Perspectives #2

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7745
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Perspectives #2

#26 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:06 pm

Many seem to be angry about these perspectives. Messenger attacking is as easy as ever. No one here, that I can see, has specifically disputed the content of what these people have had to say, or showed any evidence that the facts they presented are false. They are just generally wrong, and how dare they express their views on a subject when we just know they are biased. Why should I even bother to listen to what they have to say, much less ponder it? Well, it's a free country, and you are free to tune out what you think is garbage.

PragerU is not an accredited university. It is not claiming to be one as far as I know. It is a website with a fancy hook as a name. I think we all are intelligent enough to realize the difference. Being 'literal', when it is convenient, is another tactic used to obfuscate an issue. Most of us see through that and know that our intelligence is being insulted whenever that tactic is used. That is because we are assuming the person using the tactic is doing it deliberately. That is much more charitable than believing that person really believes what they are saying. But that tactic must work on a significant portion of the population based on how often it is used.

I don't know why some people expect me to argue for their perspective. On these issues that I am addressing, their perspective is the prevailing one, and it is the one that is accepted and promoted by the major media and popular culture. I am trying to present the perspectives of those of us that believe that the prevailing perspective is flawed. And PragerU has condensed these arguments into easily digested 5 minute videos. It is not the be-all and end-all of the subject, but hopefully, if your mind is not locked up, it can get you to at least question the prevailing perspective to see if it is factually valid.

Going back to the original subject, why did MLB pull the All-Star Game out of Atlanta? I believe it was because they thought Georgia passed laws that suppressed minority voting. Did they present any facts supporting that accusation? We all know their opinions on that, but where are the facts supporting those opinions? Here's someone presenting facts he found. Dispute them. Or maybe explain why minority voters are less capable than anyone else without implying they are 'less capable'. The first person to impugn the messenger wins a prize.

https://www.prageru.com/video/the-myth- ... uppression
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23181
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Perspectives #2

#27 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:09 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:06 pm
Going back to the original subject, why did MLB pull the All-Star Game out of Atlanta? I believe it was because they thought Georgia passed laws that suppressed minority voting. Did they present any facts supporting that accusation? We all know their opinions on that, but where are the facts supporting those opinions? Here's someone presenting facts he found. Dispute them. Or maybe explain why minority voters are less capable than anyone else without implying they are 'less capable'. The first person to impugn the messenger wins a prize.

https://www.prageru.com/video/the-myth- ... uppression
First, the video you cite was made in 2019, before the current Georgia voter law was passed, so it has no bearing on the specific provisions. Second, the main argument in that video is because black voter registration has increased that voter suppression doesn't exist. Here in Georgia, Stacy Abrams and others have made extraordinary efforts to get out black vote. There's no question those efforts have had an effect but it doesn't mean that there aren't still attempts to suppress.

The biggest problem with the new voter law is that it gives the Republican-controlled state legislature effective control of the State Board of Elections and the Board in turn has the power to take over local election boards if it deems there are irregularities. Of course, all the claimed but never proved irregularities in the 2020 election were in heavily Democratic counties. The General Assembly has already nominated Janice Johnston, a critic of the Fulton County handling of the 2020 election, to the State Board. The State Board is currently conducting a performance review of the Fulton County Board. They could decide to remove the Fulton County Board and replace it with an administrator of their choosing.
And PragerU has condensed these arguments into easily digested 5 minute videos. It is not the be-all and end-all of the subject, but hopefully, if your mind is not locked up, it can get you to at least question the prevailing perspective to see if it is factually valid.
All Prager has done has been to restate the same old arguments in a less combative form. I do notice that every time I bring up facts, you don't question them to see if they are valid, you just ignore them.

There's more, but I'm going to watch the NFL playoff games now.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 6264
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: Perspectives #2

#28 Post by jarnon » Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:34 pm

OK, I watched this video which makes the point that requiring a photo ID is not inherently discriminatory. The devil is in the details. Here in Pennsylvania, a 2012 voter ID law was struck down because it deliberately excluded types of ID favored by minorities and other Democratic voters. For example, a college student ID had to have an expiration date, which excluded the two largest urban colleges in the state, Temple and Pitt. OTOH, hunting licenses were accepted. This was no coincidence: the House majority leader said voter ID "is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." A 2013 North Carolina law was similarly biased. A judge said it "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision."

In theory, it's possible to craft a voter ID law that's fair, or even one that favors Democrats. But history has taught us to be wary when Republican legislatures mess with voting laws.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7745
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Perspectives #2

#29 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:40 pm

Another perspective addressing an actual valid point made. Progress?

This guy addresses that point. I don't know if he's accurate, but law-making is not a precise science. It looks like, based on what this guy says, the law tries to fix a valid potential problem and tries to do it in a fair way. Is he biased? Probably, but if he is, he's just as biased as those that disagree with him. So, what can be done in a case where a precinct might be performing questionably? Ignore it, try and address it the best way you can, or use it as a political pointy stick?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-BB1foxaB
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7745
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Perspectives #2

#30 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:15 pm

Well, I had nothing else to do, so I did some research, as I tend to do when I question something.

It looks like the claim that Voter ID laws discriminate against the poor and minorities is based largely on one study: "Citizens Without Proof", a report on voter identification requirements produced by the Brennan Center at New York University’s School of Law. You can go and look it up. It's easy to find. In reading it, I had my own doubts about its accuracy and the methods it used. Calling less than 1000 people on the phone? That's a random sample? On which to base a very important issue?

But be that as it may, I then looked for opinions on the study, which from my perusing, seems to be a major argument used to 'prove' voter ID laws are discriminatory. I found this:

https://www.heritage.org/government-reg ... tification

Of course, I know how the game is played. One side says something, the other side does its best to negate it. And I also know both of these things are old. But in my jaded, biased opinion, I just can't see why anyone in this day and age that lives in the US cannot obtain some kind of valid identification if they want to vote, when valid identification is pretty much required to do anything in this country anymore.

These people, in 2010 or 2011, were apparently contacted by phone. To get a phone line, even a land line, don't you have to prove who you are? Even back then? I can't remember. But I don't think, now, I could go to any phone company and just sign up to get a phone number without showing them and proving to them that I am who I say I am. Otherwise, I could sign up any of you for a phone. Maybe I'll try that...... If someone comes to your house and installs a landline phone without you ordering one, I will concede your point.
-------
OK, old people. Maybe some senior citizen has a phone but no ID. Maybe their children or a friend got it for them. OK. Suppose this senior citizen wants to be able to vote. Can't their children or friend arrange to get them an ID and get them registered? I think most of the laws enacted have some way of getting free IDs if the person wants one. That's what I have heard....

But flock, what about people so poor they don't even have a phone, a car or any way of getting to vote? Well, how do they vote? I don't have the answer to that question. Do you? But I don't think requiring valid ID to vote is going to help or hurt them unless someone comes up with an answer to that question. But I think the first thing is that people in that situation need to somehow communicate to someone that they want to vote. But, sadly, they probably have more pressing concerns than being able to vote.

You could do this too, you know. Think about a subject and research it.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
kroxquo
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Location: On the Road to Kingdom Come
Contact:

Re: Perspectives #2

#31 Post by kroxquo » Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:54 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:06 pm

PragerU is not an accredited university. It is not claiming to be one as far as I know. It is a website with a fancy hook as a name. I think we all are intelligent enough to realize the difference. [/url]
While I agree that most of here on the Bored realize the difference, I think that including the word "University" in their name is a deliberate and cynical attempt to provide a veneer of academic credibility. Given how much misinformation is disseminated and, more importantly, believed on the internet, giving people the impression that this is an academic website is disingenuous at best.
You live and learn. Or at least you live. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
SportsFan68
No Scritches!!!
Posts: 21098
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: God's Country

Re: Perspectives #2

#32 Post by SportsFan68 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:02 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:34 pm
Well, the first one apparently hasn't gotten anybody to re-examine their opinions or tactics for discussing issues. Same old same old. But at least I didn't have to add anything to my signature.

Last year, I quit the BBBL fantasy league when MLB decided to pull the All Star Game out of Atlanta, revealing to the world that they are no longer a sports league, but a political subsidiary of the woke movement. And they aren't even close to being the worst. I loved the MLS until they sold themselves to the woke idiots. The NFL isn't much better.

I did not get much love, and didn't expect any, from the other BBBL 'owners'. But this video helps explain why I left and why I now avoid watching sports on TV and will NEVER buy a ticket to any sports league that openly supports one side of a political issue.

https://www.prageru.com/video/get-polit ... -of-sports

PS: The only sports I watched in 2021 was College Football (I spent money subscribing to FUBO to watch SEC games), a couple of Seattle Sounders MLS games when they came back, until I saw how they advertised and proclaimed their wokeness from every corner of the field and it made me nauseous, and some of the baseball playoff games that the Braves were in. Not one NFL or NBA game. And I did not miss it. Perhaps I'll see if I can get interested in the NHL. Are they woke? I hope not.
This replies only to the emphasis-added phrases.

"Woke" seems to have evolved to become, as SSS noted, a right wing insult. From the local paper:
Don Coram hasn’t got a clue if he is “super woke.”

“I have no idea what that means,” said the Republican state senator from Montrose before he announced his primary challenge for the 3rd Congressional District on Friday afternoon.

Lauren Boebert, the freshman congresswoman he is hoping to unseat in the Republican primary, sent a statement about Coram’s candidacy that morning describing the 73-year-old Montrose native with a background in farming and mining, as a “super-woke social liberal.”
Coram is NOT a “super-woke social liberal,” I hasten to add without fear of contradiction except from Boebert.
-- In Iroquois society, leaders are encouraged to remember seven generations in the past and consider seven generations in the future when making decisions that affect the people.
-- America would be a better place if leaders would do more long-term thinking. -- Wilma Mankiller

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23181
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Perspectives #2

#33 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:22 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:15 pm
In reading it, I had my own doubts about its accuracy and the methods it used. Calling less than 1000 people on the phone? That's a random sample? On which to base a very important issue?
Flock, you clearly don't know much about statistics and polling. Almost all opinion polls use samples of a few hundred people. When they sample correctly (which isn't always the case), the results are highly accurate.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23181
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Perspectives #2

#34 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:30 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:22 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:15 pm
In reading it, I had my own doubts about its accuracy and the methods it used. Calling less than 1000 people on the phone? That's a random sample? On which to base a very important issue?
Flock, you clearly don't know much about statistics and polling. Almost all opinion polls use samples of a few hundred people. When they sample correctly (which isn't always the case), the results are highly accurate.

Also, the kicker on a lot of these ID laws are what they accept and what they don't. Most require photo ID, and I sure didn't have to get my picture taken to get telephone service. And many of them don't accept student ID, which for college students who don't drive is often their only form of identification. On the other hand, many of them do accept gun permits as forms of identification.

And the biggest problems with Georgias new law aren't with ID, as I indicated.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
kroxquo
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Location: On the Road to Kingdom Come
Contact:

Re: Perspectives #2

#35 Post by kroxquo » Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:06 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:30 pm
silverscreenselect wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:22 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:15 pm
In reading it, I had my own doubts about its accuracy and the methods it used. Calling less than 1000 people on the phone? That's a random sample? On which to base a very important issue?
Flock, you clearly don't know much about statistics and polling. Almost all opinion polls use samples of a few hundred people. When they sample correctly (which isn't always the case), the results are highly accurate.

Also, the kicker on a lot of these ID laws are what they accept and what they don't. Most require photo ID, and I sure didn't have to get my picture taken to get telephone service. And many of them don't accept student ID, which for college students who don't drive is often their only form of identification. On the other hand, many of them do accept gun permits as forms of identification.

And the biggest problems with Georgias new law aren't with ID, as I indicated.
And this does not even begin to mention the gerrymandering going on all over the country. Here in North Carolina, which by the numbers is split fairly evenly Democrat and Republican, has 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats. After the 2010 census the Republican legislature drew up the maps and when asked why it came out 10-3, one of the Republican legislators replied (and I swear this is an actual quote), "Because we couldn't figure out how to make it 11-2." The maps that have come out now based on the 2020 census (and lets not get started on how the 45th President caused the numbers there to be skewed) have received an F grade and are once again being challenged in court. Similar instances of districting people out of their vote are happening all over the country.
You live and learn. Or at least you live. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26429
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Perspectives #2

#36 Post by Bob Juch » Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:29 pm

When I lived in Raleigh the last time, 7 1/2 years ago, there was a big stink about the "Black areas" not having any polling places nearby.

I remember that Texas closed DMV offices in "Black areas" some years ago, which made it harder to get IDs.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Perspectives #2

#37 Post by Bob78164 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:58 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:39 pm
a1mamacat wrote:
Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:45 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:05 pm
Just to be clear Skoop, this is My Perspective: Your definition of the term 'Woke' may be how it started, but, just like everything else the left appropriates, they have taken it too far and now it's a perjorative for those who impose their sense of 'social justice' by means of coercion and threats. See "Cancel Culture".

https://www.prageru.com/video/who-has-privilege

https://www.prageru.com/video/what-is-social-justice
Would this be what Carhartt is currently being subjected too? Threats of economic sanctions from the radical right because they have maintained a vaccine mandate for their employees.
I don't think that is part of cancel culture.
How about what happened to Colin Kaepernick?

The bottom line is that "cancel culture" is used by both sides. More importantly, because it's a form of social sanction, it's inevitable in a free society.

What I find much more problematic is when "cancel culture" starts being enforced either by physical force (or its threat) or by governmental coercion. And one side is far more guilty of these sins than the other. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7745
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Perspectives #2

#38 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:42 pm

From switching the subject, to missing the point completely, to ignoring the content completely and resorting back to name calling, I am really disappointed by the responses I've seen since my last post. Not surprised, however.

I knew the point tlynn made was pretty much inevitable before I decided to do this, but I figured "What the hell?".

Though I'm pretty sure no one will respond constructively, I'll pose this question: If the main question is about what kind of ID's are acceptible,(which at least one of you has conceded) then why isn't the answer 'Let's get a list together we all will accept and see if we can come to an agreement', instead of 'Voter IDs are racist, we can't have them.'? I am pretty sure of the real answer, and at least one of you has hit close to the target without meaning to.

Another question: Does abandoning the original point that was made (Point A) and going on to make another point (Point B) without even debating the response to Point A indicate that Point A has been conceded?
Last edited by flockofseagulls104 on Sun Jan 23, 2022 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7745
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Perspectives #2

#39 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 9:28 pm

kroxquo wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:54 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:06 pm

PragerU is not an accredited university. It is not claiming to be one as far as I know. It is a website with a fancy hook as a name. I think we all are intelligent enough to realize the difference. [/url]
While I agree that most of here on the Bored realize the difference, I think that including the word "University" in their name is a deliberate and cynical attempt to provide a veneer of academic credibility. Given how much misinformation is disseminated and, more importantly, believed on the internet, giving people the impression that this is an academic website is disingenuous at best.
Just to reiterate. Not attacking you, just would like some clarification. Please read through the statement you have questioned, comprehend it and apply it to this situation, if you would.

Being 'literal', when it is convenient, is another tactic used to obfuscate an issue. Most of us see through that and know that our intelligence is being insulted whenever that tactic is used. That is because we are assuming the person using the tactic is doing it deliberately. That is much more charitable than believing that person really believes what they are saying.

You are, I believe, trying to exempt yourself from the second assumption. But I am not so sure. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think what you are saying is that we now have to be literal in everything we say or do because there are so many stupid intellectually challenged people who won't understand anything else and we have a duty to protect them. Do we have to cater to the lowest common denominator at all times? Maybe he should rename it 'Pragers Web Site'? Or maybe 'Pragers Dangerous Right Wing Propaganda'? Would that be better? In that case it would have to be applied to everything. I don't think you'd support that..... There are LOTS AND LOTS of things that would definitely need to be renamed.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23181
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Perspectives #2

#40 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:45 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:42 pm
If the main question is about what kind of ID's are acceptible,(which at least one of you has conceded) then why isn't the answer 'Let's get a list together we all will accept and see if we can come to an agreement', instead of 'Voter IDs are racist, we can't have them.'? I am pretty sure of the real answer, and at least one of you has hit close to the target without meaning to.
The question about the Georgia law isn't what types of ID are and are not acceptable. And as to why we can't come to an agreement about what type of IDs are acceptable, the answer is that state legislatures decide that, and the legislatures that have the strictest requirements are in states controlled by Republicans. This link shows the current status of voter ID laws which are in effect in 35 states. Many of those states do not require photo IDs and others allow voters to file affidavits or cast provisional ballots if the voter doesn't have ID.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections ... er-id.aspx

And since Flock has ignored actually discussing the new Georgia law, here's what it does:

1. Limits the number of drop boxes in any county based on population. Here in Fulton County, we went from 38 drop boxes in the 2020 election to eight in the 2021 municipal elections. Over half the absentee ballots cast in Fulton County in 2020 used drop boxes. I used the drop box at the local branch library, which was convenient. However, I noted that of the eight locations, five were in predominantly white areas of northern Fulton County. Currently, only five locations are listed for the 2022 primary elections. Three of those are in those same northern areas of the county. Legislation is currently pending in the General Assembly that would eliminate drop boxes entirely. Also, drop boxes are only available during early voting hours, so people can't drop absentee ballots off at night after work.

2. Cuts back on the time in which to request and return an absentee ballot. This one almost caught me. I made the request for an absentee ballot online instead of mailing it in which was the other option. It took over two weeks for them to mail the ballot back to me. It arrived the day before the deadline for absentee balloting, which was one week earlier than in previous years. Mrs. SSS and I were able to fill out our ballots that night, but one day later and we would have had to go through the hassle of casting provisional ballots at the polling place on election day.

3. Big limits on runoffs. Now runoffs will be held four weeks after the first election instead of nine under earlier law. That will shorten the time to get absentee ballots in and limit early voting to one week instead of three. The reason this is so important is that Georgia requires 50% + 1 of the vote in a general election to win. Since libertarian and other third party candidates often run, runoffs happen fairly frequently. We could easily have runoffs for governor and senator this year. The reason the Democrats hold the Senate is because they won the two runoff Senate elections.

4. Prohibits people from providing food and drink to voters standing in line. Some Fulton County voters had to stand in line for four hours during the summer in 2020.

I'm waiting to hear what Prager U has to say about this. And keep in mind that there was absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election. The only "evidence" was that Republican candidates didn't win.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7745
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Perspectives #2

#41 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:49 am

It is proving impossible to keep people on topic.

One poster said, pretty unequivocably, that the main problem they had with the GA Voting Laws was that the GA Legislature could replace local election boards at will. (I think this is an accurate paraphrase of the statement). I then explored that claim and found a different perspective that refuted that claim. The poster that made that claim has not yet commented on that alternate perspective and has gone on and added several more things that are the 'main problem'. That is why I asked if 'Point A' has been conceded.
The biggest problem with the new voter law is that it gives the Republican-controlled state legislature effective control of the State Board of Elections and the Board in turn has the power to take over local election boards if it deems there are irregularities.
It seems apparent that some people do not really want to come to any conclusions about anything, but just want to find more things to argue about and to make it personal. I left this board because debates became personal. I am not going there again.

I was hoping we could really debate these issues. I am trying to show that when my perspective differs from what the prevailing perspective seems to be, that there are other people, who probably have more knowledge or experience with the subject than anyone on this bored, who share my perspective and have facts they believe back up their opinions. If we can't keep to one topic and keep scattershooting when we don't have an answer, we will just go down the same old rabbithole.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: Perspectives #2

#42 Post by earendel » Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:14 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:42 pm
Though I'm pretty sure no one will respond constructively, I'll pose this question: If the main question is about what kind of ID's are acceptible,(which at least one of you has conceded) then why isn't the answer 'Let's get a list together we all will accept and see if we can come to an agreement', instead of 'Voter IDs are racist, we can't have them.'? I am pretty sure of the real answer, and at least one of you has hit close to the target without meaning to.
Just my own opinion but creating a list of acceptable IDs is a good idea. Unfortunately it would require action at the Federal level, in order to assure consistency across all 50 states. And that is highly unlikely, not only because it would infringe on state sovereignty, but Congressional Republicans have already complained about "Federalizing" elections in their resistance to voting right legislation.

Oh, and I consider myself to be relatively intelligent but before it was mentioned here, I had heard of Prager University and thought that it was an actual online school (like the University of Phoenix). So, again from my point of view, it is disingenuous of Prager to use "university" in its name.
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23181
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Perspectives #2

#43 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:16 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:49 am
It is proving impossible to keep people on topic.

One poster said, pretty unequivocably, that the main problem they had with the GA Voting Laws was that the GA Legislature could replace local election boards at will. (I think this is an accurate paraphrase of the statement). I then explored that claim and found a different perspective that refuted that claim. The poster that made that claim has not yet commented on that alternate perspective and has gone on and added several more things that are the 'main problem'. That is why I asked if 'Point A' has been conceded.
The biggest problem with the new voter law is that it gives the Republican-controlled state legislature effective control of the State Board of Elections and the Board in turn has the power to take over local election boards if it deems there are irregularities.
It seems apparent that some people do not really want to come to any conclusions about anything, but just want to find more things to argue about and to make it personal. I left this board because debates became personal. I am not going there again.

I was hoping we could really debate these issues. I am trying to show that when my perspective differs from what the prevailing perspective seems to be, that there are other people, who probably have more knowledge or experience with the subject than anyone on this bored, who share my perspective and have facts they believe back up their opinions. If we can't keep to one topic and keep scattershooting when we don't have an answer, we will just go down the same old rabbithole.
Flock, your point is not conceded. The new Georgia election law allows the Republican state legislature to choose the State Election Board. That Board in turn has the power to replace the local election board and put an appointed official in charge. Before doing so, they must must conduct a performance review or other audit or investigation and determine that the local board's performance is not satisfactory. But here's the kicker. That performance review is already going on. And it's being conducted by a three-person committee, two of whom are Republicans. And they have the 2020 and 2021 municipal elections to look through for "evidence" of whatever they want to find. That committee's results will go to a five-person State Election Board with three Republicans and another member waiting to be chosen by the General Assembly. One of those members is already on record claiming fraud in the 2020 election. Now, I fully expect an adverse decision to wind up in court as soon as the ink dries. But advocates of fair voting shouldn't have to jump through these hoops. And if the 2022 governor and senate elections are as close as everyone thinks, there's nothing to prevent the State Election Board from doing the same thing in other heavily Democratic counties before the 2024 elections. Fulton County alone cast nearly 20% of the vote in Georgia last time and Biden carried the county by over 240,000 in a state he won by less than 12,000 total votes.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7745
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Perspectives #2

#44 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:34 am

earendel wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:14 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:42 pm
Though I'm pretty sure no one will respond constructively, I'll pose this question: If the main question is about what kind of ID's are acceptible,(which at least one of you has conceded) then why isn't the answer 'Let's get a list together we all will accept and see if we can come to an agreement', instead of 'Voter IDs are racist, we can't have them.'? I am pretty sure of the real answer, and at least one of you has hit close to the target without meaning to.
Just my own opinion but creating a list of acceptable IDs is a good idea. Unfortunately it would require action at the Federal level, in order to assure consistency across all 50 states. And that is highly unlikely, not only because it would infringe on state sovereignty, but Congressional Republicans have already complained about "Federalizing" elections in their resistance to voting right legislation.

Oh, and I consider myself to be relatively intelligent but before it was mentioned here, I had heard of Prager University and thought that it was an actual online school (like the University of Phoenix). So, again from my point of view, it is disingenuous of Prager to use "university" in its name.
This is to answer THIS SPECIFIC POST. Let's not let it bleed into the overall discussion, which is politics in sports, which has evolved into justifying the Voting Fairness laws in GA.

My perspective on this is that it is very dangerous to give the Federal government control over anything that the Constitution gave to the States. The founders did so for a reason. I do not want Charles Schumer or Nancy Pelosi deciding for the whole country how voting is conducted, any more than many people on this bored would not want that decided by Mitch McConnell or Kevin McCarthy. Why is it not possible for the various state legislatures to agree that it is a requirement that only people who are eligible to vote be able to vote, and only once, and that they prove who they are? Is it now impossible for a legislative body to agree on what is right and fair for all their constituents, or is everything controlled by what one party or the other demands? Can they not think beyond today? If the current majority makes a law that favors them today, can they not figure out that tomorrow, when they may be in the minority, it will work against them? It just makes sense that they craft something agreeable to all. Is that impossible?
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7745
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Perspectives #2

#45 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:48 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:16 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:49 am
It is proving impossible to keep people on topic.

One poster said, pretty unequivocably, that the main problem they had with the GA Voting Laws was that the GA Legislature could replace local election boards at will. (I think this is an accurate paraphrase of the statement). I then explored that claim and found a different perspective that refuted that claim. The poster that made that claim has not yet commented on that alternate perspective and has gone on and added several more things that are the 'main problem'. That is why I asked if 'Point A' has been conceded.
The biggest problem with the new voter law is that it gives the Republican-controlled state legislature effective control of the State Board of Elections and the Board in turn has the power to take over local election boards if it deems there are irregularities.
It seems apparent that some people do not really want to come to any conclusions about anything, but just want to find more things to argue about and to make it personal. I left this board because debates became personal. I am not going there again.

I was hoping we could really debate these issues. I am trying to show that when my perspective differs from what the prevailing perspective seems to be, that there are other people, who probably have more knowledge or experience with the subject than anyone on this bored, who share my perspective and have facts they believe back up their opinions. If we can't keep to one topic and keep scattershooting when we don't have an answer, we will just go down the same old rabbithole.
Flock, your point is not conceded. The new Georgia election law allows the Republican state legislature to choose the State Election Board. That Board in turn has the power to replace the local election board and put an appointed official in charge. Before doing so, they must must conduct a performance review or other audit or investigation and determine that the local board's performance is not satisfactory. But here's the kicker. That performance review is already going on. And it's being conducted by a three-person committee, two of whom are Republicans. And they have the 2020 and 2021 municipal elections to look through for "evidence" of whatever they want to find. That committee's results will go to a five-person State Election Board with three Republicans and another member waiting to be chosen by the General Assembly. One of those members is already on record claiming fraud in the 2020 election. Now, I fully expect an adverse decision to wind up in court as soon as the ink dries. But advocates of fair voting shouldn't have to jump through these hoops. And if the 2022 governor and senate elections are as close as everyone thinks, there's nothing to prevent the State Election Board from doing the same thing in other heavily Democratic counties before the 2024 elections. Fulton County alone cast nearly 20% of the vote in Georgia last time and Biden carried the county by over 240,000 in a state he won by less than 12,000 total votes.
What's your solution? Would it not work the same way if the other party had the majority in the state legislature? Or would it only be OK if your party controlled everything? And would your party only choose totally unbiased people? By whose standards would they be judged unbiased? It goes on and on.

I believe the GA legislature has tried to address issues that have been raised, maybe fairly, maybe unfairly. They have made a law to investigate allegations of voting irregularities, and if there are irregularities found and documented, try and fix them in as best a way that can be done by politicians. I believe it went through the legislative process and was passed into law. If you don't like it, sorry. There are many GA laws I don't like. But my point here is that MLB decided to go with the leadership of the Democrat party and the viewpoint of the BLM organization and brand GA as a racist state and punish them because they did not like this law. That is not right.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26429
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Perspectives #2

#46 Post by Bob Juch » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:50 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:34 am
earendel wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:14 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:42 pm
Though I'm pretty sure no one will respond constructively, I'll pose this question: If the main question is about what kind of ID's are acceptible,(which at least one of you has conceded) then why isn't the answer 'Let's get a list together we all will accept and see if we can come to an agreement', instead of 'Voter IDs are racist, we can't have them.'? I am pretty sure of the real answer, and at least one of you has hit close to the target without meaning to.
Just my own opinion but creating a list of acceptable IDs is a good idea. Unfortunately it would require action at the Federal level, in order to assure consistency across all 50 states. And that is highly unlikely, not only because it would infringe on state sovereignty, but Congressional Republicans have already complained about "Federalizing" elections in their resistance to voting right legislation.

Oh, and I consider myself to be relatively intelligent but before it was mentioned here, I had heard of Prager University and thought that it was an actual online school (like the University of Phoenix). So, again from my point of view, it is disingenuous of Prager to use "university" in its name.
This is to answer THIS SPECIFIC POST. Let's not let it bleed into the overall discussion, which is politics in sports, which has evolved into justifying the Voting Fairness laws in GA.

My perspective on this is that it is very dangerous to give the Federal government control over anything that the Constitution gave to the States. The founders did so for a reason. I do not want Charles Schumer or Nancy Pelosi deciding for the whole country how voting is conducted, any more than many people on this bored would not want that decided by Mitch McConnell or Kevin McCarthy. Why is it not possible for the various state legislatures to agree that it is a requirement that only people who are eligible to vote be able to vote, and only once, and that they prove who they are? Is it now impossible for a legislative body to agree on what is right and fair for all their constituents, or is everything controlled by what one party or the other demands? Can they not think beyond today? If the current majority makes a law that favors them today, can they not figure out that tomorrow, when they may be in the minority, it will work against them? It just makes sense that they craft something agreeable to all. Is that impossible?
It's impossible as the Republicans know that if it's easier for minorities to vote they will lose.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7745
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Perspectives #2

#47 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:01 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:50 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:34 am
earendel wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:14 am

Just my own opinion but creating a list of acceptable IDs is a good idea. Unfortunately it would require action at the Federal level, in order to assure consistency across all 50 states. And that is highly unlikely, not only because it would infringe on state sovereignty, but Congressional Republicans have already complained about "Federalizing" elections in their resistance to voting right legislation.

Oh, and I consider myself to be relatively intelligent but before it was mentioned here, I had heard of Prager University and thought that it was an actual online school (like the University of Phoenix). So, again from my point of view, it is disingenuous of Prager to use "university" in its name.
This is to answer THIS SPECIFIC POST. Let's not let it bleed into the overall discussion, which is politics in sports, which has evolved into justifying the Voting Fairness laws in GA.

My perspective on this is that it is very dangerous to give the Federal government control over anything that the Constitution gave to the States. The founders did so for a reason. I do not want Charles Schumer or Nancy Pelosi deciding for the whole country how voting is conducted, any more than many people on this bored would not want that decided by Mitch McConnell or Kevin McCarthy. Why is it not possible for the various state legislatures to agree that it is a requirement that only people who are eligible to vote be able to vote, and only once, and that they prove who they are? Is it now impossible for a legislative body to agree on what is right and fair for all their constituents, or is everything controlled by what one party or the other demands? Can they not think beyond today? If the current majority makes a law that favors them today, can they not figure out that tomorrow, when they may be in the minority, it will work against them? It just makes sense that they craft something agreeable to all. Is that impossible?
It's impossible as the Republicans know that if it's easier for minorities to vote they will lose.
I consider that a totally racist statement. It is untrue, inflammatory and irrelevant. I will ignore it and the person who posted it.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: Perspectives #2

#48 Post by earendel » Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:26 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:34 am
My perspective on this is that it is very dangerous to give the Federal government control over anything that the Constitution gave to the States. The founders did so for a reason. I do not want Charles Schumer or Nancy Pelosi deciding for the whole country how voting is conducted, any more than many people on this bored would not want that decided by Mitch McConnell or Kevin McCarthy.
I agree that one or two people should not have the decision-making power, irrespective of party. But a putatively deliberative body such as the Senate, consisting of 100 individuals, should be able to come to a consensus on what would constitute suitable voter identification.
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:34 am
Why is it not possible for the various state legislatures to agree that it is a requirement that only people who are eligible to vote be able to vote, and only once, and that they prove who they are? Is it now impossible for a legislative body to agree on what is right and fair for all their constituents, or is everything controlled by what one party or the other demands? Can they not think beyond today? If the current majority makes a law that favors them today, can they not figure out that tomorrow, when they may be in the minority, it will work against them? It just makes sense that they craft something agreeable to all. Is that impossible?
I'm not disputing that the states should have requirements for voting. The issue is whether those requirements, deliberately or not, exclude individuals or classes of individuals. As has been pointed out, allowing hunting licenses to serve as proof but not student IDs has every appearance of attempting to exclude a class of voters that might lean toward one political party. Likewise restrictions such as limiting drop box locations and hours appear to be directed at limiting certain groups' ability to cast a vote.

What makes "something agreeable" difficult, if not impossible, is that those in the majority are working to ensure that they stay in the majority - the thought that they might have the tables turned on them apparently doesn't occur to them.
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

User avatar
kroxquo
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Location: On the Road to Kingdom Come
Contact:

Re: Perspectives #2

#49 Post by kroxquo » Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:35 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 9:28 pm
kroxquo wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:54 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:06 pm

PragerU is not an accredited university. It is not claiming to be one as far as I know. It is a website with a fancy hook as a name. I think we all are intelligent enough to realize the difference. [/url]
While I agree that most of here on the Bored realize the difference, I think that including the word "University" in their name is a deliberate and cynical attempt to provide a veneer of academic credibility. Given how much misinformation is disseminated and, more importantly, believed on the internet, giving people the impression that this is an academic website is disingenuous at best.
Just to reiterate. Not attacking you, just would like some clarification. Please read through the statement you have questioned, comprehend it and apply it to this situation, if you would.

Being 'literal', when it is convenient, is another tactic used to obfuscate an issue. Most of us see through that and know that our intelligence is being insulted whenever that tactic is used. That is because we are assuming the person using the tactic is doing it deliberately. That is much more charitable than believing that person really believes what they are saying.

You are, I believe, trying to exempt yourself from the second assumption. But I am not so sure. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think what you are saying is that we now have to be literal in everything we say or do because there are so many stupid intellectually challenged people who won't understand anything else and we have a duty to protect them. Do we have to cater to the lowest common denominator at all times? Maybe he should rename it 'Pragers Web Site'? Or maybe 'Pragers Dangerous Right Wing Propaganda'? Would that be better? In that case it would have to be applied to everything. I don't think you'd support that..... There are LOTS AND LOTS of things that would definitely need to be renamed.
I am not saying that we have to literal in everything. However when words are used to be deceptive (as, I think, the use of the word "university" is in this case), there should be more openness about what is actually being said. I think there are some very intelligent people who (like Earendel), not knowing anything about Prager, will assume that it has its academic bona fides. This is deliberately deceptive because I think most people are willing to accept the name at facce value. Do we have to cater to the LCD all the time? I would say not, however, if something is misleading, as Prager's name is, It should be called out.
You live and learn. Or at least you live. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7745
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Perspectives #2

#50 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:39 pm

But a putatively deliberative body such as the Senate, consisting of 100 individuals, should be able to come to a consensus on what would constitute suitable voter identification.
Right. How has that worked lately? It's supposed to be the body where the various States have their part of the balance of power, That's why it was set up that every state, regardless of size, has an equal vote. But throughout the years we have let it become another glorified House of Representatives where the members pretty much represent their party and themselves rather than their state. Look at how much crap Manchin is taking for representing his state rather than going along with his party.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

Post Reply