for early voting was removed?

Don't know....I've never made a comment on this board regarding Sunday voting.  Ask those discussing it.

1 hour ago, Insein said:

You are used to the mantra that any law change in relation to elections is "suppressing the vote" if it requires changes to the system.

No...I'm not.  I'm using the "mantra" that laws changed in a manner to make it difficult to get ballots or get ballots returned easily is suppressing the vote.....definitely not ANY law change.  Probably read what I've posted rather than trying to fit me into some preconceived narrative you've already decided on.  Either that or just don't respond to me.  That'd probably be better.  

 

1 hour ago, Insein said:

By that logic we could say the vote was "suppressed" here in PA as many counties suddenly changed voting machines this past election after decades of using the same tried and true methods. Many voters were confused and took a lot longer to make sure they voted correctly. Even then some didn't feel comfortable that their vote was cast correctly. Is that voter suppression in your opinion?

If there were voters who felt their questions weren't properly answered as to how the process was going to work, I can absolutely see the argument that it's an attempt to suppress a vote.  If people didn't take the time to ask a question to get clarification that's on them.  I have no idea what the details were there in PA.  If you have a good source that covered the issues, I'd like to read about them.  My family is up there, didn't like the fact that people could vote by mail all of a sudden, but didn't express any of the confusion you suggest here.  They said it was pretty straight forward.  If they can figure it out......

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what would be a super secure way to vote?  Everyone who wants to vote has to have an elected official vouch for their identity by writing and signing a sworn affidavit just before that person votes in front of them.  Then that voter has to give a fingerprint in their own blood on the voters roll.   This way, we can go back and verify by fingerprint and DNA to ensure that the voter and the elected official weren't lying.  You want secure vote, right? That's what matters most, right?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Insein said:

Only thing on that list that's debatable is closing down early voting on Sundays. Even then it's more likely because they can't get volunteers to come in on a Sunday consistently or perhaps it's being suggested by a religious person who is believes Sundays are holy days. Not my thing but that would not surprise me. But that's something they can all discuss and negotiate on. 

Everything else seems perfectly fine to suggest. Not sure where the problem is. A vast majority of people vote on a single day out of the year and they find a way to get there to get it done. If there's an extra exception that a person needs to vote early or vote by mail in, I'm sure they can go through the steps to ensure that their vote is counted and verified.

Trying to eliminate Sunday voting is outright racist. 

>>The “Souls to the Polls” movement began in Florida during the 1990s. The concept was to organize caravans after church service on the Sunday prior to Election Day to transport Black congregants to early voting locations. By the early 2000s, the NAACP, Black denominations and other organizations had transformed “Souls to the Polls” into a national movement.<<

https://theconversation.com/the-black-church-has-been-getting-souls-to-the-polls-for-more-than-60-years-145996

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

You know what would be a super secure way to vote?  Everyone who wants to vote has to have an elected official vouch for their identity by writing and signing a sworn affidavit just before that person votes in front of them.  Then that voter has to give a fingerprint in their own blood on the voters roll.   This way, we can go back and verify by fingerprint and DNA to ensure that the voter and the elected official weren't lying.  You want secure vote, right? That's what matters most, right?

4 in 5 Americans support voter ID laws Gallup

Requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting

Favor: 80%

Oppose: 19%

Last year, Harvard Business School conducted a study analyzing voter turnout in the United States over an eight-year period. The researchers look at how voter ID laws affect the ability of minority Americans to turn out at the polls and cast their votes.

Harvard Study

The study revealed that “Strict ID laws have no significant negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any subgroup defined by age, gender, race, or party affiliation.”

Researchers also found that voter ID laws “do not decrease the participation of ethnic minorities relative to whites.” 


 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

You know what would be a super secure way to vote?  Everyone who wants to vote has to have an elected official vouch for their identity by writing and signing a sworn affidavit just before that person votes in front of them.  Then that voter has to give a fingerprint in their own blood on the voters roll.   This way, we can go back and verify by fingerprint and DNA to ensure that the voter and the elected official weren't lying.  You want secure vote, right? That's what matters most, right?

Biometrics has always been a reasonable (and probably THE safest/securist) option, but guess which group just happens to be opposed to that  :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Philo Beddoe said:

 

Researchers also found that voter ID laws “do not decrease the participation of ethnic minorities relative to whites.” 

I wonder if that is why they have moved on to stifling mail in voting, early voting, and shutting down polling sites in minority neighborhoods.

These are the kind of questions we'll never have the answer to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SoBeDad said:

A warning from a pollster in Florida about how Florida alone could net the GOP 8 reps in the house through gerrymandering and 2 new seats due to population growth.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AmandiOnAir/status/1367852452133879810

 

 

For the most part, anything within 5 miles of the coast is blue, and the interior is red. Makes no sense, considering all the nothing the GOP has done for that land.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2021 at 1:07 PM, Sea Duck said:

If you have to use a slip of the tongue to make your case, it's usually a sign that the case wasn't very strong and that you should gracefully bow out of the discussion.

I mean, you may as well have said Who was the Democrat who claimed there were 57 states?

I immediately thought Tommy Tuberville changed parties. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty good framing here:

Quote

Ezra Klein@ezraklein

While Democrats are debating the best way to make sure Republicans can be heard in the Senate, Republicans in the states are passing legislation meant to silence Democratic voters across the country.

 

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 9:03 AM, dawgtrails said:

Gerrymandering is such a scam.

There are:

5,299,096 Democrats registerd in FL.

5,188,520 Republicans registered in FL.

16 GOP, 11 Dems in the House. May become 21-8. 

Every state is this way.  Illinois is currently 13-5, could well become 14-3.  Very few states are going to be proportional.  I would say in FL either Republicans are just doing that well with independents or some .independents are actually unregistered Republicans as they control the state government there.  Follow Dave Wasserman on Twitter if you want to see an analysis state by state of what each party in control can do with the new redistricting.  I agree it's a shame it's this way, leads to lots of safe districts and radical ideologies because the primary and appealing to the base is the only way to win these districts.  

Edited by Shula-holic
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

Every state is this way.  Illinois is currently 13-5, could well become 14-3.  Very few states are going to be proportional.  I would say in FL either Republicans are just doing that well with independents or some .independents are actually unregistered Republicans as they control the state government there.  Follow Dave Wasserman on Twitter if you want to see an analysis state by state of what each party in control can do with the new redistricting.  I agree it's a shame it's this way, leads to lots of safe districts and radical ideologies because the primary and appealing to the base is the only way to win these districts.  

I agree that it is not a rep/dem thing. But IL has 3.5 million registered democrats compared to 2.4 million republicans. So while it is certainly skewed, it is skewed in the correct direction at least. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

I agree that it is not a rep/dem thing. But IL has 3.5 million registered democrats compared to 2.4 million republicans. So while it is certainly skewed, it is skewed in the correct direction at least. 

No doubt IL is a blue state.  I think FL numbers are probably more R.  Seems the state has been R held the last few cycles and got more red this past cycle.  I'd guess the reality is that some of those independents or unregistered voters are truly more R than independent in FL so I suspect the reality is that the majority of FL voters are actually slightly tilting Republican.

Edited by Shula-holic
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

No doubt IL is a blue state.  I think FL numbers are probably more R.  Seems the state has been R held the last few cycles and got more red this past cycle.  I'd guess the reality is that some of those independents or unregistered voters are truly more R than independent in FL so I suspect the reality is that the majority of FL voters are actually slightly tilting Republican.

The presidential results are 51% republican. That is probably reflective of the split.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2021 at 8:13 AM, Insein said:

Despite the obvious bias by the writer of that article, I didn't see anything wrong with what was being proposed. More security and scrutiny over how mail in ballots are handed out and how they should be accepted should be welcome to those that want free and fair elections. Especially since all it took in most states was a signature to be accepted. The address itself didn't even have to be the current address for the voter or even be real in some states. I would think everyone would agree that we want to verify that the person signing the ballot is the person casting the vote and that they're only doing it one time right?

Same with requiring an ID to vote. How hard is that? Most nations around the world require some form of ID to prove you are who you say you are and are registered to vote. There's nothing suppressive or restrictive about that at all. That's just basic election security.

I have 2 photo ids. My drivers license and passport. What type of photo Id would those who don’t drive or travel to other countries have? I am ok with having a discussion about photo ids but I think it should be paid for by each state. I also have concerns that the elderly, poor or handicapped etc might find the process difficult.

I also think that each state should have no excuse absentee ballots for no other reason to help alleviate the problem of standing in long lines on Election Day.

Edited by lazyike
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dawgtrails said:

I agree that it is not a rep/dem thing. But IL has 3.5 million registered democrats compared to 2.4 million republicans. So while it is certainly skewed, it is skewed in the correct direction at least. 

75 miles dictate the entire state.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

Yes...lots of people in that area.

More people...more money...more power.  That is pretty much how the system works.

I get it, I’m 200 miles from Detroit and they wag the tail of the state.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Election fraud by the GOP in Miami.

Shill candidate Alex Rodriguez (great choice) spills the beans on the financing of his fake campaign to beat former state democrat senator Jose Rodriguez. Shill candidates like Kanye are perfectly legal. But be careful with finance laws. And don't be an impulsive loudmouth like master mind Frank Artilles. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/GlennaWPLG/status/1372565564821024771

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...