|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 7, 2021 13:39:09 GMT -6
Please explain out how freedoms are being taken away from any legitimate voter in Georgia, using text from the actual bill. So you want an absolute right to walk around anywhere you want, but the voters in Ga. declared to not be legitimate to vote by the new law are restricted from walking into that voting booth. That is OK?
The link above details some history on Jim Crow, and why it is particularly dangerous and pernicious.
So you have nothing? I'm aware of the history of Jim Crow, this is not that. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2021 13:44:45 GMT -6
And when the risk is sometimes not known but there is an emergency and good reason to think it may exist?
You prefer to be tested constantly? Or perhaps we just trust you? Or anybody else who claims they are medically safe?
You've seen how well governments react whenever there's an "emergency", right? Not a great track record. Trust in the citizenry is the basis for freedom. Trust each citizen until there is a reason not to trust one, then don't trust that one. Innocent until proven guilty, no? A mask is a very reasonable restriction. We probably want speed limits and stop signs because we really don't trust the other guy completely. That's smart. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2021 13:47:41 GMT -6
So you want an absolute right to walk around anywhere you want, but the voters in Ga. declared to not be legitimate to vote by the new law are restricted from walking into that voting booth. That is OK?
The link above details some history on Jim Crow, and why it is particularly dangerous and pernicious.
So you have nothing? I'm aware of the history of Jim Crow, this is not that. Not exactly, I agree. But the arguments are not nothing. They are very good to protect voting rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 7, 2021 13:49:22 GMT -6
A mask is a very reasonable restriction. To you it is. To someone with claustrophobia, it isn't. And to deny the general public from viewing my rugged good looks, well, that's just wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 7, 2021 13:50:09 GMT -6
So you have nothing? I'm aware of the history of Jim Crow, this is not that. Not exactly, I agree. But the arguments are not nothing. They are very good to protect voting rights. So quote me some text from the bill that denies any legitimate voter their rights. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2021 15:25:29 GMT -6
Not exactly, I agree. But the arguments are not nothing. They are very good to protect voting rights. So quote me some text from the bill that denies any legitimate voter their rights. Please look at the link I provided.
By defining some voters as illegitimate you restrict their freedom to vote. The issue here is that how important it is to have people able to vote and how little reason there is to make the additional restrictions made in the bill. The bill is law, just as were Jim Crow laws, but unwise, undesirable law.
Someone who does not have "proper" ID, many with quite understandable reason, is defined as illegitimate and cannot vote. They may have voted many times, without any problems. Talk about being assumed guilty without reason.
Those who benefit from being able to vote with extended hours or by using more available voting boxes for absentee ballots, otherwise legitimate, are not able to vote as easily.
Most votes that might be cast that are excluded will therefore be cast by those assumed guilty of fraud without reason. Ga has previously quite satisfactory voting regulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Apr 8, 2021 7:57:12 GMT -6
So quote me some text from the bill that denies any legitimate voter their rights. Please look at the link I provided.
By defining some voters as illegitimate you restrict their freedom to vote. The issue here is that how important it is to have people able to vote and how little reason there is to make the additional restrictions made in the bill. The bill is law, just as were Jim Crow laws, but unwise, undesirable law.
Someone who does not have "proper" ID, many with quite understandable reason, is defined as illegitimate and cannot vote. They may have voted many times, without any problems. Talk about being assumed guilty without reason.
Those who benefit from being able to vote with extended hours or by using more available voting boxes for absentee ballots, otherwise legitimate, are not able to vote as easily.
Most votes that might be cast that are excluded will therefore be cast by those assumed guilty of fraud without reason. Ga has previously quite satisfactory voting regulation.
What is "understandable reason?" |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 8, 2021 8:03:20 GMT -6
So quote me some text from the bill that denies any legitimate voter their rights. By defining some voters as illegitimate you restrict their freedom to vote.
Some ARE illegitimate voters. In this day and age, there is no good reason that a legitimate voter should not have proper ID. Still waiting for a quote from the bill. Don't bother giving me the NYTimes interpretation of it. |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Apr 8, 2021 8:18:02 GMT -6
I'm going to jump back in real quick. I have not read anything posted here in the last month but you have to have an ID for literally everything. Why not voting its
Shocking to me that this has not been in place for a decade
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 8, 2021 9:12:50 GMT -6
Rob, you're right it is common. But, the poor, elderly, or those who have transportation difficulty have problems.
Many people don't have bank accounts which surprises me, too, but we can't project our experience on everyone.
I favor ID for voting, but since do many have trouble getting it, want a requirement to have ID be accompanied by some help improving access and ease of getting ID.
The problem is partly that the ID requirement often requires not just any good ID but some specific one. The requirements are often too limited. Not really a need for that.
A second related issue is that those unable to easily get around, it's a barrier. Here in Muncie, not easy to get to DMV for someone with mobility issues. For others the hours open there might require taking time off work, or leaving kids, to get ID.
The mail in voters would have problems in some cases since using it for mail voting would require voters to have easy access to copiers.
We here all have computer access or phone that makes that part easy. Not all legit voters would and need help. The elderly, except of course those here, often need help with technology. We never do...
Make it more easy and flexible and I favor the ID idea.
Excluding the people who have issues end up excluding a good number of voters who have voted forever in the past without any question of fraud. Excludes others who are new voters where the time of new registration would could include providing help getting required ID.
That might need making voter registration more expensive for governments, but if fraud is such a big problem, why isn't it worth it? If it is so easy to do to get ID, and few will have problems, no big deal, right?
But if it is a problem to get ID, we are unfairly limiting access to the ballot. All without much voter fraud, arguably.
|
|
|
|
Post by cbcjanney on Apr 8, 2021 11:59:03 GMT -6
Industry in general is thrusting a lot of electronic requirements now on tasks that forever in the past were done in a manner more friendly to the poor & elderly - not sure why if these folks are expected to adjust to new ways to see a doctor, obtain plane tickets, order a ride, receive money, etc. (through no fraud/fault of their own) that the voting system can't likewise impose new & improved methods if the possibility of diminishing fraud is a by-product. It's crazy to assume all or most of the affected persons in these voting law cases will forever vote for the same whichever party yet that's the political world we now live in. It should be 100% bi-partisan to want to eliminate voter fraud and have elections as legitimate as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 8, 2021 12:50:42 GMT -6
And 100% bipartisan to get everyone to the polls.
Changes we need are to make it easy to vote, not hard. Make election day a holiday. Use technology to create easy ways to ID voters and help them.
The few voters with problems of lack of time and money making it hard to acquire and use ID, why not make it easier for them?
Excluding them is a mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 8, 2021 12:59:02 GMT -6
There are plenty of ways to get a state-issued ID. I defy you to find one single person, who can legally vote, who can't get one. I'm not saying there aren't hoops to jump through, that's true with any time you deal with the government.
You need ID to cash a tax refund, social security, or welfare check. To buy booze. Now you need it to go to a casino.
We all know the underlying reasons why liberals are crying about it. They want to make ballot harvesting as easy as possible, because it benefits Democrats. We all know that, so why keep trying to make it sound noble?
But it looks like Congress is hoping to federalize the voting process, so that nobody has to worry about an evil Republican ever winning an election again. Who needs those pesky states rights anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 8, 2021 13:41:32 GMT -6
There are plenty of ways to get a state-issued ID... You need ID to cash a tax refund, social security, or welfare check. To buy booze. Now you need it to go to a casino. Plenty of ways to get ID? Not so fast. The ID laws are often very specific
Plenty of people have trouble getting that specific ID. If not Military or employed by the government, or a driver, do you know for example the requirements DMV has to issue ID?
Some not so easy to get.
The folks who do have trouble, in fact do not need that same ID to cash checks (in fact you can just sign it over to someone who has an ID such as a relative or caregiver, or have a bank account and deposit it by ATM, phone, or mail), or to buy booze (they can send someone to do that, too)
As for the casino, we should make voting so easy. True, there is an ID requirement, at least for large jackpots and ordering drinks.
True enough, those folks with no transportation cannot go to the casino.
OTOH the casino, compared to the DMV, stays open more hours, has better access in every way.
Bottom line though is going to the casino is not a civic duty or virtue. I think I am OK with it being hard to go to the casino, not that it is hard to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 8, 2021 14:09:16 GMT -6
The real issue is that getting ID is something a number of people do not do. Don't need to do for other reasons, even if it is desirable.
Reasons not to do it include not understanding the process, lack of transportation, working hours conflict, difficulty getting child care. Lack of money and time are not trivial problems.
I agree these are not insurmountable, but if the problem here is so severe, lets make it easier, so everyone can more easily do it.
When it's hard to get ID, that is a barrier to voting. At least for some people.
|
|
