Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

MLB moves All-Star game in response to GA voter laws


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Hoodoo said:

I think you underestimate the number of people who go to the polls without a clue and are easily influenced. We should encourage people doing their homework and not being easily influenced by some partisan schlep offering a cookie and a water just before pulling the lever. If I had my way,  none of those hacks would be allowed within a mile of the polling place. 

Those are not the people who will wait 5 hrs to place their vote.  

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Those are not the people who will wait 5 hrs to place their vote.  

I repeat, I think you underestimate the number of people who go to the polls without a clue and are easily influenced.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hoodoo said:

I repeat, I think you underestimate the number of people who go to the polls without a clue and are easily influenced.

I repeat I think you vastly overestimate that, because it fits your partisan viewpoint.  
 

We live in an instant everything world where people get mad if they wait 3 mins for their McDonalds in a drive-thru but somehow they’ll wait for 5hrs to vote for the most important position in our country of whom they are completely undecided and will be influenced by someone with a bottle water.  Yeah not buying it.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

I repeat I think you vastly overestimate that, because it fits your partisan viewpoint.  
 

We live in an instant everything world where people get mad if they wait 3 mins for their McDonalds in a drive-thru but somehow they’ll wait for 5hrs to vote for the most important position in our country of whom they are completely undecided and will be influenced by someone with a bottle water.  Yeah not buying it.  

Your argument is ridiculous. I get mad if I wait too long in a fast food line because it's literally a FAST food line. I worked in a fast food restaurant when I was a kid. If you don't have big mac's ready when you know it's frigging lunch time then you absolutely suck at your job. Voting isn't fast food genius and it shouldn't be.

Edited by Hoodoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hoodoo said:

Your argument is ridiculous. I get mad if I wait too long in a fast food line because it's literally a FAST food line. I worked in a fast food restaurantwhen I was a kid. If you don't have big mac's ready when you know it's frigging lunch time then you absolutely suck at your job. Voting isn't fast food genius and it shouldn't be. 

 

Oh, and please give me any example you can find of someone having to wait five hours to vote. I have to call bull#### on that. 

Take a breath and back off the condescending “genius” jabs. 
 

You’re right it isn’t 5 hours....  How about 11 hrs, in Georgia.  
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54532189

 

Edited by dkp993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Take a breath and back off the condescending “genius” jabs. 
 

You’re right it isn’t 5 hours....  How about 11 hrs, in Georgia.  
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54532189

 

I repeat, I think you underestimate the number of people who go to the polls without a clue and are easily influenced.

 

A great example is the large number of congress men and women on BOTH sides of the aisle who do absolutely NOTHING for their constituents but continue to get re-elected simply because of partisan voting and/or name familiarity. 

Edited by Hoodoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hoodoo said:

I repeat, I think you underestimate the number of people who go to the polls without a clue and are easily influenced.

 

A great example of the large number of congress men and women on BOTH sides of the aisle who do absolutely NOTHING for their constituents but continue to get re-elected simply because of partisan voting and/or name familiarity. 

I agree many people are undecided as they go, not disagreeing with that.  But those people aren’t waiting for hours and hours on end. And those that are being influenced it’s happening both ways. There’s a very clear reason the GOP pushed this through, they feel it benefits them plain and simple.  Anyone who can’t admit this is just not being honest about the politics of it.  
 

I 1000% agree with your second paragraph.  I’ve posted here about how I’m politically homeless.  I’m completely disgusted by both sides.  The rot is deep and wide. 

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

I agree many people are undecided as they go, not disagreeing with that.  But those people aren’t waiting for hours and hours on end. And those that are being influenced it’s happening both ways. There’s a very clear reason the GOP pushed this through, they feel it benefits them plain and simple.  Anyone who can’t admit this is just not being honest about the politics of it.  
 

I 1000% agree with your second paragraph.  I’ve posted here about how I’m politically homeless.  I’m completely disgusted by both sides.  The rot is deep and wide. 

I simply don't see how allowing partisan politicians even within breathing distance of the polls is acceptable by any party. Honestly,  if I'm having to wait long periods at a poll, which I have, the last thing I want is someone handing out buttons with a cookie saying "vote for...."

 

As long at the polling place has water or whatever available,  and mine has, I don't understand the huge issue with not allowing votee reps handing out waters, food or whatever. That honestly makes sense to me because I don't want people trying to influence or pressure me or anyone else as we're going into the poll. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hoodoo said:

I simply don't see how allowing partisan politicians even within breathing distance of the polls is acceptable by any party. Honestly,  if I'm having to wait long periods at a poll, which I have, the last thing I want is someone handing out buttons with a cookie saying "vote for...."

 

As long at the polling place has water or whatever available,  and mine has, I don't understand the huge issue with not allowing votee reps handing out waters, food or whatever. That honestly makes sense to me because I don't want people trying to influence or pressure me or anyone else as we're going into the poll. 

I get it, it’s anoying.  But we’re Inundated for months with politics leading up to the election, seven out of every 10 commercials it seems like is some BS political stuff, signs everywhere you go ads on everything you see or read, you can’t escape it.  You see no attempt by the GOP to stop any of that. Because it’s not about not annoying us or any possible influence.  It’s only about making it harder to vote.  Now you tell me they want to remove the annoying inundation and influence from politics sign me up.  But that’s not what it’s about.  
 

Now I don’t expect the GOP to admit it nor do I expect you to agree, because it fits your narrative and side. But I can tell you as someone who’s not invested in a side, it feels dirty and reeks to high heaven of political gamesmanship.  And there is no question if the GOP thought this would hurt their chance to win by even .0000001% they would do it, especially after how Georgia just went down.  There’s zero righteousness going on here, the GOP isn’t doing this because they didn’t want you to not be annoyed.  

Edited by dkp993
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

I get it, it’s anoying.  But we’re Inundated for months with politics leading up to the election, seven out of every 10 commercials it seems like is some BS political stuff, signs everywhere you go ads on everything you see or read, you can’t escape it.  You see no attempt by the GOP to stop any of that. Because it’s not about not annoying us or any possible influence.  It’s only about making it harder to vote.  Now you tell me they want to remove the annoying inundation and influence from politics sign me up.  But that’s not what it’s about.  
 

Now I don’t expect the GOP to admit it nor do I expect you to agree, because it fits your narrative and side. But I can tell you as someone who’s not invested in a side, it feels dirty and reeks to high heaven of political gamesmanship.  And there is no question if the GOP thought this would hurt their chance to win by even .0000001% they would do it, especially after how Georgia just went down.  There’s zero righteousness going on here, the GOP isn’t doing this because they didn’t want you to not be annoyed.  

How does it make it harder to vote if votee reps aren't allowed to give you a water,  but impartial polling volunteers are?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dkp993 said:

I agree many people are undecided as they go, not disagreeing with that.  But those people aren’t waiting for hours and hours on end. And those that are being influenced it’s happening both ways. There’s a very clear reason the GOP pushed this through, they feel it benefits them plain and simple.  Anyone who can’t admit this is just not being honest about the politics of it.  
 

I 1000% agree with your second paragraph.  I’ve posted here about how I’m politically homeless.  I’m completely disgusted by both sides.  The rot is deep and wide. 

Of course, but the lemmings get hung up on not getting a free bottle of water.  It's just easier calling it Jim Crow 2.0.  I'm more concerned with just moving every little thing because it doesn't fit a narrative from either side instead of working on the solution.  The Politico link Fatguy posted was very good.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, timschochet said:

Hopefully none of it. But all of it is designed to. For instance, because blacks typically have to wait in much longer lines, restricting them access to food and water is deliberately designed to make the waiting more unbearable. 
 

But you know all this. I’ve read your posts on a variety of subjects; I know you are an intelligent, well informed person. So I know that you’re aware of all of the arguments made by those opposed to the law. Asking me to repeat them is likely designed to catch me in some sort of misstatement or contradiction. Instead why don’t you offer your opinion of the law? You already know mine. 

I can tell by your post that you don't really believe what you are writing and you are just parroting the party line here.  If you're position is sound, there is no way you could be trapped.  I'm trying to understand your position, not Joe Biden's.  I've already said I have no issue with any portion of the new laws.  The only portion that potentially concerns me is the ballot boxes based on population because I'm not sure how that will work in practice.  But because it's based on population, urban areas will have GREATER access to more drop boxes so in theory it should INCREASE black voter turnout.  But I firmly believe EVERY state should have voter ID as a requirement.  It's not burdensome to require a person to have an ID.  I find it extremely racists and patronizing when people say that ID requirement are racist, as if minorities are somehow not intelligent enough to be able to go through the ID process.    

For your example, we've already been over this above.  Georgia ADDED 3 additional voting days for people to come in to vote.  They added these days on the weekend so that people with jobs don't have to vote in 2 hour windows before or after work on a specific day.  If it were up to me I'd make election day a national holiday.  Should people take advantage of the additional days, it will increase voter turnout and will lessen long lines because the voting takes place over multiple days instead of one day.  People are only restricted to food and water by non-poll workers within 150 feet of the polling place.  When they get within 150 feet of the polling place the poll workers provide water and snacks.  This is one of those arguments that people make and it makes no sense to me.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Does anybody really buy the narrative that someone is going to go to the polls wait for hours to vote then change their mind when someone give them a bottle of water?  If that happens 1 out of a million I’d be shocked.  

I don’t think it changes many minds.  What I think is more likely is intimidation and actual violence if we allow partisans to interact with voters on the voting line.  Not sure if folks been paying attention but elections are emotional?

I also think Nate Cohen @NYT is right that the sum total of the GA laws won’t impact votes either (although I do agree maybe a few folks will be thirsty if they don’t bring water)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Your post is valid.  But no one is saying they MUST be provided water or food.  That's not a law.  Water was not required to be provided.

So I ask why MUST they NOT be since that's what is now law?  Why go out of the way to make this a law and why do mostly those that are on the GOP side of the equation support this?  I thought the right stood for smaller government and personal freedoms?  I would think this would piss off conservatives more than anyone......

The law is designed to prevent partisan workers from providing benefits for votes.  So once a person gets within 150 feet from the polling place, those workers are no longer allowed to provide any benefits and the poll workers now provide what is essentially a non-partisan drink or snack.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dkp993 said:

There’s a very clear reason the GOP pushed this through, they feel it benefits them plain and simple.  Anyone who can’t admit this is just not being honest about the politics of it.

At the end of the day, this is what it comes down to. We know what the intent of the Republican Party is here. If you think it’s just a coincidence they’re passing all these new voting laws right after they lost the state for the first time in almost 30 years (and are trending in an even worse direction in the state), you’re blinded by your partisanship.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

At the end of the day, this is what it comes down to. We know what the intent of the Republican Party is here. If you think it’s just a coincidence they’re passing all these new voting laws right after they lost the state for the first time in almost 30 years (and are trending in an even worse direction in the state), you’re blinded by your partisanship.

I understand the premise, but when you look at the changes collectively they really shouldn't mean squat. 

Have you seen any articles that estimate the impact of this law...only one Ive found is Nate Cohens from NYT that basically said it doesn’t make a difference.

So I guess if you do somehow know the intent of the republicans and it is completely malicious and nothing to do with security/safety...they really did a crappy job adding real voting barriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hoodoo said:

I'm going to laugh as more and more conservative states follow Georgia's lead and implement similar laws while the DNC lose their collective minds.

Aside from partisanship,  I'm happy for it. These laws make a lot of sense,  especially when it comes to voter integrity. I'm happy to see a state at least trying to take this issue seriously while still easing some of the restrictions that make it difficult for the working class to vote.

Kudos to Georgia for making sensible, fair changes and huge kudos for standing their ground.

Their law is not even close to sensible or fair changes though.

Also...sure, some laws actually deal with voter integrity...others are simply to put hurdles in front of people trying to slow voter turnout.  That seems pretty clear.

That after a pretty damn secure election...and recounts and scrutiny in that state showing as much.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, djmich said:

I understand the premise, but when you look at the changes collectively they really shouldn't mean squat. 

Have you seen any articles that estimate the impact of this law...only one Ive found is Nate Cohens from NYT that basically said it doesn’t make a difference.

So I guess if you do somehow know the intent of the republicans and it is completely malicious and nothing to do with security/safety...they really did a crappy job adding real voting barriers.

I agree with this. I don’t have the data to back it up, but I don’t believe this will end up having that big of an impact on voter turnout. That’s part of the reason why I asked in the other thread why did the MLB draw the line at this issue, but continues to partner with countries like China who are doing much worse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, timschochet said:

Yes. The first part he got wrong. The rest is pretty accurate. 
 

I don’t need to go down this road again though. What makes the law reminiscent of Jim Crow, and racist, is that it attempts to restrict every aspect of increased black voting. What the GOP did was carefully examine where black voting has increased due to Stacy Abram’s efforts, and passed restrictions deliberately designed to slow those increases down. That’s why it’s correct to boycott the state. 

Biden is racist.   Do you agree with his racist comments?  7-11,  super predators, blacks aren't diverse like Latinos.     

That's just off top of my head.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Their law is not even close to sensible or fair changes though.

Also...sure, some laws actually deal with voter integrity...others are simply to put hurdles in front of people trying to slow voter turnout.  That seems pretty clear.

That after a pretty damn secure election...and recounts and scrutiny in that state showing as much.

Their new laws expanded voter access. Which new law is it that you see creating a hurdle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

Georgia doesn’t need water at these, they need more places to vote.  That is what they should demand.  

As I don't live in Georgia, nor closely follow Georgia politics, I cannot speak to the number of polling places they have/don't have and how it compares to other states. But, I do agree. If they have an issue with the number of polling places then they should take steps to try to correct that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sho nuff said:
9 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Has anyone told MLB that Colorado requires ID to vote?

Its almost as if the move and issue is not just about voter ID.

Like clockwork. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

What specifically did Georgia do that you think is not sensible or unfair?  

Do we have to go through this all how many times..in how many threads?  How about some of you bring to me what is sensible and fair.

  • The water thing is overblown...but its not all that sensible if you already have electioneering laws on the books.
  • Cutting down the time to request a mail in ballot in half is not a sensible new law.  Especially combined with other things. (like also moving the last date to complete the application back...giving less time to get that in...what was the sense there?  What about that is making it more secure?)
  • Cutting down how early they mail the absentee ballots as well.  So again...cutting down the time people have to do it all.  I don't believe that is a sensible move.  Its a move, IMO, meant to cut down the number of absentee ballots.  Why? Well, of course because its the other side from the legislative majority that typically uses them (and especially so in the last election)
  • I don't feel the cutting down the availability of drop boxes is all that sensible either (moreso the hours and time available only during early voting time and hours
  • Im also not a fan of the Board of Elections being chaired by an appointee of the majority vs and elected position.  Its basically putting that board under the control of the legislature...so in a state like Georgia, likely to remain a Republican led board.  And additionally the other expansion of power for the legislature over other county election boards.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hoodoo said:

As I don't live in Georgia, nor closely follow Georgia politics, I cannot speak to the number of polling places they have/don't have and how it compares to other states. But, I do agree. If they have an issue with the number of polling places then they should take steps to try to correct that.

I don’t either, but I can’t see how anyone would think waiting that long is a positive.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hoodoo said:

Their new laws expanded voter access. Which new law is it that you see creating a hurdle?

See below in my response to IK.  It expanded some early voting.  Im not saying all the law is bad...but overall no, I would not cal it all sensible changes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

How many days of early voting does Colorado have? I have to believe it's impressive but I've scoured the MLB site and can't find anything.

Colorado votes by mail. Usually one of the top states in percentage of voters who vote.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Do we have to go through this all how many times..in how many threads?  How about some of you bring to me what is sensible and fair.

  • The water thing is overblown...but its not all that sensible if you already have electioneering laws on the books.
  • Cutting down the time to request a mail in ballot in half is not a sensible new law.  Especially combined with other things. (like also moving the last date to complete the application back...giving less time to get that in...what was the sense there?  What about that is making it more secure?)
  • Cutting down how early they mail the absentee ballots as well.  So again...cutting down the time people have to do it all.  I don't believe that is a sensible move.  Its a move, IMO, meant to cut down the number of absentee ballots.  Why? Well, of course because its the other side from the legislative majority that typically uses them (and especially so in the last election)
  • I don't feel the cutting down the availability of drop boxes is all that sensible either (moreso the hours and time available only during early voting time and hours
  • Im also not a fan of the Board of Elections being chaired by an appointee of the majority vs and elected position.  Its basically putting that board under the control of the legislature...so in a state like Georgia, likely to remain a Republican led board.  And additionally the other expansion of power for the legislature over other county election boards.

 

I agree that the water thing is problematic.  I get why it's there, but they really ought to be able to ban electioneering without criminalizing something trivial like handing out bottles of water. 

The next two bullets are tiny, marginal changes to parameters that have to exist in any system that uses mail-in voting.  You can't have mail-in voting without specifying a deadline for requesting a mail-in ballot, and there are pros and cons to mailing out absentee ballots too early vs. too late.  Reasonable people could argue for setting these deadlines a little differently -- I don't have an opinion on them at all.  Those differences definitely don't amount to Jim Crow On Steroids.  

Drop boxes are really just a red herring since every voter has their own personal private drop box, along with a government-issued butler who checks their drop-box six days a week.  If we required people to use the public drop-boxes, then yeah that would definitely restrict the ability to vote in meaningful sense, but in a world with private drop-boxes and government butlers it's hard to make that argument with a straight face.  The state of Georgia could completely abolish public drop-boxes altogether and it wouldn't matter.

I don't have an opinion on the last point either.  Somebody has to have final authority over elections.  I'm sure there are probably reasonable institutional reasons on both sides on whether this should be centralized or decentralized and also whether it should fall to elected officials or appointees.  Over the last couple of days, I've noticed an uptick in the number of articles retconning this whole controversy to be about this point specifically, but that could be a function of the fact that I just started paying attention to it a few days ago.  Regardless, if somebody tells me that they're really, really outraged about a state they don't live in placing their state elections under a political appointee versus an elected official, I don't believe them.  No normal person gets that mad over something that would normally be the most boring item on the most boring legislative calendar.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

Biden is racist.   Do you agree with his racist comments?  7-11,  super predators, blacks aren't diverse like Latinos.     

That's just off top of my head.    

Biden is not the driver of this bus.

Edited by Summer Wheat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IvanKaramazov said:

I agree that the water thing is problematic.  I get why it's there, but they really ought to be able to ban electioneering without criminalizing something trivial like handing out bottles of water. 

The next two bullets are tiny, marginal changes to parameters that have to exist in any system that uses mail-in voting.  You can't have mail-in voting without specifying a deadline for requesting a mail-in ballot, and there are pros and cons to mailing out absentee ballots too early vs. too late.  Reasonable people could argue for setting these deadlines a little differently -- I don't have an opinion on them at all.  Those differences definitely don't amount to Jim Crow On Steroids.  

Drop boxes are really just a red herring since every voter has their own personal private drop box, along with a government-issued butler who checks their drop-box six days a week.  If we required people to use the public drop-boxes, then yeah that would definitely restrict the ability to vote in meaningful sense, but in a world with private drop-boxes and government butlers it's hard to make that argument with a straight face.  The state of Georgia could completely abolish public drop-boxes altogether and it wouldn't matter.

I don't have an opinion on the last point either.  Somebody has to have final authority over elections.  I'm sure there are probably reasonable institutional reasons on both sides on whether this should be centralized or decentralized and also whether it should fall to elected officials or appointees.  Over the last couple of days, I've noticed an uptick in the number of articles retconning this whole controversy to be about this point specifically, but that could be a function of the fact that I just started paying attention to it a few days ago.  Regardless, if somebody tells me that they're really, really outraged about a state they don't live in placing their state elections under a political appointee versus an elected official, I don't believe them.  No normal person gets that mad over something that would normally be the most boring item on the most boring legislative calendar.

Well...you won't see me calling it Jim Crow on steroids either.  I disagree with the amount of hyperbole being thrown around.

And I think a lot of reaction is over provisions that have been changed or removed from the bill.  I know there was a lot more people objected about early on.

On ID stuff alone...I have disagreements with requirements if the state is not ensuring a good way for those without ID to obtain one.  I have not looked into the numbers in GA to know how many may not have ID...if the state or local offices have limited places to get one in certain areas (that we have seen elsewhere in the past).  Or made requirements to obtain one quite prohibitive to some.  So I have not even commented much on their law there.  

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Well...you won't see me calling it Jim Crow on steroids either.  I disagree with the amount of hyperbole being thrown around.

That's cool.  I'm mainly just annoyed at the hyperbole and fainting spells that people are having over this.  If somebody just wants to say that they like the convenience of having a drop-box right outside their workplace without all the crazy Jim Crow stuff, that works for me.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

How do you guys verify?

Depends on the person.  First time voters need ID after that, everyone else needs a signature.  

To register, they apply the same rules as Georgia.  Drivers license number, state ID number or last 4 of SSN.    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

It's about moving it from a primarily black city to a primarily white one?

Cobb County is primarily black?

 

A lot sure has changed since I lived there. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My serious answer is similar to what fatguy said earlier in the thread.  The GOP was butt hurt that they lost GA so they designed some laws that when taken individually can seem like no big deal and definitely not worthy of the Jim Crow talk.  But when taken at aggregate are obvious to me that they are trying to make it harder for metro Atlanta voters to vote.  We should be making it easier for everyone to vote.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Well...you won't see me calling it Jim Crow on steroids either.  I disagree with the amount of hyperbole being thrown around.

And I think a lot of reaction is over provisions that have been changed or removed from the bill.  I know there was a lot more people objected about early on.

On ID stuff alone...I have disagreements with requirements if the state is not ensuring a good way for those without ID to obtain one.  I have not looked into the numbers in GA to know how many may not have ID...if the state or local offices have limited places to get one in certain areas (that we have seen elsewhere in the past).  Or made requirements to obtain one quite prohibitive to some.  So I have not even commented much on their law there.  

In GA if you don't have a drivers license, state issued ID or a social security number you check a box and the state issues you a voter ID number.  Any one of those identifiers can be used to submit an absentee ballot.  The ID issue is nothing but a red herring.  The changes in the law only affect how the votes are counted going from a handwriting analysis to using one of the identifiers a person used to register.  It makes it easier to count the votes and provided a greater guarantee that the vote will actually be counted and not invalidated because the signature doesn't match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

I can tell by your post that you don't really believe what you are writing and you are just parroting the party line here.  

Stop. This is getting awfully annoying. I don’t ever parrot “party lines”- if I write something it’s because I believe it. I believe this law is racist because it takes actions designed to repress the votes of black people specifically. I believe demanding voter ID is racist (not that this law does that; I’m responding to your post here) because it will unfairly target minorities in order to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Back to the Georgia law:  I believe it is good for MLB to take a stand and I approve of it. Finally, I believe the Republicans are going to lose badly on this issue with the American people, and these laws are going to be repealed one by one, or perhaps overruled by a federal law. 
These are my honest opinions. Of course they can change if someone offers compelling arguments to the contrary. So far in this thread nobody has. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
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...