Attorney General Merrick Garland sues the state of Georgia
I saw that, seeing that legislation has been stalled in Washington, the DOJ is our best chance to put the GOP on the run on this issue.
Cred: I agree. There is more than one way to skin a cat (HR-1).
This will be a very interesting case to watch. I have read the bill that Georga passed on the new voting laws, it seemed very fair in many ways. However, it certainly can't hurt to have the new laws looked at very closely by the courts to make sure they promote fair and appropriate voting laws for all.
It all seems very odd, it is a fact more blacks voted in Georgia in the past couple of elections than ever did before. I would think that would be a sticking point.
But, hey, I think with all the bad feelings that occurred in the lasts couple of Georga elections both sides really need the courts to have a long look at the new law that was passed.Just was doing a bit of browsing the internet on the DOJ case against Georgia. Not sure if you respect Jonathan Turley, but here is his take on the case.
George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. He shared his opinion on the case this morning on Fox and Freinds. He seemed to think the case would backfire --- "I'm highly skeptical and I think they may ultimately regret this move. It could indeed clarify this issue in a way the Biden administration does not want," Turley said.
He also pointed out ---- "Turley raised questions over the merit of the lawsuit citing similarities between Georgia and other states such as Delaware. "But, this is a very dubious case in my view. Because the Georgia law has great overlap with other states like Delaware" J. Turley
https://www.foxnews.com/media/doj-to-su … ection-law
The George Washington law professor discussed the political ramifications of the lawsuit coupled with House and Senate democrats trying to pass major federal election reforms. "One of the issues that the court may ultimately amplify is that elections were left in the Constitution to the state."
"Georgia state Attorney General Chris Carr, who will be defending the state in court, fired back at the DOJ, telling Fox News the lawsuit is simply a "political campaign flier," and will not be upheld in a court of law."
Does Biden need to make a media splash making a run at our Constitution? This case will be widely covered, and could really become the Biden administration against the Constitution? Just saying, could be a very big gamble to take. Many American's don't take messing with the Constitution lightly.
Here is another link that gives legal opinions on the case.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-we … gop-intentSharlee: I had a feeling you watched Fox, now I know you do.
I don't trust Johnathan Turley after seeing how he handled Trump's impeachment about the Ukraine and arguing that Trump and Guilianni committed no crime while they were looking for dirt on Biden.
In my view, I see the Georgia voting laws as a definite move to restrict the black vote. Here is what the Washington Post says:
It shrinks the window for voters to request mail ballots. Rather than allowing voters to request ballots six months from Election Day, the new law says voters can start requesting ballots 78 days out; counties can begin sending ballots to voters just 29 days before Election Day, rather than the previous 49 days. It also sets an earlier cutoff date for ballot application requests.
Critics say any mail delays with these shorter periods could lead to voters not getting ballots on time, or not being able to return them in time. But proponents of the law say voters simply don’t need the 180 days they used to have to request ballots – and that moving up the cutoff date makes it less likely voters will receive ballots too late to get them back in time to be counted.
Counties and the state can send mail ballot applications only to voters who request them (as opposed to simply sending every registered voter a ballot application) and cannot fill in information ahead of time.
New voter ID requirements. Voters who cast mail ballots will have to provide one of several forms of identification. This provision — which replaces a signature match previously used to confirm voters’ identities — is one of the most controversial because critics say it is likely to disproportionately affect Black voters.
Voters don’t have to provide a copy of the identification, but could for example provide a driver’s license number, social security number or other acceptable identification.
A limit on the number of ballot drop boxes during early voting. It essentially limits the number of drop boxes in each county to one per early-voting site, or one for every 100,000 voters in the county, whichever number is smaller. And the drop boxes can’t be conveniently spread over the county, for example, in places where there aren’t in-person early-voting locations; they all have to be located either in a county election office or at an early-voting precinct location. They have to be indoors, which critics say make them less accessible and could lead to crowds where voters are already congregated,
Shortened early voting in runoff elections. Instead of a minimum of three weeks of early voting in runoffs, early voting in runoffs will be held in a single Monday-Friday period.
State lawmakers get much more power over county and local elections (and Republicans have decisive majorities in both the state Senate and the state House). The law states that the General Assembly will select the chair of the state elections board, rather than the board being chaired by the Georgia secretary of state — an elected position. The chair is supposed to be nonpartisan. The state election board can investigate county election boards and has the power to suspend county election superintendents — though the law limits the state board to suspending four at a time.
You might remember Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who became the target of his own party’s ire after President Donald Trump put pressure on him over the results of the 2020 election; this provision seems like a direct reaction to that, ensuring partisan state lawmakers can control the election process more directly.
A ban on handing out food and water within 150 feet of a polling place, or within 25 feet of any voter. Republicans say this is aimed at stopping outside groups from influencing voters; Democrats say it’s supposed to make it harder for people to wait in long lines, particularly on hot or cold days. Election officials are permitted to set up water stations — but they’re not required to do so.AS a rule, I don't watch any cable network news. I picked up the Turley article online at the Fox News website when I was searching for a few legal opinions on the DOJ's case against Georga. Not much out from legal experts as of yet on the case. I think we will hear more in the coming week. At any rate, it will be interesting to watch the DOJ's case. I assume it will end up in the Supreme Court.
As I said I read the bill, and all you have stated in your comment is factual. I find the new laws very accommodating to all the want to use their right to vote. I don't like some in today's society who find Black citizens need our help to vote, any more than white citizens. My gosh in my view I find it an insult to the black race to point them out as so inept in regard to being unable to able figure out how to vote. In our last election, we had historic numbers of black citizens vote.
I see nothing wrong with Georgia's new voting laws, in fact, they will work to decrease problems with fraud, and more people will feel safe that their vote is being counted.
WE will need to agree to disagree on Georgia's new voting laws. I appreciate order and rules, and this bill truly has provided a good set of rules to assure all can vote in person comfortably as well as opt to request to vote by mail.Sharlee: There is a difference between helping people out and restricting them. How are any of those laws helping people to get out the vote? The AG is not pointing out black people as being so inept they need help. He is leveling the playing field for them just as it is for white folks.
I took each one of those laws and tried to apply the idea of helping people vote and they just don't lend themselves to that. It has been proven every way to Sunday there was not enough fraud in the last election to make a difference in the outcome.
This is a power play by the GOP. It even includes redistricting to give the advantage to republicans in the red states.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … stricting/How far should "helping people vote" go? Should we provide limo service to the polls? A 5 course meal when they get there? Shall we provide interpreters in case American citizens cannot read the ballot? Entertainment while they wait in line?
The point being that there is a difference between helping people to vote and turning it into a circus wherein we do everything but check the box for them, as we ignore the possibility of fraud because, after all, "there is no fraud; we know that because when we didn't check we didn't find any".
As with everything else in life there is a balance to be found, and as near as I can figure liberals always ignore security in favor of "ease of voting". There is no balance at all, just cries that blacks cannot make the polls like everyone else.
No, we don't need anyone's help to vote, just stop putting meaningless impediments in the way of the process.
As far as I am concerned if the state of Georgia is going to subject those at the polls to restrictions regarding access to food or water, they should be required to make certain that people are not standing in lines for hours to vote. That means more polling places in the urban areas rather than less. This, we will insist upon, as well.Sharlee and Wilderness:
Let's cut to the chase here. For months before the election, Trump was sounding his drum beat and poisoning the well, that if the he lost the election it was rigged and then when he did lose, it was because the election was stolen from him and he continues to state that to to this day.. Both of these statements ring of voter fraud, which has been proven many times over by the courts and recounting of ballots to prove there was no voter fraud to affect the outcome of the election.
If Trump would have won the election, I venture to say, there would be no talk of voter fraud and no new laws. He would probably be boasting about how it was the greatest election in the history of mankind. The GOP congress would be on it's way to support everything that Trump wanted.
A large part of this country has been radicalized by Trump's lies because there are still people out there that believe the election was stolen from him and there is nothing that can be done to prove to them otherwise. That my friends is brainwashing and radicalization. All one has to do is watch the interviews that took place during the storming of the Capitol.
The red state legislators are now taking advantage of those lies to enact state laws that will give them the advantage for the next election. Just look at Arizona's new laws.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html"The red state legislators are now taking advantage of those lies to enact state laws that will give them the advantage for the next election."
The bill "allows third parties designated by the legislature to flag ineligible voters for removal from the rolls. The bill also imposes new ballot printing requirements and provides funds for election security and post-election recounts." Are you claiming that if ineligible voters are removed that Republicans will benefit - that there are lots and lots of ineligible voters voting Democrat?
Or that funds for election security and post-election recounts will benefit Republicans? That lax security and lack of recounts is providing for fraudulent Democrat votes far in excess of Republican ones?
Or is your claim that, somehow, ballot printing requirements will prevent Democrat votes?
Not sure how any of this will benefit Republicans more than Democrats...unless there is already Democrat fraud.Not sure what you are referring to. I assume it is the changes made in May 2021 --
Which media has done a great job at twisting out of context. This is what happens when one does not read bills. This kind of reporting is not fair or ethical. READ THE BILL
“Arizona is a national leader when it comes to election integrity and access to the ballot box, and Senate Bill 1485 continues that legacy. In 1992, our state began offering the ability for Arizonans to vote an absentee ballot. Since then, Arizona has continuously improved and refined our election laws — including intuitively renaming ‘absentee’ voting to ‘early’ voting — and constantly seeking to strengthen the security and integrity of our elections,” the Governor said in a letter explaining his support for the bill.
Bill SB 1485 renames Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL) to Active Early Voting List (AEVL). Under this legislation, if a voter on the AEVL actively votes by mail, they will continue to receive an early ballot. If a voter on the AEVL does not return at least one early ballot over the course of four years (two consecutive primary elections and general elections, and any municipal elections that precede them) the voter will be SENT A POSTCARD asking if they still want to receive an early ballot. The county recorder may additionally reach the voter by telephone, text message, or e-mail. Whether a voter opts to remain on the AEVL or not, they remain eligible to request an early ballot or vote in person, ensuring no voter is ever disenfranchised. (sent a postcard, and what about that text or phone call... The state is making very sure of its resident's wishes before removing them from the vote by mail list, are they not?
The media just thought you did not need this information. Just not something they felt needed mentioning.
Link to the bill --- https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1R/ … B1485H.pdf
There is nothing in this bill that appears to suppress voting rights. Only makes things more efficient and fair to the Citizens of Arizona. It's a very well-organized and respectful bill.
The new bill allows water and food. It would seem the legislators considered the complaints of the media that black people need these amenities to vote.
The problems at the polls this last election were due to COVID
restriction. This was the first year I have heard of the long lines, and need for water due to the long wait. I did read the new laws in regard to new longer hours to promote lesser waits. I also did see restrictions on where the drop boxes would be placed. This may be a concern.
Hopefully, this problem could be addressed, it only seems fair communities have ample dropboxes that divide the miles between them.Well, you are being "surprised" by the reality on the ground. What I ask is not unreasonable. Make sure that there are enough drop boxes and polling places so that voters can be in an out within an hour or two and I would not have as much issue with the food and water provisions.
Asking for just "fair".
"State lawmakers get much more power over county and local elections (and Republicans have decisive majorities in both the state Senate and the state House). The law states that the General Assembly will select the chair of the state elections board, rather than the board being chaired by the Georgia secretary of state — an elected position. The chair is supposed to be nonpartisan. The state election board can investigate county election boards and has the power to suspend county election superintendents — though the law limits the state board to suspending four at a time."
------
This is the most dangerous part, why can't election be handled in a non partisan way, why are Republicans so afraid of level playing fields?
The other part about the food and water is utter nonsense which should be among the major aspects to be challenged.
Now all of the sudden, you have changed from, let the courts decide to Biden trying to supersede the Constitution. You can bet that my brothers and sisters in Georgia are not sitting idly by.
I am totally for the courts to decide. My comment was meant to share what a couple of legal scholars think about the case. I then added my thoughts on the case might be a real gamble for the Dems, and what many American's might feel about messing with the constitution.
Ths case either way will have ramifications. It will most defiantly end up in the SC, and set precedent.
I think the SC will protect the Constitution. Might be wrong, I certainly am much of the time.
My comment was meant to open conversation on the case, ramification, and so on.
I am sure black citizens in Georgia will not sit by idly, that I would take bet money on... So would the Democrats. Do you at all see this case as a political ploy? To keep votes, and maybe pick up a few more? Could they not be working on more meaningful legislation? --- education, jobs, better business opportunities. Let's face it there is only so much time in a presidency.Why is it a political ploy? For example, the only voters standing in long lines were those of urban centers. If you restrict access to food and water for extended periods of time, which voters are overwhelmingly represented in cities? So, being anti-urban is backhand, anti-black. Biden is working in the right direction while Trump committed to nothing, so if I had a choice...... it not a matter of Democrats exploring "poor us". I vote Democratic and I KNOW why. They have policies that are at least being seriously considered rather than just dismissed out of hand.
You don't feel the lines were longer due to problems with COVID restrictions in Urban areas? It well looks like Georgia dealt with the food and water problem, they made a law that anyone could have food and water.
More black citizens had jobs under Trump. There were more black business owners under Trump. The Trump administration was solving problems, and quickly. It's shame most of his initiatives have been done away with. Here are some facts pre - COVID
Is the African-American poverty rate at a record low?
In 2019, the latest data available, the African-American poverty rate was 18.8% - which is the lowest on record, beating the previous year, since the official count began in the 1960s.
Prior to the coronavirus crisis, there had been a consistent downward trend in African-American unemployment under President Trump.
Violent crime overall has fallen under President Trump, continuing a trend which started after a peak in 1991.
Souce and charts --- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52907646
These stats should make you at best ponder what if Trump had four more years... were we all moving forward, I say yes. People were working realizing there was a way out of poverty. Were all jobs the best paying -- no. But so many more jumped into the workforce, and that was positive.
I really think it unfair to say Trump did not benefit Black citizens. I feel he really did.
Ask the children that no longer will be headed back to their schools of choice due to Biden hoping to keep them in public schools. he has no plan other than getting rid of Trump's accomplishments. he is doing a good job at it to...https://www.npr.org/2018/01/08/57655202 … -hispanics
https://apnews.com/f78f4205f474482db8bb8fa7a5ebfa27
The numbers are one thing, who should receive the credit for them is the other thing....I can see where you're headed with your comment. My link is non-bias and shows the Obama years stats. i certainly do not or did I try to take away from Obamas economy in his last four years. I also mentioned the jobs were not the best jobs...
Trump was killing it in 2019, and I give him credit for that.
My comment was honest, my opinion, I offered a link that showed no only Trump's economic stats but Obama's as well.
I walk a fine line down the middle, but I try to be very straightforward and fair. I am sticking with my opinion. His numbers can be torn down, and many reasons can be attributed to those stats. As they could in regard to Obama's stats. I think Trump's economy was a very good one. As Obama's was in his last few years. Obama came into a very poor economy and did a good job bringing it back.I appreciate the fact that you give credit where it is due. Of course, you are trying to be fair.
I appreciate your ability to 'get it' and understand that you can't have it both ways; restricting access to food and refreshment while permitting interminably long lines and wait times at the polls.
Just one of the issues that I want the lawsuit to address.Trump continues to lie and his people love him for it. What a sick world he has created.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/ … t?icid=rssOh my, this is a big deflection away from the subject of Trump's economy, and my thoughts that it provided a positive accomplishment for black citizens.
It would well appear from Trump's recent rally that he still believes the election was fraudulent. I certainly agree he is still determined to prove his claim. It is my hope that when the results of the Arizona recount come out it will rectify once and for all if there was any widespread fraud.
I knew this would all come, I wish an investigation of voter fraud allegations could have been done by the DOJ. One that looked into the complaints of actual people that offered affidavits of fraud. These people were ignored, and perhaps if their complaints were looked at, and reported on we would have known if there was a fraud, and what was the extent of the fraud. At this point, we have many mad at the fact an investigation was not done and are now stuck on "what if there was fraud in our presidential election".
This is not going away, and no, Trump will not let it go away.
A thought --- Can you imagine if widespread fraud is found to be the case in Arizona? It will open up a scandal as we have never known in the country. The count is almost done in Arizona, and will most likely be released to the public soon.Sharlee:
A thought for you, even if they find fraud, what are they going to do about it? Who can they present it to that can take action about it? You have to remember. according to the Constitution, even if Biden is removed from office, you get Kamala Harris, not Trump.
So Trump and the Arizona recount is throwing sand into the wind. (I said it the nice way.) Here is what the Arizona Secretary of State thinks about this audit.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic … atie-hobbsThis is for your dining and dancing pleasure, straight from the horses mouth.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … th-vpx.cnnInteresting turn. I can look back in the summer of 2020 and recall all the Democrats screaming loudly about voter suppression. There are tons of articles online to support my memory. However, it appears with a historic number of blacks turning out to vote --- they were just jumping the gun so to say.
It does not suppose me that the AG would cover the fact about the historic black vote in the 2020 election. After all, he needs to make an about-face. This is laughable. It never surprises me how gullible some are to buy into such a ploy as this lawsuit. Rather than just having a good long look at the bill Georga passed. There is nothing I mean nothing that discriminates against anyone in that bill. This Garland seems to be marching to the Dems tune. This lawsuit IMO is just another political ploy. I for one am glad Garland was not appointed to the SC. It is very apparent he plays the cheap dishonest games, that the Democrats are so well known for.
Like I have stated I like the new laws Georga passed, we are considering the following suit here in Michigan.
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-gover … ey-compare
Hopefully, many states will consider Georgia's new voting laws. As I said they are well-thought-out and very fair to all.
And lastly, I have confidence in the Supreme Court to hear this case and make a sound decision on the matter. They will hear all the pertinent facts and consider if Georga seeks to discriminate against blacks.
The court of Hubpages chatters, often gets it wrong...You just told me that it is appropriate to have the law reviewed by the courts, so why fear an impartial judicial review of this new law? The lawsuit is just a ploy, now? How do you think we are to get this evaluated impartially? There are many that you always say were dissatisfied with the election results, well, there are many that take issue with this Georgia bill. Why should a Republican governor and legislature be allowed to make all the rules without oversight or challenge?
Why not wait to see if the courts interpret the Georgia law as within Constitutional boundaries?"There are many that you always say were dissatisfied with the election results, well, there are many that take issue with this Georgia bill. Why should a Republican governor and legislature be allowed to make all the rules without oversight or challenge?"
Because liberals don't care about the possibility of fraud, and appear to actually welcome it all too often. That leaves the conservatives of the country to consider voting security - as no one else is interested, leave it to them.While conservative speak of quality of votes, using such as an excuse to put impediments that are needless to attack those wishing to cast a ballot. We dont' trust one another, so let the court decide. Are you afraid of an impartial review? It is left up to liberals to make sure that every valid vote is counted and I don't trust conservatives nor Republicans to see to that.
Another mexican standoff, Wilderness?No ID required to vote at the ballot box: California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C. No ID is required to vote in North Carolina
This concerns me... But do you see Republicans screaming the laws these states have rendered?
My gosh, common sense tells me voter fraud could be very easy in states where they don't require ID to vote. We have a Constitution that allows states to make their voting laws. So, you're uncomfortable all of a sudden with Georgia changing the voting laws. Delaware has pretty much the same laws on their books, so does Michigan.
Georgia has added hours, have added boxes (prior to COVID they had few drop boxes) they have made a law (which is ridiculous) that food and drink can be allowed at the polls.
I want ID to be added to every state to prevent fraud problems...
Ya don't see me bucking the Constitution to make all states require ID to vote.
It seems you may want to get rid of the Constitution... To suit your agenda. You have a right to your opinion. However, I hope to keep the Constitution in place so I will respect all the states that chose to have a law that does not require ID to vote. This is Democracy.
"We don't trust one another, so let the court decide."
This is where we are at --- and we will once again trust the SC to rule by what the Constitution clearly states. Our individual states have the
right to make their voting laws.
If they amend the Constitution you will see Republicans demand that all the states that require no ID vote to change their individual laws so as to make all that vote show Citizenship in the form of an ID.
This is why we have done so well as a country following our Constitution. In the end, we have a form of fairness. Liberals need to really think about causes before they support them, and make demands.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander... Better yet --- What'd good for the Democrats is good for the Republicans.
It's fine to be loyal, and exuberant about a cause. But, look at the entire picture.Voting fraud is a fantasy created by Republicans, as you say the states you list do not have voter id and there has never been any proven incidence of substantial fraud as a result. But, because of the hardness of the Rightwingers hearts, I will accept a ID as part of the process. But, I spoke before as to how the ID is to be used and there must be no bias as to its availability to everyone who are eligible citizens.
I don't trust Republicans or conservatives, and I have had years to come to that position. That is a thought picture that is hard to dismiss.California -- List of voter fraud https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/sea … amp;page=0
NC --- https://apnews.com/article/north-caroli … 043ed423fd
Virginia -- https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/sea … d_type=All
Minn --- https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/sea … d_type=All
Penn --- https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/sea … d_type=All
NJ https://www.nj.com/passaic-county/2021/ … arges.html
NJ -- https://newjerseyglobe.com/local/eviden … ords-show/
I could go on and on... There is and has always been voter fraud. It has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, it has to do with people, people that are dishonest.
In my opinion, voter ID is a must and should be in law in every state. Now I could get behind the DOJ bringing a lawsuit against any state that does do not require voter ID.
I am not questioning your trust in Republicans or Conservatives. It is clear you have a very strong opinion set in stone on your displeasure with us.Sharlee: How many of those cases have affected the outcome of presidential elections? The Right Wing Heritage Foundation doesn't tell you that.
That's what this forum is about Merrick Garland and the Georgia lawsuit. You asked for evidence in SB202 that shows the purpose of those laws is to suppress the black vote.
Do you truly believe they are going to specify that is the purpose of these laws. The laws are written in a way to be insidious and deceitful. They are using Trump's stolen election mantra as an excuse to say it is all about voter fraud. The only voter fraud is about Trump's lies about the election being stolen from him as a result of him claiming voter fraud.
What an irony!!
https://campaignlegal.org/update/compil … ction-liesOne or one million --- fraud is fraud and we need prudent voting laws to discourage fraud from being perpetrated.
"Do you truly believe they are going to specify that is the purpose of these laws. The laws are written in a way to be insidious and deceitful."
The bill actually is worded very straightforward, and easy reading. Your statement seems to say the Georga laws have been written in such a way to be unclear and "deceitful. You may have fallen into a conspiracy theory.
I am still waiting for you to give an example that shows blacks are being discriminated against in the Georgia voting laws. You have been hyped up by the media, and I don't think you even have any real facts to go on.Sharlee: I do but you don't believe it because you place your own judgement on it. You minimize Merrick Garland's effort by saying he will get his 15 minutes of fame and then go away.
Here it is again, but I already know what you are going to say. It's all B.S. because it doesn't fit your agenda of using voter fraud as an excuse to suppress the black vote that helped Biden win the election.
I'm not in a conspiracy theory but controlling voter fraud that doesn't affect the outcome of an election is. It's playing the "what if game." Because you have no proof of the future or of the past that there was enough voter fraud to affect the outcome of the presidential election.
As far as all the links you posted about democrats having elections stolen from them, none of those claims have lasted as long as Trump has been been perpetuating his lie. He started when he knew Biden was running for president and he still to this very day has not stopped and he probably never will. The more you tell a lie, the more people will believe it. It is called propaganda. And in Trump's case it has radicalized and brainwashed his supporters, because there is no convincing them otherwise. His lies gave the people who stormed and breached the Capitol purpose to the point they wanted to kill Pelosi and Pence.
As I said before, if he would have won, voter fraud wouldn't even be an issue for you or the GOP. Here is the link. Read it carefully about Fulton County Georgia.
https://www.vox.com/22352112/georgia-vo … -explainedSharlee, Wilderness, and RMN:
Here is the story behind the story. It's how black voters see SB202 and what they are doing about it.
https://www.naacpldf.org/naacp-publicat … sion-bill/Can't you provide anything other than a left-wing propaganda piece? There is not one single fact in that entire story...it's ALL opinion. Ho hum, too bad people on the left think more of their unsubstantiated opinions than the rest of us. Too bad people actually take this nonsense serious. What a shame.
For the Rightwinger, of course, it is all "nonsense".
Got to be better than right wing propaganda pieces, Mike. We are going to push this thing to the limit.Referencing some facts when decreasing the opinions would make all the difference.
The truth is most of the demands that have been made have been fairly dealt with. It appears some just will not realize that. And media is stirring many on when they could just do a bit of research on the new Georga laws to see they are more than fair.
This subject is becoming so blown out of proportion.Please read my previous post and my new posts... I have pointed out to you several times the concerns that were listed in the article you continue to point out were very much solved in the new Bill.
Not sure what you don't understand.Here is another complaint the NAACP added to their lawsuit which has been addressed in the new Georgia voting laws. They complain about absentee voting for the disabled and people that can't get to the polls.
Changes to absentee voting
Mail-in absentee voting will look the most different for voters, especially after 1.3 million people used that method in the November general election. Voters over 65, with a disability, in the military, or who live overseas, will still be able to apply once for a ballot and automatically receive one the rest of an election cycle. But the earliest voters can request a mail-in ballot will be 11 weeks before an election instead of 180 days.
The final deadline to complete an application is moved earlier, too. Instead of returning an application by the Friday before election day, SB 202 now backs it up to two Fridays before. Republican sponsors of the bill and local elections officials explain --- this will cut down on the number of ballots rejected for coming in late because of the tight turnaround. Which all makes very good common sense.
I could go through each and every one of the NAACP's complaints and produce how the new bill handles the problem.
I have started reading their complaints. I must say the suit lacks teeth. It is making claims and complaints that have been clearly taken into account by the legislators when writing the new voting laws.
This case will most likely go to the SC --- And be shot down as the case brought by Democratic National Committee on the voting laws in Arizona was shot down TODAY.
July 1, 2021 "The Supreme Court sides with GOP and upholds Arizona voting rules Democrats called discriminatory".
Supreme Court sides with Arizona on voting restrictions
The decision, in a pair of cases from Arizona about out-of-precinct voting and collection of mail-in ballots, could make it more difficult for voting rights activists to challenge a slew of new voting restrictions Republicans are seeking to implement in states across the country."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/0 … ion-497518
This will set a precedent for the NAACP case as well as other cases such as the Garland case. It would appear the SC will lean to protect the Constitution on matters of states making their own voting laws. --- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday in favor of the state of Arizona in a high-profile voting rights case, once again reining in the impact of the Voting Rights Act by taking a narrow view of when state voting practices can be held to violate the rights of minorities.
The case involved --- https://www.pehalnews.in/supreme-court- … ry/882090/
I hope all states will take all their citizens into account when making voting laws as Georgia has painstakingly done.
Instead of reading the Georgia bill, have a look at their website. It gives citizens a first look at the newly updated voting rules. I really think you will see they have made some good changes to accommodate all their citizen's needs. As I said the media has misrepresented these new laws, and thank goodness Georgia has put together this informative guide that explains the new laws. I hope you will be open enough to have a look, and then let me know what you think.
https://georgia.gov/voting
RMN: If you want to call a legal federal filing a left-wing propaganda piece and opinion, that is your prerogative. Too bad you don't take it seriously, what a shame. Here is the rationale and case studies behind the AME v. Kemp law suit. Knock your self out.
https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/upl … 4.2021.pdfThe story you provided is propaganda. It only provides a link to the federal filing. I looked at it, and it is typical. It is an opinion and nothing more.
RMN: So you read all 139 pages and came to that conclusion? You probably looked at the first two pages and just shrugged it off as liberal trash, like all the other Trumpers in this forum. You would rather use Trump's lies about voter fraud then look at the rational behind their complaints. And you are saying they are focusing just on their side and how they interpret things.
I guess you don't know much about the court system. That federal filing from the liberal groups is designed to only provide their point of view. That's how it works. If you want to be objective, read the responses to the complaints. It provides the other sides' point of view based on the accusations made in the original complaint. There are many types of court filings. You should familiarize yourself with them.
The first link is the 98 page SB202 who some people think is very short and easy to read.
The second link is Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarkes' claims of why SB202 is in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
The third link is the the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
And the fourth link is news that the Supreme Court just ruled that two of Arizona election laws were not in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
None of this is my opinion or left wing media hype. This is the real deal. Now we have to just see how Merrick Garlands' claims play out. Thank you for motivating me to do the research...Happy reading ya'all.
https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislatio … 022/201498
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assi … it-against
https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-2-voting-rights-act
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … li=BBnb7KzYou have ignored each and every fact I have given --- Hopefully you will check my last comment. Garland's case after today is sure to fail... Taxpayer's money poorly spent due to a Democratic political ploy. Today the SC set precedent. Which they can now fall back on. Our SC system works well and in the long run, stops most political ploys.
Today the SC set a precedent with a 6 to 3 decision. "Supreme Court sides with Arizona on voting restrictions --- The decision, in a pair of cases from Arizona about out-of-precinct voting and collection of mail-in ballots, could make it more difficult for voting rights activists to challenge a slew of new voting restrictions Republicans are seeking to implement in states across the country." ": The justices split 6-3 along ideological lines, with the Republican-appointed majority concluding that disparate impacts on minority groups would typically not be enough to render voting rules illegal under the act."
Not sure why we as taxpayers need to spend money to pursue the Garlands case when IMO it is dead in the water. A good president was set in my opinion. Our SC system works well, and in the end, works to stop political ploys --- as a rule.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/0 … ion-497518
At any rate, this ruling will provide more opportunity for the media to race-bait, and stir up unnecessary hate. Hey, one can see their propaganda works on many.Shralee: I wouldn't start happy talk just yet. Those were two restrictions that were easy to see why they could be overturned. As I just said we have to wait and see how Merrick Garland's claims play out.
Yes, we will wait, but the road today has become very uphill as well as rocky.
I hope you will read the website Georgia has created in regard to its new laws. I really believe you might feel differently about what they have presented in the way of voting laws. As I said I live in Michigan, and it well looks like we will be adopting the same laws. Media has not really done their homework in many cases, and are causing a stir that the country just does not need in this time of division.
I can't address other states voting laws, but I have looked at Georgia's pretty close due to our Michigan media is reporting we are looking at the same changes. The main reason I research Georgia's new laws -- I don't want unfair voting laws.
I wanted to add a fact in regard to Georgia's new voting laws. As I said they have listened to their citizens and made a good effort to compromise and to respect their wishes. I was remembering one thing that the media do not mention when they report about Georga not offering enough drop boxes.
Not sure if you were aware, but Georga never had drop boxes before 2020. They add drop boxes to make an attempt to make it easier for citizens to drop off their absentee ballots. This courtesy was due to COVID. Perhaps do a bit of reading on what was done during COVID to help make it easier for citizens of Georgia to cast their votes.
https://www.wabe.org/state-election-boa … rocessing/
The new bill has stipulated drop boxes will be provided from here on...
Yes, they have left the boxes that were purchased for COVID and will be adding others per community population.
Each and every problem that some of the citizens complained about has been addressed in the bill. You have bought into the media hype, and much of it, let me repeat much of it is not true.
I said after looking at the article you offered I was shocked to see that most if not all of the problems the Black citizens pointed out, were solved in the new bill.
Believe what you please, but I feel very fortunate to know the facts, and not in any respect could I buy into the false information that is being pushed by some media outlets.
It well appears most would rather take their word than actually read a very simple bill.
You're totally misinformed in regards to the true facts of Georgia's new voter laws. And I can be very assured the Supreme Court will be very well-read on the bill. No media spin, just a factual document to glean out the facts.Sharlee: So you have read all 98 pages of the bill and have a master's degree in SB202? I looked at it and it is not a very simple bill.
I have read the bill, it was not a long bill. As I said it was a very simple bill, not a lot of gobbledygook. I Found it very understandable in comparison to most bills.
I have tried to provide a few facts, I could literally go through the entire list from your article. I am not about to do that. It is well apparent you do not believe the few facts I have to provide in regard to the Food/water, and the addition of more drop boxes. they have added more hours to get to the polls, and yes there are rules to obtain an absentee ballot and restrictions on voter ID. However, the bill offers free voter IDs...
"The State of Georgia offers a free ID Card. An ID Card can be issued at any county registrar's office free of charge."
https://dds.georgia.gov/voter#:~:text=T … %20charge.
The new bill addressed those with disabilities and they have provided all the information on a website --- https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/ … sabilities
All the concerns were pretty much addressed that are mentioned in the lawsuit you offered a link to. Perhaps a judge will find a po8nt that might be improved on or further addressed. Again you need to remember states have the right to write their own voting laws under the Constitution, so this case will most likely also end up in the SC if both sides can not agree on some conclusion to the people's complaints. I must say, I can't see much wrong with the new voting laws Georgia has put forth. Michigan will most likely adopt the same laws.
The media is not being honest with their reporting on this subject. I don't know what more I can say. This is why we have such a very serious divide. My red flags go up ---I look deeper, and as rule can see unfactual discrepancies or reports with poor context.
"Makes it a crime to give or to “offer to give” food and water to individuals waiting in line to vote. Overall,"
The laws covered this problem with a simple solution
Under the bill, signed into law Thursday night by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. it's now illegal to hand out food or water to people standing in line to vote.
To quote the Bill ---- "No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector," the new law states. The law applies within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of any voter at a polling place. Violators are guilty of a misdemeanor.
Each of the complaints has been considered and rectified in the new voting laws. Once again you need to have a look at the bill. All the concerns that are listed in the article you posted were considered, and a good fair compromise was made by the legislators. Yes, voter ID is a sticking point. But Georga has a right to require voter ID as so many other states do.
The more I look at the Georgia laws, it goes to confirms my view that this lawsuit is nothing but political in nature, and in the end, will be tossed out of the SC.This is your link I was referring to
https://www.naacpldf.org/naacp-publicat … sion-bill/
The first link under the word “here” is an amended complaint.
The next link is about the “Arc and is about people with disabilities
The third link is about the Georgia Advocacy office
The next link is from the “45 %” and is from the left wing organization Bennan Center for justice
The next link is from “five hours to wait” and is from Atlanta Journal Constitution and actually has some journalism in it.
So on and so forth and yadda yadda. This is a left-wing view of the law.RMN: Of course it is the left wing view of the law. Why would it be the right wing trying to incriminate themselves?
Here is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that AG Merrick Garland is using as his basis to sue the state of Georgia. His claim is their election laws are in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-2-voting-rights-actWhere has the new voting laws Georgia has passed discriminate against any race? You are going around in circles. Garland's case is strictly on race, discrimination that is not in dispute.
Sharlee: Apparently race discrimination is in dispute. Are you going around in circles or am I? This is straight from the Washington Post.
United States v. Georgia is a claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits states from adopting practices that deny or interfere with the rights of U.S. citizens to vote because of their race or color. Before 2013, Georgia would have been unable to put S.B. 202 into effect without seeking approval from the Justice Department under Section 5 of the act, called preclearance, which presumably it would not have received. But the Supreme Court gutted Section 5 that year in Shelby County v. Holder. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opined that “throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
Now, voters in Georgia are getting soaked, and the only tool the DOJ has to protect them is Section 2, a remedy that Ginsburg noted was weaker than Section 5 because faulty laws could remain in place for years, affecting minority voters in multiple election cycles.
Garland has taken all this into account in United States v. Georgia. Here are five things to know about the lawsuit:
1. This lawsuit is a first step. Garland characterized the lawsuit as the “first of many steps.” He intends to challenge other state laws that discriminate against minority voters. This is more than idle speculation. Other states already have provisions on the books like the ones the DOJ is challenging in Georgia. And some states, like Michigan, are on the cusp of adopting new laws with discriminatory features.
Michigan is an excellent example of where Garland might turn next if the proposed law passes. Restrictive voting measures are justified as necessary to prevent voter fraud. But in Michigan, a GOP-led investigation concluded there wasn’t widespread fraud in 2020. The DOJ will focus on situations like this, where the facts demonstrate that fraud is offered as a pretext for sacrificing the rights of Black voters in an effort to win elections.
The Georgia lawsuit is Garland’s warning to other states that election laws that disenfranchise minority voters are vulnerable to challenge, particularly when they have been transparently justified by allegations of fraud that state legislatures know to be untrue.
2. Proof of intent to discriminate is important. One of the last cases pending on the Supreme Court’s docket, Brnovich v. DNC, which could be decided this week, involves Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. At stake is the test courts use to establish impermissible discrimination. Given the conservative bent of the court, there are concerns it will create a more rigorous standard for Section 2 challengers to meet than the “results test” that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit used to invalidate two restrictive Arizona provisions. The results test requires plaintiffs to establish that the challenged provision has a discriminatory impact on minorities, which is explained by the jurisdiction’s history of discrimination. In Brnovich, the court could replace this discriminatory impact test with a more stringent one that requires proof of intentional discrimination to invalidate a new law. The Justice Department, pointedly, accuses the Georgia legislature of intentional discrimination against minority voters.
Garland inherited a booby-trapped DOJ. Here’s why it won’t be easy to fix.
The department cut straight to the chase, suing Georgia in a 46-page complaint that carefully details the timeline of rising voter participation and the use of absentee ballots, connecting the dots to the specific prohibitions the legislature adopted to demonstrate intentional discrimination. The DOJ also alleges that from 1968 to 2013, while Georgia fell under preclearance and had to submit proposed changes to ensure they were nondiscriminatory, the state flunked the test 177 times. Add to that President Donald Trump’s post-election machinations, demanding that Georgia’s secretary of state “find” the additional votes he needed to win and berating anyone who wouldn’t play along, and the DOJ may have a winning hand, even if, post-Brnovich, there is a more restrictive test of constitutionality.
Garland, who called on the Senate to pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act so voting rights can be better protected, is unambiguously demonstrating that if he must, he will use existing statutory authority to protect the vote as aggressively as possible.
3. Garland is covering his bases. The DOJ typically seeks to prevent enforcement of laws it alleges are unconstitutional under Section 2. But it goes further in the Georgia lawsuit, asking the district court to apply the Section 3(c) “bail in provision” of the Voting Rights Act to resurrect the preclearance requirement for Georgia, forcing it to seek preapproval of any additional changes to its voting process. This is possible because in the Shelby County decision, the court did not invalidate Section 5. Instead, it attacked the coverage formula used to decide which states and political subdivisions fell under preclearance, effectively gutting the provision. Even after Shelby County, the 3(c) remedy could be used to force Georgia to preclear any future changes to its voting process.
4. There is now a criminal task force. On Friday, the DOJ created a task force to prosecute threats against election workers. Its members are from the DOJ’s Criminal, National Security and Civil Rights divisions, as well as the FBI. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco sent a memo to all federal prosecutors requiring prompt and vigorous prosecution of these threats. She wrote that “a threat to any election official, worker, or volunteer is, at bottom, a threat to democracy.” This is a significant prioritization of criminal voting rights-related cases.
5. The DOJ doesn’t bring cases like this lightly. Garland isn’t throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks. A poorly thought-out legal theory or a case with weak facts can lead to a devastating loss in court that affects not only that case but the entire body of voting rights law, making it more difficult to bring future cases. Garland has assembled an experienced team of advocates — the associate attorney general, the No. 3 spot in the DOJ’s leadership, Vanita Gupta, is a voting rights lawyer and former head of the Civil Rights Division. Voting rights cases can take many months to develop, but the Georgia lawsuit commenced just weeks after the Senate confirmed Monaco and Gupta.
The combination of expertise and leadership led to unusually prompt action. Bad facts make bad law, while good facts can make good law; picking the right case is essential in voting litigation, and this team’s choice of Georgia over more obvious choices, perhaps Arizona, shows it is capable of being both strategic and fast.
Here are some voting reforms that could pass the Senate
During oral argument in Brnovich, an attorney for the Arizona Republican Party, Michael Carvin, perhaps went beyond what the court was expecting when he answered Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s question about why the party was involved in defending an Arizona law. Carvin gave a pretty good response — if his goal was to prove that Arizona’s law was intended to discriminate against minorities. He said the 9th Circuit’s ruling “puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game, and every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretations of Section 2 hurts us.”
That’s what the DOJ is up against. Bald efforts to win elections by denying people, most often Black people, the right to vote. But we have returned to a world with a DOJ that will work to protect the vote. In United States v. Georgia, it is off to a worthy start on an uneven playing field.
Perhaps we both are going in circles... It has been established Garlands case claims the new Georgia laws are dissimilatory. No one disputes that. What I have asked you what do you think is discriminatory?
All that Garland has pointed out can be clearly disputed as not being racist. As the Supreme Court's decision pointed out on the case they tossed out today. They are looking at all citizens as just human beings that have been voting for a very long time. Check out Alito's opinion, and you may realize the mindset of the decision. The decision today will weigh heavy on the Garland case.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem … rotectionsSharlee,
I wish someone on the left would point out something in the Georgia law that is race specific. NONE of them can explain how it is discriminatory since it doesn't address anything based on race. This is the left's Don Quixote moment as they chase their windmills of racism.
Since that is the case, the DOJ's lawsuit has a better than average chance of crashing and burning. Especially, since the Arizona ruling. I say, let them have fun in their imaginary worlds. Reality is too difficult for the left to comprehend.Sharlee:
"Perhaps we both are going in circles... It has been established Garlands case claims the new Georgia laws are dissimilatory. No one disputes that. What I have asked you what do you think is discriminatory?"
What do I think is discriminatory? I'm not black, so I can't put myself in their shoes when it comes to voting. I do know this, there voting in the last election was monumental and helped Biden get elected despite all the road blocks that put against them.
It's about the new laws that are designed to restrict the black vote even further. I can't give you case studies because those laws have not been enacted yet, but they will be and they are designed to be restrictive of the black vote. Again, Garland states they are using voter fraud as the pretext for these laws based on Trump's lies.
So here we have the states creating new laws that are supposed to curtail voter fraud that doesn't exist and we have the AG suing Georgia for restriction of the black vote in violation of Section 2 of the Right to Vote Act. And you want me to give you examples of black voters being restricted from voting in the last election...Do you see where this is going?I have asked some to do so... Yet they continue to defend the claim the bill is discriminatory, which does not seem to exsist, as far as I can see.
As a rule, I don't like to go out on a limb. However with today's SC
decision and reading the justice's opinions. I would say Garland is kicking himself today. That case is all but done.
Justice Alito's opinion was a strong one, and it is clear he looks at all as just human beings.
Well, I agree those left have once again grabbed on to a cause for black citizens. You know sort of like last year's cause to defund the police...
I would think blacks would wake up and see how ridiculous the left is making them appear. if I was black I think I would say thanks but no thanks.As near as I can tell it is discriminatory towards blacks because black people cannot do what whites do as a matter of course. They cannot, for example, enter a building to drop off a ballot. They cannot bring water to stand in line with. They cannot obtain the free ID cards that whites do.
If there is a niftier way for Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot by implying such things I can't imagine what it might be.I agree... I can't imagine why many black people are not realizing the problems the liberals are really causing them using them in their political ploys.
And yes, I can't imagine a bigger insult the Dems could dish up to blacks than making them look so unintelligent, and needy.
I find this kind of race-baiting very sad, and discouraging. We have real problems that need to be addressed such as education, jobs, immigration. And as always the Democrats look for mud to sling to divert from the problems they can't solve, and in much of the case caused.It does seem to work for them, though. When coupled with a strong "victim" message it is very easy to rationalize that it isn't that blacks can't do what whites do, it is that whites don't have to do it at all, presumably because whites are "privileged" somehow.
Place judgment, do we not all share opinions here on this forum. You may not like to read my opinion, or agree with it. But is it not hypocritical to even point that out? You certainly express your opinions. Am I to think yours is the right one, and mine is unimportant? This is the very meaning of hypocritical.
In regards to my statement, my view in regard to why I came to feel Garland was seeking 15 minutes of fame. I clearly laid the groundwork, and why I came to that view. To quote my comments --
"He also pointed out ---- "Turley raised questions over the merit of the lawsuit citing similarities between Georgia and other states such as Delaware. "But, this is a very dubious case in my view. Because the Georgia law has great overlap with other states like Delaware" J. Turley
https://www.foxnews.com/media/doj-to-su … elction-law
The George Washington law professor discussed the political ramifications of the lawsuit coupled with House and Senate democrats trying to pass major federal election reforms. "One of the issues that the court may ultimately amplify is that elections were left in the Constitution to the state."
Here is my quote on Garland --- As I have said I think Garland's case is political and meant to be controversial and buck the Constitution. He will get his 15 minutes, and be remembered for his charge against the Constitution.
After reading a couple of views from Constitutional; scholars I have come to the opinion the case is a political ploy, and am discussed to see an AG go along with it. He is clearly bucking the Constitution in my book, and he well knows it.
Trump is very much not backing down on his claims of voter fraud.
If Arizona reports widespread fraud from this in-depth count, he could very well be found to be correct --- then what?
Again what do you even consider discriminator In the Georga new voting laws? You keep deflecting and moving away from Garland's actual lawsuit.
And by the way -- Don't you think this case could be a political smokescreen to keep Dems from realizing the country has some real big problems going on, and a President that made some lofty promises that he can't seem to keep? The far left of the party is certainly feeling disappointed at this point with Joe. No Green deal, no free college, no free anything, and he bailed on their failed defund the police campaign and left them with egg on their faces. "I never wanted to defund the police " Joe Biden
I don't fear an impartial court review of the Georgia bill that changed the voting rules. The new laws much resemble many other state's laws, such as Delaware's laws. Biden's home state. In my last comment, I gave a clear opinion - "I have confidence in the Supreme Court to hear this case and make a sound decision on the matter. They will hear all the pertinent facts and consider if Georga seeks to discriminate against blacks."
Garland's case claims that the new Georga voting laws discriminated against black citizens. It will be interesting to hear the DOJ's case on specifics of how the laws going to be discriminatory.
Over the past few days, I check out what some constitutional scholars think about the lawsuit. And it would seem many feel the case will end up in the SC due to state's rights under the Constitution to make their own individual voting laws.
It was from this research I came to my opinion that the case is purely a political ploy. I am very sure that Garland is a wonderful Judge, and would know where and how this case will end. Hey, that is just my view.
If the new Georga laws are found to discriminate against anyone, I am sure the SC will recognize the problem, and hand down a fair judgment.
The bill is so direct, and simply written, it just seems very straightforward, not sure what part of the bill could be found to discriminatory?
To answer your question --- Georgia has a Republican Governor and legislatures, and by law, they are responsible and allowed to make voting laws. --- The same reason New York with its Democratic state government trifecta. A trifecta exists when one political party simultaneously holds the governor’s office and majorities in both state legislative chambers. These representatives make New Yorks voter laws.
All state legislators have the right under the Constitution to dictate the voting laws. It does not matter if the state is red or blue, and yes voting laws can be challenged in court. As Garland is doing. I would guess it comes down to the Constitution. It sounds as if you just are not sure this system is working for America at this point. That would be your view. It well appears there is a divide developing in regard to should we keep the Constitution or get rid of it? That is a very different conversation.
I think this case will ultimately end up in the SC, the clear case steps on the Constitution. This is one reason I feel Garland is committing a political ploy. This man is clearly aware of where this case will end up, and that it will touch on Georgia's Constitutional rights.
Me personally, I am not sure where the new Georgia laws discriminate against anyone. What would you like to see changed in Georgia's voting laws?
I myself hope to see more voter security. After this last election, I feel we need stricter laws, and our laws to be followed.Sharlee: So you read the Georgia bill and you find nothing that is out of line or indicates any evidence of voter suppression. According to you, only good things can come from those laws.
So that is your judgement. However, the AG is filing a law suit against the state of Georgia based on his judgement of those laws. So who am I to believe, your judgement or the Attorney General of the United States?I have asked Cred, and I will ask you --- What part of the bill do you feel discriminates against Black Citizens? I am not sure what could be looked at as discriminatory.
As I have said I think Garland's case is political and meant to be controversial and buck the Constitution. He will get his 15 minutes, and be remembered for his charge against the Constitution.
Hey, as I said I don't see anything wrong or discriminatory n that bill.
I don't approve of discrimination I also don't approve of yelling discrimination when it is not apparent. I call that race-baiting.
.Sharlee: Here is the way the other side views SB202. You may not see anything wrong with the bill, but the other side sees many things wrong with it, including discrimination against Black Citizens as you call them.
https://www.vox.com/22352112/georgia-vo … -explainedSeems more like a cry that Democrats will lose votes rather than blacks can't vote. But it's hard to understand:
How does leaving invalidation of voters by the state lose Democrat votes?
How does prevention of harassments of voters lose only Democrat votes?
The state may override county election boards, exercising it's constitutional power but it's hard to see how that costs Democrat votes.
The rest is much the same; a great deal of whining that Republicans will gain and control everything while Democrats will lose votes. No substantive evidence, or even reasoning, just whines. As such they aren't worth the time to read, let alone pay real attention to.Wilderness: If you want answers to your questions, you have to use empathy and put yourself in the place of the black voters who voted for Biden in the last election. Don't look at it from your perspective, but their perspective. You can't handle the truth or you wouldn't have just shrugged it off as "whining and not worth the time to read, let alone pay attention to."
Yes it is about republican control of the vote, because they know that can't win an election fair and square so they are doing everything they can to suppress the votes against the black people who voted for Biden, including re-districting those areas where Biden got the vote.
They and the republican congress are using Trump's lie of the election was stolen from him as an excuse to say they are preventing voter fraud in the future. That's the ploy they always use. it's called the slippery slope.
And Trump is continuing that lie until this very day. In fact, he is seeking revenge on those republican state officials who voted for his impeachment, just to satisfy his sick and narcissistic ego.
Trump caused the storming and breaching of the capitol with his lies to the point they were going to kill Pelosi and hang Pence. They even built a gallows outside for God's sake.
Now the red states and GOP congress are using Trump's lies as an excuse to gain advantage in the mid-term elections. McConnell said he will block every move made by Biden. He is using the same tactics that he used with Obama, but Obama became a two term president despite his tactics. Senator John Barrasso said, "I want to make Biden a one half term president."
They and you are hanging your hats on a person who is so sick that he can't accept the fact that he lost the election, along with all the others he has radicalized with his rallies, MAGA, and social media.
They have put Trump and getting re-elected above the greater good of the country. They don't care about his infrastructure plan. They just want to block it so that he can't succeed and they get re-elected.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/1 … den-494644Sorry, PP, but I'm not much interested in emotional arguments giving empathy to a specific class of voters. While blacks may indeed feel that they must be given food and drink while in line, I don't, and don't much care that they want it. Nor do I care that they wish collection boxes out in the open, on every street corner because they are easier to damage and they don't have to travel so far to vote.
That Democrats whine they can't have sole control of the voting process everywhere, as they already do in many states, is immaterial to me. Nor am I interested in further Trump bashing, which is all you seem to offer as a reason to cater the wishes of black voters while ignoring security concerns. That and your assumptions that Trump caused everything bad, like the riot at the Capital.I want all of the below states to change their voting laws to make it a law that voter ID is the only way a citizen will be allowed to vote. I also want cupcakes, chocolate cupcakes available while I stand in line. And napkins... Liberals just can't understand how ridiculous this crap is. It is a wonderful diversion away from all the problems that are brewing in the country. Unbelievable, worrisome, and just sickening, that sums it up.
No ID required to vote at the ballot box: California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C. No ID is required to vote in North CarolinaWell, Wilderness, WE don't much care if you don't care about what WE think is fair. Alllowing people no access to food and drink after standing in line to vote for hours is not a security concern.
If it has been hot enough in Idaho these days, perhaps you are getting a good tan which may allow you to actually see things from another perspective.
While your on your soapbox please include the Democrat State of New York for the current water/food ban at the polls... Would not want to leave the citizens ignored in New York. Maybe I missed Garland mentioning New York's discrimination policies? This argument has become non-sensical, and as always has come to the root --- Trump. It's all about Trump, not poor blacks, now isn't that what you have just revealed in your latest comment?
IMO there is nothing more corrupt than not requiring ID to vote which New York allows... Your argument is squishy, biased, and makes little common sense factually.
" New York, impose even somewhat similar bans. "In New York state, it’s prohibited to provide “meat, drink, tobacco, refreshment or provision” to a voter at a polling place, except if the retail value of what you give them is less than $1" Guess if it's free it would be fine... LOL Always a catch a clause that promotes fraud.Sharlee,
I sure would like someone to point out in the Georgia law the section that is race specific. It pretty much seems like something that applies to all people regardless of their race.
Did YOU seen anything in the law that is race specific? I read it, and I didn't see anything in it specifically about race.
Let me know if I'm wrong.Yes, I too would like to see someone add a comment on just what they find racist about Georgia's voting laws. It well appears here in Michigan we are going to use the same changes to our laws.
A while back I took the time to read the bill, I did not find anything that could be thought of as race-related.
It is clear the media has reported some of the bills slightly skewed in context. We just don't need this kind of unfair rhetoric being pushed by the media.
IF you have followed this thread, it has come full circle to "put the blame on Trump"...
Why should the state have the power to overrule county election boards? I direct that question in regards to Democrats and Republicans. The outcome of that overrule better not be contrary to the popular vote tallies or there will be trouble in River City.
Because the Constitution gives that power to the states.
Why should local election boards, whether city, town, village or county, have the ability to override state election laws?Wilderness, The "states" once used this "power" to enact literary test, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, etc., and the Southern states said that such provisions were not focused on race, Right....
These practices were outlawed and shot down during the 1960s. So, their power is not absolute and can be subject to judicial review if it appears that the state is abusing its authority. This current claims from the state of Georgia may well be seen in a similar light and shot down accordingly.
That is what we are going to determine.Somehow I don't think SCOTUS is going to tell Georgia towns that they can ignore the Constitution and do as they please, however much you might like to see just that.
Here is a link that addresses concerns, and why changes were made. One sticking point is dropboxes. It is apparent they used few before the last election. They have used this last election due to COVID. It well appears the new law will leave drop boxes to aid in voter convenience. The boxes will be placed in some cases inside buildings to decrease security problems. I totally agree with Georgia's law on voter ID, and the food and water problem has been added to the new laws.
Also, there have been more and longer hours to vote.
As I said this is media hype. It would seem most of the demands that were being complained about by some citizens have been addressed. Do Republicans in Georgia have control over making the voting laws --- Yes at this point this is true. As it is true New York's Democrats have all the power to make the voting laws for New York...
As I frequently notice, Democrats just do not comprehend common sense. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. We have systems we have followed, we vote in our representatives. In the current situation, Georgia's legislation and Governor are Republican. They have the authority to make and change voting laws. Do you hear Republicans scream about New York's voting laws or any of the states that do not require ID to vote? My gosh --- No ID required to vote at the ballot box: California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C. No ID is required to vote in North Carolina.
Hard to see any type of discrimination in the current Georgia voting laws.
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/po … bc35c8945e
In an earlier post to you, I explained my issue with the new Georgia law. And I am sure the AG of the US is not filing this lawsuit just to spin his wheels. Under the hot spot light of legal review, let's see how much of Georgia's new law will be allowed to stand?
Like I told you often in the past the concept of "States Rights" is not absolute. What you don't see and what I don't see are obviously different.
You don't fear an impartial ruling on the new Georgia law? Good.
Republicans are deviates and think that they are clever. Of course they are going to say that their new laws do not discriminate against blacks.
The real issue is the availability of drop boxes in the urban areas in proportion to population of urban areas and the long lines and food and drink prohibition tied to it. Does the law make sure that the drop boxes ar both plentiful and accessible? I am not waiting in lines for 7 hours to vote without food or drink. Poll managers are not obliged to make access to refreshment available. My ultimatum is that I consider this provision on food and water as an attack on primarily urban areas and voters where long lines are often found. Of course, that is not directed specifically at blacks, but blacks are predominant in urban areas and it is not hard to follow the dots. I SAY either require maximum waiting times to vote within reason or dispense with the prohibition against food and water at the polls. So, let us see what the court does with that?
I say get rid of partisanship and local hackery within the entire process. All voting and relat d processes should have non partisan protection and that goes for the Democrats as well as Republicans. It just appears with all the resistance to SB-1 that Republicans are more afraid of the idea. I wonder why?
As far as I can tell, only Georgia has this extreme approach to availability of food and drink while not guaranteeing short polls wait times, again let's see the courts support that with an open face."I wonder why?"
Certainly cannot speak for all Republicans, but my answer would be because Democrats assume there will be no fraud no matter how easy it is to commit that fraud. Democrats are not concerned about improper voting; only that 100% of voters they think will vote Democrat actually vote.
And that is not acceptable. We do not live in a perfect world where we can protect against fraudulent voting without cause ANY inconvenience; we either accept a small amount (such as bringing your own water to stand in line, or having to go inside to use a drop box) or we accept large numbers of "bad" votes. As Democrats are dead set against any real double checking for fraud, I embrace the second option and will gladly accept minor inconveniences. Nor does it matter what color I am; I still accept those inconveniences.Wilderness: How easy is it to commit fraud? Please cite the cases where fraud has affected the outcome of an election, other than Trump lies about the election being stolen from him.
I will state it again. If Trump would have won the election, there would be no talk of fraud or new state laws, only jubilation from him, the GOP congress, and his base. He would probably boast about how he won the greatest landslide election known to mankind.Why is it that liberals continually ask for evidence of fraud...while insisting that none occurs so no search for it is warranted? Is there an actual reason behind such duplicity?
Nice that you have checked your crystal ball and know that had Trump won no Democrat would have challenged anything. Of course, my own opinion is that they do all the time and that it would have been no different with Trump.Wilderness: How many democrats who have lost presidential elections have claimed the election was stolen from them? Answer = None. How many times has Trump claimed the election has been stolen from him?
You can't count it and neither can I. I'm glad you stated that democrats do it all the time as your opinion, because that is exactly what it is.
The duplicity resides in the states that are deceiving their voters by creating these laws. Do you think they are just going to come out and say, the purpose of these laws are to suppress the black vote? Of course not, they want it to be insidious.
Read this and tell me it is just more liberal trash.
https://campaignlegal.org/update/compil … ction-liesReally? Not a single Democrat has demanded a recount of a presidential election (the election was "stolen")? Without ever checking my money is very strongly on that being false.
No, they won't say that. But Democrats will claim the opposite, and whether it is even faintly true is irrelevant to them. The goal is not fair elections but more Democrat votes and more Democrat power.
Yep - just more liberal trash. That was apparent in the second paragraph; I didn't need to go any further. A completely biased, false narrative from liberal trash.
Yes, we don't live in a perfect world, but there is always room for improvement.
The state can control the amount of polling places available so that people can not spend a unreasonable amount time waiting to cast a ballot. Yet, they want this ironclad prohibition against food and drink. I simply demand that they do provide a fair balance. So, I don't let Georgia have it both waysPlease realize the long waits were not normal or do they represent prior elections. The longer waits were due to COVID. Let me again present a fact about the concern about food and water at the polls. I will quote the bill --- ": To quote the Bill ---- "No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector. The law applies within 150 FEET of a polling place or within 25 FEET of any voter at a polling place. Violators are guilty of a misdemeanor." THIS IS A FACT
I guess black people could argue on the footage but would this not seem unintelligent on their part? No really
People can have food and water, you can party, you can take free anything --- as long as you are 150 feet away from a polling place or 25 feet from any polling place.
I think this very fair ya can get free stuff but not on the doorstep of a polling place. So, the Dems are well covered to hand out whatever.
This is a very fair law. In most states, this kind of pandering with goods for votes does not happen. In my view, anyone that sells their vote for a sandwich would not be voting. Hey, just my opinion. But in Georga, that will now be acceptable -- go figure.
I am becoming tired of posting this section of the bill... Come on let the food/water thing go. I have presented a fact.Sharlee, the problem with long lines and waits predates the COVID 19 crisis. We have both fired our best shots. You folks wanted to exhaust Trumps endless claims to voter fraud, in spite of everything and everybody saying that this did not happen.
If you folks are so willing to bend over backwards to support Trumps highly doubtful claim, why can't we have this voting law subject to the same reviews and oversight that you were all so quick to provide Trump? If what you have been telling me is in fact true, then there should nothing to fear from such a review, right?
I don't like what is happening, but if the court rules in favor of Georgia, I will stand down. But, I will light the fire under Stacy Abrams to compel all voters to overcome obstacles deliberately put in their paths and get to the polls if for no any other reason than just to spite those who fear their participation.
Well, Sharlee, blacks were the "sticking point" in Atlanta, Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia. What is odd about it? Trump has been the most contentious candidate for most of us since George Wallace. Biden represented a course correction for which the vast majority of us approved.
So, it is fair to see if the new Georgia voting laws can stand on it own in court.Your one black man, a assume you can't speak for all. I am a white woman that also can add a bit of what I am witnessing among white people. As I have said before, the conversation I hear now is mirroring the 60's. in regard to race. Not good, not necessary.
"Biden represented a course correction for which the vast majority of us approved."
Biden represents division, baiting, pointing out differences. Differences that are in reality not based on truth. Lots of work needs to be done, but if you ask me it's not in voting laws. The country needs better education first and foremost... But Biden and the Dems are more concerned about getting votes. Blacks are not being stopped from voting, but they are being deprived of a good education, and need better jobs that a good education can bring. You may be losing sight of priorities. Just a thought. As I stated the 2020 election showed record blacks getting out to vote. Most voting for Biden. So, what should that tell you? Were they suppressed?
I have no idea if the DOJ will show a victory. I do think it will all end up in the Supreme court. And the precedent will be set. This precedent will uphold the Constitution. Which tells the states are and have been in control of their individual voting rights.
Will this form of loss bode well for Democrats or will they be pegged as the party that is trying to take down Constitutional democracy? Big gamble, an unnecessary gamble. The Georgia bill does not designate against anyone. Too bad more just won't have a good look at the bill.Never claimed to speak for all, but I let the votes and who it was that received the overwhelming numbers make my case for me.
Mirroring the 1960's, until we get at the more of the problems, perhaps it is necessary whether it is good or not.
You have a right to your opinion. More substantive legislation would be in the offering if not for continuous GOP opposition. The DOJ is another way to get some reading on the Georgia voting laws and hopefully other states as well. The GOP with theirdraconian reaction with all these restrictive laws are making certain that what happened in 2020 will not happen again. I, and other like me are committed to bringing this to a halt.
It may end up in the Supreme Court, but all the issues and concerns will be made bare, and if Georgia's position is not substantive, the SC will diss this just like they did Trump in his claims of voter fraud.
Well, let's see what the court says is "Democracy"? I am not afraid of the challenge, hopefully you are not as well.
State control of elections is not absolute, they cannot prohibit people from voting, put up unreasonable impediments to voting, poll taxes, literary tests etc. Did not the states that practice these things, support it with the idea of "state's rights"?"Mirroring the 1960's, until we get at the more of the problems, perhaps it is necessary whether it is good or not."
I disagree --- we have made so much progress to just toss it away for a political party that is desperate at a time in our history that a bull in a china shopped president rocked Washingtons little cozy world.
Remember it's about we the people. Don't put faith in a system that seeks to divide. Which at this point both parties are working hard to keep power, and a deep divide.
Just discovered something very interesting. Actually makes me think Garland has filed his lawsuit against the wrong state.
"SEAN HANNITY: "Really Jim Crow, Joe, what all these Democrats are failing to mention? We'll tell you the truth. … At this point, the laws in Delaware are far more restrictive than Georgia's new so-called ‘Jim Crow 2.0,’ racist new rules. It's far more inclusive in Georgia, far more accessible for voting in Georgia, the state of Georgia, their new law that mandates 17 days of in-person early voting. That's accessibility.
Delaware has zero in-person early voting. In Georgia, anybody without any reason can vote absentee. In Delaware, you must meet specific requirements. You need to give a reason. In Georgia, they have drop boxes for absentee ballots. They're available at county election offices all throughout the state. Delaware has no drop boxes for absentee ballots. Both states, interestingly, require voter I.D., but Delaware is run by Democrats. And it's Joe Biden's home state. And he hasn't lifted a finger in the five thousand years he's represented that state to make voting more accessible. "
I did the legwork and all Hannity's claims are factual.
So, why isn't Garland going after Delaware's voting laws? They certainly are very restrictive to actually all citizens.
Hopefully, you get my drift, and this further gives me a reason to look at Garland's case against Georgia as nothing but political.
I am very tempted to start digging into other Dem states and check out their voting laws. Say whatever you want about Hannity, he certainly doted all his I's on this report. And hopefully, this might just have you rethinking your stance on Georgia's new voting laws being discriminatory.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/hannity-b … strictions
The media is dangerous, teamed up with the Democrats their treacherous.Sharlee: If you have watched Garland's address on CNN. He said he is just starting with Georgia, but he is going to go after any state that abridges or restricts voters rights. Be sure to view the video in the lower right corner of the screen.
This is from Valeant, one of the Hubbers. He emailed me the link. It is supposed to refute what Hannity said.
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/ … 893052001/I will have a look at the link, however, I have reviewed Delawares voting laws to back up my last comment. All Hannity claimed was factual.
I was aware of Garland's statement---
"Garland added that he plans to look directly at newly-passed state laws aimed at restricting voting.
"So far this year, at least 14 states have passed new laws that make it harder to vote," Garland said.
"We are scrutinizing new laws that seek to curb voter access and where we see violations, we will not hesitate to act. We are also scrutinizing current laws and practices in order to determine whether they discriminate against Black voters and other voters of color," he said. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic … s-n1270533
It will be interesting to see what happens with his first case before the SC. This will certainly affect if he continues down the path he has proposed."We are scrutinizing new laws that seek to curb voter access and where we see violations, we will not hesitate to act. We are also scrutinizing current laws and practices in order to determine whether they discriminate against Black voters and other voters of color," he said."
So as they say, let's raise it up the flagpole (courts) and see if anyone salutes?It will be interesting to see how his first case goes. It will set precedence for the rest. It is also possible the SC won't find merit in the case, and not take it up. I truly feel Garland's case lacks proof of Georgia's new voting laws were put forth to discriminate. In fact, the new laws in my view will make voting easier for all citizens in Georgia. They certainly are better than Delawares, as well as New York. This court case could bode very badly for Democrats. The case will be covered widely by media, and the Supreme Court decisions have weight, and as a rule, are well respected. At least they did have... If the Democrats play the sour grape card, not sure how that will work -- many American's feel the Democratic party is out to destroy our Democracy altogether. I am not sure how the general public would buy into the Dems disparaging the SC. IMO this is a dangerous path the Dems have decided to travel.
I guess we have yet another waiting game. I personally think they will hear the case, but stop there and not hear any future cases with the same claims.Nope, no, wrong again. Geez Cred, if you are going to use these shortcuts you need to get them right. "Let's run it up the flagpole . . ."
You could use other phrases. There are more than two ways to skin a cat, you know? poke . .poke . . . ROFLMAO ;-)
However, I agree, let the Court decide. Generally speaking, I think the states at issue are on sound footing—unless we have another "Is" issue relative to efforts to prove intent.
GAWe had an old saying back in my working days, GA, "nitpicking piddly assed sh*t to death". You know what I mean.
Have you ever thought about yourself as having a hidden authoritarian streak?
We do agree, however, about bringing it to the court. It can be determined if there are instances of Garland's proposed law suits that have merit.We still have that old saying, so yes, I do know what you mean. And yes I am still grinning and chuckling. It's sorta like fishing; going fishing is almost always enjoyable, but when you can get a bite too . . . it just seems a little better. ;-)
GA
Sharlee: Are you going to look at the last link I posted or are you just going to agreel with what Hannity said?
Yes, I did check the article out. It would seem advocates for expanded voter rights noted the similarities between Georgia's new law and voting rules in other states. And claimed many states were intending to make changes to their voting laws. It would seem they got caught with many voting laws that were much worse than Georgia's new laws. --- And now after many years with laws that may have been sufficient they feel the heat to change them. Funny all of a sudden our voting laws just don't work... IMO this is a "cause" liberals have adopted, not considering we might have just had a bit harder of time voting due to COVID.
And it so odd, because we broke records on voter turnout.
I will stick to my view that this is all a cheap political ploy, and actually, it's fizzled out quicker than I thought it would. It will pick up if the SC agrees to hear Garland's case.
And my gut tells me if they do hear the case, Garland will end up looking foolish. And that will be the end of the 'cause"... It will be time to adopt a new cause.
.There are reasons Georgia voting laws need to be changed. It's to prevent the fraud from occurring that happened in the 2020 presidential election. It appears Biden didn't win Arizona as well as Georgia. It makes sense why Democrats are fighting this so hard. They may have perpetrated the largest election fraud in US history.
"A new report from Margot Cleveland at the Federalist has documented at least 10,300 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 2020 general election – and that number "will continue to rise over the next several months."
The issue is that Joe Biden was ahead of Donald Trump by only 12,670 votes when officials ended the counting.
The Federalist report by Cleveland, formerly a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge, explained the possibility is there that "nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally."
As more and more such evidence is obtained from audits of election results in several states, and the work of investigative journalists, the more and more likely appear Trump's contentions that there was fraud in the counts, and that fraud resulted in a "stolen" election."
https://www.wnd.com/2021/07/report-docu … -election/RMN:
I'm going to use the same response that use on my posts. WND is just a right wing rag that doesn't have real proof other than someone that used to be a law clerk. All one has to do is look at the article headings and see how biased they are.
In my opinion, this is wishful thinking on your part.
"As more and more such evidence is obtained from audits of election results in several states, and the work of investigative journalists, the more and more likely appear Trump's contentions that there was fraud in the counts, and that fraud resulted in a "stolen" election.""
This is the title of the article that Cleveland wrote in the Federalists.
"In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally."
She says potentially voted illegally, not that there was hard proof.Nothing is going happen without irrefutable truth, Mike. Do you really think that there is a snowball chance in hell that Trump can replace Biden?
The truth is getting pretty irrefutable. The Democrats are afraid of these recounts, very afraid.
I think our country could only benefit from having President Donald Trump replace the senseless babbling idiot we must refer to as a president at the moment.
No matter how the mainstream media tries to cover for biden, the truth about the nightmare known as his presidency is getting pretty irrefutable.I don't share that opinion, but I suspect that you know that already.
I agree, it appears media from other Country's are reporting more and more on Biden's confused state. Our media choose to cover for his cognitive problems. Makes one wonder when whoever is handling Biden will find it necessary to keep him hidden away. Between me and you -- that can't come soon enough.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/b … -vd4291cc7
Biden’s gaffe at G-7 summit sparks laughter from world leaders
https://nypost.com/2021/06/14/biden-gaf … d-leaders/
Sky News --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsIxP-c83ok
The Biden Presidency’s approach so far has largely been a rerun of the Obama administration’s lackluster “leading from behind” doctrine.Is Michigan going to soon have the star and sickle on their state flag?
"Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced this week that her department will go after those who made “false claims” about the 2020 presidential election in Michigan.
Nessel will use the state police to “assist in the matter.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/0 … ion-farud/Sharlee: Really, he is leading from behind when he is finally getting us out of Afghanistan, after 20 years of losing blood and treasure ? He is leading from behind when he doesn't want to get involved with Haiti's civil war? He is leading from behind when he tells Putin that he will respond in kind to cyber attacks? He is leading from behind when he wants people to go door-to-door to get others vaccinated?
Why is is it that states that support Trump are the ones who's people are dying from the Delta Variant and refuse to get vaccinated? It's because of the right wing propaganda that is being spewed by Fox and MAGA news.
They don't realize that it is survival of the fittest and how well people can adapt to change.
The real problem is that Trump has divided and continues to divide this country into a 21st century civil war to satisfy his sick ego of losing the election. His Jan. 6 insurrection involved shootings and killings. And his supporters are ready to take action again. All he has to do is give the order.
RMN: Really, you don't realize what other countries thought about Trump. He could barely put a coherent sentence together most of the time. When he used a teleprompter, he sounded like he was a third grade reader.
People didn't know what he was saying half of the time. How about Trump's nightmare of Jan.6 He held off until March to tell us that the virus isn't going away when he already knew in February that it was lethal, but he wanted to be the cheerleader (his words) for the country and only present the positive side? Whether you realize it or not, that is what got us into this mess.
What the Republicans are afraid of is losing the next election, so they are using Trump's fraud of losing the election as an excuse to change voting laws so that they won't lose the next election. If Trump didn't lose the election, there would be no recount of ballots. There would be no rigging and stolen election. There would be no Jan. 6 insurrection. And that is all irrefutable.You couldn't be more wrong about everything. It's hard to acknowledge anything you write. I will say you don't seem to grasp the meaning of the English word "irrefutable." That explains this post and many other things you post.
I do think it's more evidence that being a liberal means not being able to comprehend the connotations as well as denotations and proper usage of words in the English language. No wonder liberals struggle to understand the reality of things.RMN: The definition of irrefutable:
"The definition of irrefutable is something that is impossible to prove wrong, or that cannot be denied."
This is what you wrote:
"The truth is getting pretty irrefutable. The Democrats are afraid of these recounts, very afraid." Is that a connotation or denotation? So do you really mean it or is it just an emotional response?
The events of Jan. 6 are undeniable. Irrefutable is just a fancy courtroom term that you are using to impress others. Please prove irrefutably that the democrats are very afraid of these recounts.
You wrote this:
"You couldn't be more wrong about everything. It's hard to acknowledge anything you write. I will say you don't seem to grasp the meaning of the English word "irrefutable." That explains this post and many other things you post."
This is just an excuse because you really can't dispute what I wrote.
You wrote this:
"I do think it's more evidence that being a liberal means not being able to comprehend the connotations as well as denotations and proper usage of words in the English language. No wonder liberals struggle to understand the reality of things."
Are your readers supposed to understand your connation or denotation from your context? It is not clear to me what you really mean. Are you just being emotional or factual?
I may be an illiterate liberal, but I also know what a gross generalization is and that is just what you wrote. I don't know how to use the word irrefutable, therefore all liberals struggle to understand the reality of things. That is wonderful logic...not.
You need to take your dark glasses off and see things for what they really are.Have a good day. I hope all goes well with you. I have nothing against liberals. I just have never met one that impressed me as intelligent or able to comprehend complex subjects. I know many liberals and I'm even related to liberals. I do feel sorry for them being so lost and confused. I believe liberalism only appeals to the naïve and the gullible.
RMN: As far as naive and gullible goes, from my view point, I think you are describing the typical Trump supporter and Fox/MAGA news junkie who believe Trump's over 10,000 documented lies and misinformation
I feel sorry for you for being so judgmental and feeling so superior to all liberals, and how defending you are of conservatives as being able to comprehend complex subject matter.
I guess you never learned not to generalize people. As humans, we are a continuum of simple to complex and it has nothing to do with our political affiliations.
As far as my comprehension of complex subjects. I was in radar maintenance in the Air Force and as a career, ran system test and troubleshooting of complex computer systems, that were used in the X15, Polaris Submarine, and the Minuteman Missile. I was a technical writer, owned my own consulting business, developed online training course for Toshiba's Telecommunications System Division to certify their dealers in the installation and operation of business telephone systems.
This was over a 30 year period. But as a conservative, I guess it is hard for you to believe that liberals can also comprehend complex subjects, such as political science. You have a good day as well.
Sharlee: Apparently, you didn't read the entire article and you didn't look at the video in the lower right corner. I know I can't change your mind, but this will give you a view from the other side.
I did read the article, and I also reviewed it again today. The problem is it is an opinion article. Yes, the author claims many democratic states due to having poor voting laws will be updating their laws to be better than what Georgia had presented. This is an if come scenario, and in my view, it appears hypocritical to say at this point that voting laws will be changed.
What about all the many years citizens had to abide by laws that some Dem states now feel are discriminatory. It all seems sonpolitical. Plus, why all the fuss now? This has become a political chip, and it may very well backfire.
I truly believe if anyone wants to vote, and is a citizen, and registered, they can vote.
Facts show you incorrect in regards to the AG "helping people" get out to vote. I have offered a link to the Justice Department that gives a very clear picture of the lawsuit.
"Attorney General Merrick Garland said the laws were "enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of black Georgians to vote". Attorney General Merrick Garland
Source of quote --- https://www.yahoo.com/now/us-justice-de … 51237.html
"The United States’ complaint contends that several provisions of Senate Bill 202 were adopted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race. The Justice Department’s lawsuit alleges that the cumulative and discriminatory effect of these laws—particularly on Black voters—was known to lawmakers and that lawmakers adopted the law despite this. " Source https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice- … riminatory
It is very clear many citizens do believe there was voter fraud. As I stated --- I see nothing wrong with Georgia's new voting laws, in fact, they will work to decrease problems with fraud, and more people will feel safe that their vote is being counted. I think the voter ID law alone will serve to stop much of the common fraud we have seen for decades.
I feel this suit is once again a sad political ploy at the expense of black citizens. The Biden administration is putting blacks back 60 years. This kind of ploy works to make some looked at blacks, as less intelligent human beings. "We need water, and food, we just can't get to the polls, we just can't apply for an ID"... My god --- how sad and actually evil to portray blacks in this manner.
I have several black friends that have shared this very sentiment.
Blacks certainly are in need of help -- help with obtaining better education, better job opportunity, and more. They don't need to be panderer at for their vote. Told they are being discriminated against in regard to voting.
I note that you ignored a very important part of my comment --- The very fact that there was a record number of black citizens that voted in the last couple of elections, especially in Georgia. They came out and made their voice heard. This last election was marked with problems due to COVID restrictions, yet still, a record number of citizens of all races voted.
Liberals would do best by addressing real problems that blacks have due to systemic racial problems. Facts show they did not appear to need your help getting to the polls... And they certainly don't need anyone working to make them look as if they can't vote if they please too. This only works to deepen the racial divide.It is true, I think, that many citizens do not believe there was significant voter fraud. Is that a reason to ignore voting security in the future because it didn't happen in the recent past (it was prevalent in the more distant past)?
I think not. That would be like disbanding the TSA because there has not been a repeat of 911.I think after the last election fiasco we need to clarify voting laws in all states... We need good voting laws, and we need to have our laws followed to the letter. I am over the BS, that Blacks need to be treated differently. This has become rediculpous.
Sharlee: What fiasco? Trump created the fiasco. If Trump would have won, there would be no fiasco, just pure elation from his supporters and the GOP congress.
Sharlee: I find it interesting that what you are describing about blacks getting out to vote is before these laws were put in place in the last election. That being the case, why do they need these laws?
It certainly wasn't to prevent voter fraud. There was none to speak of. I believe the ones who think there was voter fraud are the ones who also believe the vote was stolen from Trump.
So you have black friends who share your sentiment...good for them, but I'm sure they don't represent the black people in the remote areas of Georgia who can't get to the polls for the very reason that the AG stated.
Your statement about common fraud for decades has no bearing in real history. The real fraud is that you have a former president who just won't accept that he lost the election fair and square and that he incited the riot in the Capitol.
He continues to this day to control the GOP congress and have rallies to support his B.S. He has divided and radicalized a large part of the voting public and therein lies the real problem and the GOP congress is in lock step with him, including McConnell.This site has presented cases of voter fraud year after year. I have not indicated I believe fraud is rapid, only that it exists, and that reviewing and changing voting laws as needed is not a bad idea.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
It well appears Trump is still unsatisfied with the election results, and they are presently recounting in Arizona. He also has a large following that was willing to protest and become violent at the Capitol. There is no proof he incited a riot. That is my opinion.
He certainly continues to be the face of the Republican party and has the power to push his agenda. I find it obtuse of you to assume there is a problem with half of our population supporting Trump in one fashion or another. Many American's continue to feel he was a good president, and yes hope to see him run again or someone run that adopts Trump's America first ideology. I am of the latter. I respected his strength and skills in solving problems.
It is very obvious Biden is getting the expected gridlock. He knew that writing was on the wall well before he won the election. He made lofty promises that he knew he by no means could keep. He also knew he could just say --- "I tried, those destructive Republicans just would not cooperate."
The GOP knows that Trump has a strong huge base, why in the world would they buck him? Do you think they want to lose their individual power, their seats in Congress?
Some are just not realizing, many American's are not willing to keep the status quo of a Biden. Promise, Promise --- Blame, Blame. Then do it again keep their heads spinning.
Many are done with nothing getting done, the stagnation we have witnessed for decades now. And yes many are willing to fight for change.
Oh my God! Does the name Hilary Clinton ring a bell... Let me count the ways.
"Hillary Clinton says she has been telling candidates seeking the 2020 Democratic nomination that even if they run a perfect campaign, the election could be "stolen" from them, implying that was what befell her in 2016. "
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 116477001/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77i_pC3lp04
Then there was this --- Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’
https://www.yahoo.com/now/hillary-clint … 16779.html
2019 Hillary Clinton Says Election Was ‘Stolen’ From Her--- https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/05/06/ … -from-her/
2016 - Hillary asks for recount --- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … -wisconsin
2017 --- she just blames -- everybody LOL
What Happened: The long list of who Hillary Clinton blames
Anthony Zurcher
2017 Hillary Clinton just floated the possibility of contesting the 2016 election --- https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics … index.html
And if this is not enough she wrote a book on the subject.Sharlee,
Let us not forget how Al Gore contested his election loss. The list goes on.Yes, and then there was John Kerry ... the Dems could not move on from his loss.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … 020-448604
2004 United States election voting controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Unit … troversies
PARTISAN TECHNOLOGY FIRM IS IMPLICATED IN JOHN KERRY'S IMPLAUSIBLE LOSS IN OHIO 2004
https://www.electiondefense.org/how-to-part-ten
But, But, But, it's just different because --- it just is. LOL
And then there was Stacy ... Notable & Quotable: Stacey Abrams Refuses to Concede—a Year Later ---
No not a presidential candidate but just another Dem that screamed VOTER FRAUD! Now the list of Dem politicians that claimed fraud is so long I could write a book.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-qu … 1605134058
This is a HUGE ruling from the SCOTUS.
"Supreme Court upholds Arizona voter fraud protections
The case centered on a ballot harvesting restriction and a rule blocking provisional ballots cast at the wrong location.
The Supreme Court upheld Arizona voting rules that restrict ballot harvesting and the submission of provisional ballots outside of one’s home precinct, following a challenge from the Democratic National Committee.
In a 6-3 decision on Tuesday, the court ruled that neither the policy requiring provisional ballots to be completely disregarded if submitted at the wrong precinct nor the law making it a felony to submit another person’s ballot (with limited exceptions) violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The decision overturned a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem … rotectionsThis really sticks out -- "The court noted that Arizona law "generally makes it quite easy for residents to vote." Discussing the out-of-precinct rule, Alito noted that the state "made extensive efforts" to alleviate burdens by sending notices to all registered voters when precinct locations are changed and by requiring election officials to send out sample ballots to each home with a registered voter that includes a notice of the proper polling location. The court also pointed out that the Arizona secretary of state's office sends pamphlets with polling information, and that voters can look online or call to find out their precinct location."
It would appear from reading Georgia's new voting laws that they also made it an easy task for all citizens to cast their vote. They bent over backward...
Alito wrote in the opinion --"Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the 'usual burdens of voting,' "On the contrary, these tasks are quintessential examples of the usual burdens of voting."
I would understand Alito's opinion is directed at all American citizens, no matter one's color.
Alito's added opinion makes me wonder what Garland is thinking about today? In my view, I can see the writing is on the wall in regard to this AG. He may be willing to bring very unfair unnecessary lawsuits to the courts for political purposes only., and it is clear IMO the SC may have taken note of his attitude in regard to political games, and will not take kindly to them.
Do you think the SC sent a very direct message to any and all that want to play that
game?
This SC ruling really needs a thread of its own it has set a good precedent.
Yes, you or I am not black, but we are human beings that have made our way to the polls for many years, as black people have, as they did in record numbers the last election my view, I don't consider a person's skin color make them less able to get to the polls and vote. This last election was very difficult for many, not only black people, due to COVID. But American's managed to come out in record numbers.
Not sure what you are referring to when you mention "roadblocks"?
"It's about the new laws that are designed to restrict the black vote even further. ":
Again do you see anything that stands out as unfair to black people. If these new laws are going to suppress black voters, why will they not suppress white voters? Are we so different, more intelligent? This is sort of what Gralands lawsuit is implieing.
Georgia has a history of very little voter fraud, they changed their laws first due to providing some of the things some citizens felt they needed, or wanted. The food/water, and ballot boxes. Georgia never have used drop boxes prior to COVID. They change the hours to provide more convenient hours for working people. They added at this point a rule for voter ID, but also are providing free voter ID. Almost everything in the bill would seem to be to make it easier to vote.
I don't at all want you to give examples of what happened in the last election. We were conversing about Georgia's NEW voter laws, and what the bill provides. I had hoped to get some examples of why you think the new laws discriminate against anyone. If you can't offer any problem that you might see, why do you feel Blacks are being discriminated against? You seem to be standing up for a cause that has yet to be proven a problem. Not proven by the last election, and the new laws just don't appear to discriminate against anyone.In response to all this crapola that you rightwing types are dishing out, a clarification is necessary.
The issues are the impositions put upon the urban Atlanta (Fulton County) voters lack of drop box facilities, long lines without reasonable accomodation while those in Hooterville GA are in an out in a relatively convienient manner.
We have trouble with the court because the issue may not be necessary be of race but suppressing those those that live in urban population centers who generally vote democratic. A dastardly clever ruse by the Rightwinger, skirting around direct reference to race. But, it certainly is not new.
Attacking urban centers is GOP strategy as there are found the most consistently Democrat voters therein. They will deny race is a factor and they can make it stick. And with your current right wing tribunal doubling as a Supreme Court, they will give vote suppression plenty of cover.
The GOP is out to minimize the participation of minority groups and the young, throwing a wide enough blanket to deny what their ultimate objective is.Sharlee:
"And yes, I can't imagine a bigger insult the Dems could dish up to blacks than making them look so unintelligent, and needy.
"I find this kind of race-baiting very sad, and discouraging. We have real problems that need to be addressed such as education, jobs, immigration. And as always the Democrats look for mud to sling to divert from the problems they can't solve, and in much of the case caused."
You are absolutely wrong in your analysis. Dems are not belittling black people. They are supporting their cause. It is not race baiting. It is understanding their problem and providing voting rights and democracy for all.
I don't think of black people as unintelligent and needy. It turns out many of them are smarter than the white people who are obstructing them... and there in lies the problem. The demographics are changing in the south. Many high tech jobs have moved to the south and other areas and these are college educated people that many white people can't stand becoming successful.
That's what white superiority is all about. How many black people do you see in Trump's rallies? How many black people did you see storm and breach the Capitol?
"I find this kind of race-baiting very sad, and discouraging. We have real problems that need to be addressed such as education, jobs, immigration. And as always the Democrats look for mud to sling to divert from the problems they can't solve, and in much of the case caused."
The problems could be solved if the GOP congress would stop obstructing all of Biden's moves and stop trying to make him a one term president.
Republicans fall in line. Democrats fall in love. That's the difference. They are much better and organizing and falling in lock-step, even if it requires lying to others and themselves."And yes, I can't imagine a bigger insult the Dems could dish up to blacks than making them look so unintelligent, and needy.
"I find this kind of race-baiting very sad, and discouraging. We have real problems that need to be addressed such as education, jobs, immigration. And as always the Democrats look for mud to sling to divert from the problems they can't solve, and in much of the case caused."
This is my view, in which I truly believe.
PP --"You are absolutely wrong in your analysis. Dems are not belittling black people. They are supporting their cause. It is not race-baiting. It is understanding their problem and providing voting rights and democracy for all."
This is your opinion, as you see we disagree. However, you really don't have the right to tell me I am wrong. Sort of getting ahead of yourself I would say. Do you speak for ALL Dems? Really?
PP -- "The problems could be solved if the GOP congress would stop obstructing all of Biden's moves and stop trying to make him a one term president."
In my view --- I am thankful for the balance in Congress to deal with a president that's agenda is at this point in our history (coming out of a Pandemic) is unwise, lofty, and poorly thought out by those that are controlling him. This administration is again in my view a disaster, and I am again grateful we have a Senate that will keep him from doing too much damage in his four-year term.
Please read my comment to Cred. This somewhat adds facts to why I do not feel Georgias laws are discriminatory.
I have provided my opinion on the new laws, with facts to add why I have reached that my opinion. At this point, it appears to me you just are unwilling to respect my opinion. I have said this before -- we have different ways of coming to an opinion. I just base my opinion on clear-cut facts as a rule... I am very black or white there just is little grey for me. I think grey clutters one's mind.The reality is that life is mostly in shades of gray, it is the conservatives that seek to disregard that and see things in stark terms of black and white. And hardly anything is, really.
I see it differently. I see making an attempt to look for reality, and try to stick to current facts as the best way to heave a satisfying life. I think being bogged down with "what if's, or being held down by the past stops one from going forward walking in their own shoes. Just realizing negativity can work for a very hard uphill climb.
We are all looking for "reality", Sharlee. Oftentimes what appear to be facts are just points of view depending on which side of the rabbit hole you start from.
The past is always relevant, and I certainly subscribe to the idea that those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Just sensible precautions to see to it that the past does not happen again or morphs into an alternate form of the same thing. What did the Jews say after Hitler? "Never Again".
There can be no today nor tomorrow without acknowledging what had happened yesterday. Yesterday is my best best gauge as to what to expect today and what to anticipate tomorrow.
Yes, continue forward with eyes focused ahead, but watching like a fox as to what is behind and sneaking up on you.Sharlee: I have posted this many times. Again this is from a black persons' perspective who represents black voters. She is the President of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
I don't know if you and others in your zeal for SB202 have ignored it or in your judgement belittled the information that she is putting forth. There are so many threads in this forum, it is hard to recall all the comments.
In either case, I'm requesting you to view this. Make no mistake, I believe what she is saying and base my opinion on her experience with voter suppression.
Please watch the 9 minute video and read the entire article if you really want to understand the black voters plight. It explains a lot from the black voter perspective and that is in large part what I'm basing my comments on.
https://www.naacpldf.org/naacp-publicat … sion-bill/I did not ignore your link in regard to the NAAPC lawsuit. I actually took two of the charges and disputed their relevance. I offered sources to back my opinion. I feel the case will be lost due to Georgia's new voting laws just do not directly discriminate. It comes down to a judge reading the actual laws, and determining if Georgia sought to discriminate. In my view, after reading the bill they did in no means set out to discriminate. I think the charges are just not going to stand up in court when compared to the new voting laws.
The NAACP makes claims about drop boxes being taken away. As I pointed out Georgia never used any dropboxes. But now do. (They complied with the wishes of their citizens). It would appear the new law aids the voters, makes it better than it was prior when Georgia had Zero dropboxes. I think a judge would truly find those a positive.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … ost4193689
Makes it a crime to give or to “offer to give” food and water to individuals waiting in line to vote. THE NEW LAW permits water and food 150 feet away from the polls
" Overall, Black voters are likely to wait 45% longer in line to vote than white voters
Black Georgians, on average, wait nearly 1 hour to vote; white voters only 6 minutes. In the 2020 primary election, Black voters in Fulton County waited over 5 hours to vote. During the early voting period in the 2020 General Election, some Fulton County voters waited more than 10 hours to cast a ballot."
They had better have some very good proof of such an allegation.
"Places unnecessary, burdensome, and new restrictions on absentee voting. This would require voters to provide a photocopy of and mail sensitive identification information to request a ballot. Similar sensitive information, including a voter’s social security number, may be required to return an absentee ballot – including on the outside of the ballot envelope."
JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER US CITIZEN THAT STATE CALLS FOR ID TO VOTE... This applies to all races it is not discriminatory. Many states I believe 33 call for voter ID to vote. identifying information is on the outside of the envelope.
"While the law allows for a “free” state-issued ID for those who do not have one, driver’s license offices in Georgia’s Black Belt include 21 contiguous and predominantly Black rural counties where those offices are open 2 days per week or fewer. Additionally, studies show that the actual cost for “free IDs” typically range from $75 – $175 after factoring in documentation, travel, and waiting time."
THIS IS LAUGHABLE...
This is a far as I go with this conversation... I will predict the NAACP case will be denied at the SC level. It reads like a laundry list of sorry complaints that show no form of discrimination. I did read the entire article. I do not buy into media hype.
I in no respect believe Georgias law discriminates. You have a right to your opinion, as I do. Let's see what happens with the NAACP case when it comes before a judge.Sharlee: All you commented on are the new laws and how fair you think they are. This is the history of voting that unjustifiably led up to the new laws. Why didn't you comment on any of the following statements?
The Legislature Revealed Its Intent in the Days Following the Certification of the Votes for President Biden and Vice President Harris
Republican legislators repeated false claims of election insecurity and voter fraud as a guise for passing suppressive legislation framed as bills promoting “election security.”
On the same day that the Biden-Harris electoral victory was certified (Jan. 7, 2021), Georgia’s Speaker of the House announced a new election integrity commission.
By February, and through March 2021, Republicans in the legislature proposed more than 50 pieces of legislation that would restrict access to voting.
S.B. 202 Passed on March 25, 2021, Following a Rushed and Non-Transparent Legislative Process, and Without a Record to Justify the Bill’s Provisions
90+ page bills were introduced at 11 p.m., with hearings on them the next day at 7 a.m. Little to no information was provided on who could testify or how.
There were never any hearings or substantive data presented on the allegations of voter fraud to attempt to justify the bills. To the contrary, this took place in the context of the assertion by the Secretary of State in December 2020 that his office found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
The very same allegations of voter fraud were vehemently and repeatedly shot down by Republican elected officials during and after the 2020 General Election.
S.B. 202 is a Direct Response to Increased Black Voter Participation
More than 5 million Georgians voted in the 2020 General Election and nearly 4.5 million did so again in the 2021 runoff elections — despite an ongoing global pandemic.
In advance of the 2020 General Election, there was a 25% increase in Black voter registration compared to 2016. And while, in the past, Black voter turnout has dropped significantly in special elections, in the 2021 Runoff Election, Black voter turnout was almost 92% of that in the General, a higher percentage than for white voters.
In the 2020 General Election, more than 1.3 million absentee ballots were cast. Nearly 30% of Black voters cast their ballot by mail. In fact, according to Georgia’s elections data, Black voters account for almost 42% of absentee ballot requests.
The results of the 2020 General Election in Georgia were repeatedly counted – including by hand – and certified. There was never any evidence of voter fraud.
Governor Kemp signed the bill into law in a closed-door, private ceremony during which a Black state legislator was arrested after she knocked on the door to the room.
Georgia is not alone: The Threat in Additional States. Georgia’s S.B. 202 is just one of the many voter suppression bills driven by baseless allegations of fraud introduced in the wake of the 2020 election. Legislators are following the model set in Georgia – using false information to stoke fear in an otherwise secure electoral process. As of May 2021, the Brennan Center’s State Voting Bills Tracker counts 389 restrictive voting bills introduced in legislatures across the country.
In Michigan, legislators have introduced 39 voter suppression bills just months after a record 5.5 million people voted. Among the restrictions included in the bills, absentee ballots could only be returned using a drop box until 5 p.m. the day before the election; the Secretary of State would be prevented from sending out mass absentee ballot applications; and prepaid postage for absentee ballot return envelopes would be prohibited.
In Texas, some of the H.B. 6 and S.B. 7 provisions include: restricting access to vote-by-mail information and ballots; requiring voters with disabilities to “prove” that they have a disability when they apply to vote by mail; and limiting election workers’ ability to respond to disruptive partisan poll watchers. Texas poll watchers have a notorious track record of intimidating Black voters and other voters of color.
In Florida, S.B. 90 was passed on April 29 with provisions that include eliminating drop boxes altogether; adding ID requirements to vote-by-mail applications; and eliminating the ability for the Secretary of Elections to automatically send vote-by-mail ballots to voters.
This is not my opinion. I would like to think these are verifiable facts."Republican legislators repeated false claims of election insecurity and voter fraud as a guise for passing suppressive legislation"
"S.B. 202 is a Direct Response to Increased Black Voter Participation"
"Georgia’s S.B. 202 is just one of the many voter suppression bills"
Just 3 of your "verifiable facts" that are neither verifiable or facts. They are, instead, opinions and/or talking points to scare people into thinking there is not need for voting security. And, of course, to further divide the country.Your response made me think of a song that reminds me of liberals and goes "Now that your fantasy has become your reality...what does that say about you?"
In my view very few of the posts on this thread are factual. It is clear the information is from media reports. Reports with information badly worded out of context. One only needs to visit an individual state voting information website to find all the new and old voter regulations. It is more than apparent media is not doing any research on the new voting laws. And it is also obvious many have bought into their propaganda. This is ridiculous all the facts on all these new voting laws are online yet some just want to believe what they want to believe --- As Joe said -- "We believe truth not facts"It... Very evident many follow this man's twisted confused mindset.
This should give you all the sources of what I presented and validates my statements. They say if you want to understand your enemy, you have to see things from their viewpoint. This is not fantasy, media hype, nor my opinion. Happy reading. Please read all 43 pages. It should answer all of your questions. Whether you believe it or not is your prerogative.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea … 6/downloadIt is apparent you ignored all the facts I presented in my last post to you. You just don't set forth anything that is factual in regards to the laws you feel discriminate. You have provided media reports that I have proved to be false. Completely false. I have been very clear that I do not see any real new voter laws that will suppress voters or that discriminate. I stand behind the printed facts I have offered you. And now you backtrack to the Garlands case. As I said way back in the first pages of this thread, Garland is about now kicking himself for filing that lawsuit. It was all political and will backfire in his face.
I am aware of Garland's claims, most of which will be proven null due to the new voting laws are made for the convenience of Georgia citizens --- All citizens, none of the new laws are discriminatory. I am very confident the SC will rule in the favor of Georgia, I have not one doubt.
The Garland case will fail, the new laws do not support his claims of discrimination against black citizens... The SC will consider the new laws as they affect all citizens. They are non-bias and consider the written word. All the fluff of emotions or ideologies just is not considered.
Please consider the Case the SC just shot down last week...
"At issue in the case were two Arizona laws: one banned the collection of absentee ballots by anyone other than a relative or caregiver, and the other threw out any ballots cast in the wrong precinct. A federal appeals court struck down both provisions, ruling that they had an unequal impact on minority voters and that there was no evidence of fraud that would have justified their use." "the Supreme Court reinstated the state laws, declaring that unequal impact on minorities in this context was relatively minor, that other states have similar laws and that states don't have to wait for fraud to occur before enacting laws to prevent it."
Actually, Georgia's new laws are very similar to many state's laws.
It is clear the SC did not find these two Arizona laws discriminatory. The Justices have set a good president. IMO the SC is considered the voting laws of many other states and will do the same in the Georgia case.
And Georgia's laws are simply written, and fair to all.
Again, I find it non-sensical to continue this conversation you totally ignore any and all facts about the actual new voting laws. You just backtrack or deflect. I have found each of your claims false -- just one example -- Texas making the Disabled prove they have a disability. Not sure what you feel you are trying to prove?
You have not provided one factual resource to anything you claim.
PLEASE offer one resource to this opinion ---- PP "Republican legislators repeated false claims of election insecurity and voter fraud as a guise for passing suppressive legislation framed as bills promoting “election security.”
THIS is FACTUAL --- PP On the same day that the Biden-Harris electoral victory was certified (Jan. 7, 2021), Georgia’s Speaker of the House announced a new election integrity commission.
THIS IS PURE CONJECTURE on your part you have not offered anything that would prove this statement. What changes are restrictive? Words that really say or prove anything. ----- "By February, and through March 2021, Republicans in the legislature proposed more than 50 pieces of legislation that would restrict access to voting."
TRUE the bill passed without problem ----- PP S.B. 202 Passed on March 25, 2021, Following a Rushed and Non-Transparent Legislative Process, and Without a Record to Justify the Bill’s Provisions
THE BILL WAS PUBLISHED ONLINE FOR ALL TO READ --- PP "90+ page bills were introduced at 11 p.m., with hearings on them the next day at 7 a.m. Little to no information was provided on who could testify or how."
THE BILL actually showed few changes from the previous voting laws. The legislators made it very clear they had found no voter fraud after many counts, and that the voting laws were being updated due to problems that had occurred in the last election. The state has every right to make changes in voting laws. In this case, they added laws to from there on use dropboxes to make it easier for citizens to vote, and allowing food/water at the polls....
-
PP "There were never any hearings or substantive data presented on the allegations of voter fraud to attempt to justify the bills. To the contrary, this took place in the context of the assertion by the Secretary of State in December 2020 that his office found no evidence of widespread voter fraud."
MANY Republicans did express they believed voter fraud had occurred, this has nothing to do with individual laws that have been changed. I have not found anything in my reading that would point to discrimination. You need to look at the actual laws not quote media context
PP "The very same allegations of voter fraud were vehemently and repeatedly shot down by Republican elected officials during and after the 2020 General Election."
THIS IS YOUR OPINION, I don't share it.I have done to much research to buy into such a theory. " S.B. 202 is a Direct Response to Increased Black Voter ParticipationMore than 5 million Georgians voted in the 2020 General Election and nearly 4.5 million did so again in the 2021 runoff elections — despite an ongoing global pandemic."
AND YES RECORD NUMBER OF BLACKS VOTE SEEMS THEY DID FINE GETTING TO THE POLLS EVEN WITH THE PANDEMIC- I think they will do fine from here on... They now have dropboxes, as well as they will not need social distance in the next election, and the new voting hours will be great for all that live in Georgia that need to vote late in the day, and on weekends. Georgia'ss new voting laws have solved many of the previous problems, and the updates are really very good. THEY HAVE ALSO provided this wonderful new website that covers all citizens need to know about voting and makes it easy for all citizens to read and learn about the new rules.
https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/register_to_vote
You need to have a look and learn about just how easy Georgia has made it for every citizen to vote.
PP In advance of the 2020 General Election, there was a 25% increase in Black voter registration compared to 2016. And while, in the past, Black voter turnout has dropped significantly in special elections, in the 2021 Runoff Election, Black voter turnout was almost 92% of that in the General, a higher percentage than for white voters.
PP In the 2020 General Election, more than 1.3 million absentee ballots were cast. Nearly 30% of Black voters cast their ballot by mail. In fact, according to Georgia’s elections data, Black voters account for almost 42% of absentee ballot requests.
PP The results of the 2020 General Election in Georgia were repeatedly counted – including by hand – and certified. There was never any evidence of voter fraud.
SHE WAS ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT ---- PP "Governor Kemp signed the bill into law in a closed-door, private ceremony during which a Black state legislator was arrested after she knocked on the door to the room."
I SEE NOTHING THAT POINTS TO YOUR DISCRIMINATION ALL LEGAL --- PP " Georgia is not alone: The Threat in the Additional States. Georgia’s S.B. 202 is just one of the many voter suppression bills driven by baseless allegations of fraud introduced in the wake of the 2020 election. Legislators are following the model set in Georgia – using false information to stoke fear in an otherwise secure electoral process. As of May 2021, the Brennan Center’s State Voting Bills Tracker counts 389 restrictive voting bills introduced in legislatures across the country.
In Michigan, legislators have introduced 39 voter suppression bills just months after a record 5.5 million people voted. Among the restrictions included in the bills, absentee ballots could only be returned using a drop box until 5 p.m. the day before the election; the Secretary of State would be prevented from sending out mass absentee ballot applications; and prepaid postage for absentee ballot return envelopes would be prohibited.
SHAR -- Among the restrictions included in the bills, absentee ballots could only be returned using a dropbox until 5 p.m. the day before the election;) YOU OFFERED NO PROVE OF THIS OR THE STATE YOU FEEL PASSED THIS LAW.... It is a very reasonable request and would l help with processing votes.
FALSE --- PP "In Texas, some of the H.B. 6 and S.B. 7 provisions include: restricting access to vote-by-mail information and ballots; requiring voters with disabilities to “prove” that they have a disability when they apply to vote by mail, and limiting election workers’ ability to respond to disruptive partisan poll watchers. Texas poll watchers have a notorious track record of intimidating Black voters and other voters of color."
THIS IS NOT FACTUAL TEXAS LAW FOR VOTERS WITH DISABILITIES PLEASE READ THE LINK WITH ALL RULES AS WELL AS PROVISIONS MADE FOR CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES. YOU NEED FACTS NOT MEDIA PROPAGANDA --- https://www.votetexas.gov/voters-with-s … index.html
"Voters With Disabilities
Services Available to Voters with Disabilities in Texas
Voter Registration
People with disabilities have the right to register to vote so long as they are eligible, which means they:
Are citizens of the United States;
Are at least 17 years and 10 months old at the time of registration (but to vote, they must be 18 years of age by Election Day);
Have not been finally convicted of a felony, or if they have been convicted, have completed all of their punishment, including any term of incarceration, parole, supervision, probation, or have received a pardon;
Note: Deferred adjudication is not a final felony conviction.
Have not been determined by a final judgment of a court exercising probate jurisdiction to be totally mentally incapacitated or partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote.
Individuals who have legal guardians may be eligible to register, depending on whether the court took away their right to vote. All guardianship orders issued after September 1, 2007 must state whether the individual can vote.
People with disabilities can receive assistance registering to vote from any state agency that provides services to persons with disabilities or from any person they choose."
PP In Florida, S.B. 90 was passed on April 29 with provisions that include eliminating drop boxes altogether; adding ID requirements to vote-by-mail applications; and eliminating the ability for the Secretary of Elections to automatically send vote-by-mail ballots to voters.
FLORIDA HAS DORPBOXES and does have new laws on no automatic ballot send out, and requires ID
PP This is not my opinion. I would like to think these are verifiable facts.
LITTLE OF WHAT YOU POSTED HOLDS FACTUAL PROOF.
It is very clear you ignore any and all facts I have taken the time to clarify. And clear you are just repeating media reports not actual the state's voting laws. All states have websites that post their current voting regulations, this is always a good place to start research on voting regulations that have been put into law. The actual bills are also available online. Many very long and confusing. The websites have simplified the laws, and provide so much information.
I can't persuade you of anything, nor can I join in your opinion. I have done the research and would look very unintelligent to just join in the left's hysteria due to poor bias media reporting. Hey --- I am holding out
and following the facts.
"may not be necessary be of race but suppressing those those that live in urban population centers who generally vote democratic."
So, race doesn't really play into it?Race does play into it indirectly as the rush to "secure the vote" by Republicans takes the form a flurry of bills from so many state legislators, that place impediments In the path of the urban voters who are far less likely to vote Republican and who in Atlanta and many larger urban centers just happen to be black. It is about power and control. The circumstances surrounding the pandemic was just an excuse to say that an otherwise close election that Republicans lost, had been stolen. Rest assured that if Trump had won, none of this "vote fraud" stuff would have seen the light of day.
Conservatives just have to prove before the court that the added provisions they harp about are in fact preventative measures for fraud and not just a manner of intimidating a disapproving demographic away from the polls.
I don't believe that Conservatives ever really change whether it was with racist Democrats early in the last century or Republicans, today.
The GOP will do what it must to minimize the influence and ease of access to the ballot for those that most likely will not vote for them, identifying where they are, walking their tightrope just to stay within the confines of the letter of the law, if not the spirit."Race does play into it indirectly as the rush to "secure the vote" by Republicans takes the form a flurry of bills from so many state legislators, that place impediments In the path of the urban voters who are far less likely to vote Republican"
You do know there are cities with majority Republican voters. So, if this is true, why would Republicans place impediments on their own urban voters? Maybe race and living area are not the real issue.Sharlee, RMN, and Wilderness:
Sharlee: This is your request:
"I wish someone on the left would point out something in the Georgia law that is race specific. NONE of them can explain how it is discriminatory since it doesn't address anything based on race. This is the left's Don Quixote moment as they chase their windmills of racism."
Of course it doesn't address anything on race. Do you really think the framers of the bill are going to come out and say this bill is to suppress the black vote in the next election?...Give me break. As I said before that is what makes this so insidious. A conspiracy never has to be proven, it is just there and never goes away. That's is how Trump operates, based on lies and conspiracy theories. Did he prove any of these?
Alleged actions by Muslims as claimed by Britain First[1][4]
Belief that vaccines cause autism[1][2]
Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory[5]
Barack Obama birther conspiracy theories[1][2]
Clinton Body Count[1][6]
Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal[7][8][9]
Deep state in the United States[10]
Epstein didn't kill himself[11]
Suicide of Vince Foster[1]
Global warming conspiracy theory[1][2]
Hurricane Maria death toll controversy[1][2]
Italygate[12]
Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy[1][13][14]
Assassination of John F. Kennedy - alleged Rafael Cruz, the father of Texas Senator and Republican presidential candidate for the 2016 elections Ted Cruz, is tied to Lee Harvey Oswald.[15][16]
Murder of Seth Rich[17]
Obamagate – term ascribed in May 2020 to nebulous claims concerning the case of Michael Flynn and alleged unauthorized surveillance of Flynn and others.[18][19]
Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories[20]
Spygate[3][21]
Stop the Steal[22]
Syrian refugee as ISIS members conspiracy[1]
Trump Tower wiretapping allegations[1][2]
Voter impersonation[1][2]
Wind turbines cause cancer[1][2]
Here is the link as to how these new laws are being used to restrict the black people's vote in the next election This is from the NAACP and LDF and the black voters perspective. Please I challenge all of you to not only read the article, but also watch the entire video. If you don't understand what the black voter faces after this, then you are a lost cause in my book.
I told wilderness that in order to understand the other side, you have to be empathetic and put yourself in their place. He said I would rather not get emotional, but stay objective. Wilderness. I think a person can have empathy without being emotional.
Sharlee: That does not mean that I'm belittling the black person. It means I'm trying to support their cause and understand it from their perspective.
https://www.naacpldf.org/naacp-publicat … sion-bill/It's quite interesting how things become twisted. For example, you link complains about getting ID's for rural people. Not black people - people that choose to live in rural areas where DMV offices do not have long hours. ALL people there, not just black people.
But somehow it is discrimination against black people and and "obvious" attempt to limit black voting.
There are very obvious reasons those offices are not open more, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the color of the people. Likewise, there are very obvious reasons to require an ID to vote, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the color of the voter.
Then there is the little matter of it "costing" $175 to get an ID even though they are free...IF the cost of travel, documentation that everyone should already have, and paying the potential voter for their time is factored in. That same cost is applied to voters of all colors, and will vary only by the person's CHOICE of where to live and what documents to maintain. Not by the color of their skin.
But, somehow, it is all about race. No, it is not. Not far from where I live is a group of people living in Hell's Canyon, transportation available only by specially made boats. It takes them a day, 2 different vehicles and probably 100 gallons of gas to reach the nearest DMV and get back home - are they, too, being discriminated against, this time because they are white?Wilderness: So you picked out Voter ID. How about all the other claims? You focused on just one of them. That's what they call Cherry Picking. Unfortunately, the new laws do apply to some whites as well, but I believe the intent of those laws is to mainly apply to blacks. If it does apply to some whites as well and it restrict their voting ability, the fault lies with the people who created those laws.
But I hope you watched the whole video and read the entire article, because that is the whole crux of this argument.
They are using Trump's voter fraud conspiracy as an excuse to change the voting laws. The purpose being to suppress the black vote because they had such a large turnout in the last election. And it may affect some white voters as well based on all that you mentioned.
Yes, I want that same turnout in this next election, but with these new laws, I don't think it will happen by their design. There was a reason, John Roberts gutted Section 5 of the Voters Right's Act. He took the teeth out of the act now the states are able to change the laws without any preclearance from the Feds.Let me once again cover the other complaints --- I think Georgia's new laws taken some of the very problems you mention. has considered the complaints of all citizens.
First I see you have mentioned the dropbox compliant --- "The issues are the impositions put upon the urban Atlanta (Fulton County) voters lack dropbox facilities".
YOU MAY NOT be aware of this, but Georgia never used dropboxes before this last election. They added them during COVID. They have seen realized the need for dropboxes and added them to the new voting laws. It was very clear lines were long, and this was new for Georgians...This may have been due to COVID. Do you feel only blacks were in those very long lines? I can provide many resources that show blacks as well as whites waiting to vote in the long lines. THERE WAS SOCIAL DISTANCING.
The fact is there were more drop boxes placed in Urban areas, and they were well used... Most likely another reason the new voting law has left them in the places where they could be suitably monitored. Most states do use drop boxes, but they are in locations that are well monitored. I think Georgia is wise to follow other states' laws that show drop boxes are useful but need to be monitored to ensure they are in no respect tampered with.
FACT ____ "Prior to the 2020 election, drop boxes weren't used in Georgia. They were brought in as part of emergency Covid action."
Resource https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56650565
FACT --- dropboxes were doubles in Atlanta and Fulton due to the population in urban areas. https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/f … o-add-more absentee-ballot-drop-box-locations/U7S4JOQEZFA57FECJSQ5PEQNY4/
I reviewed the laws here in Michigan for drop boxes, they are almost identical to Georgia's new requirements for drop boxes. My county has a dropbox in secure settings one per hundred thousand citizens.
Why do you feel Georgians need a different ratio than Michiganders? ( I live in a very Republican community, the law is set for all counties, no different in communities that may be Democratic.
SO IF YOU DON"T WANT NEW LAWS --- Georgia will have ZERO drop boxes without the new laws.
It is so odd we have come to look at Georgia's voting laws so differently. While reading the bill when it first came out, before the media went full speed to cause distension by calling the laws racist --- I came to the view that Georgia was really making an effort that would really please their citizens. Actually, their laws needed updating. They now resemble most of the other states voting laws.
I hope my information will at best have you taking a bit longer look at Georgia's new laws, and you might see they are very much like most states. Most likely they mirror your own state.
The media is really stretching this voter suppression BS out of context. I came to my sentiments after a lot of research on the subject. Believe it or not, there are two sides. I have offered a few facts that the media has not reported. Maybe simple facts about Georgia never having dropboxes before the 2020 election, and the fact that the new laws mirror most other states. Those facts are really important in the entire picture. Do you see other state's citizens wanting dropbox laws changed or the fact of where they are placed? In my view, Georgia's laws did need updating to mirror what worked in other states...
It seems you just don't acknowledge facts.In many ways the GOP may have shot themselves in the foot as all of their shenanigans could adversely affect their voter turnout.
No, it's not at all about race. In my view, It's about a political party that needs to race-bait to, to divert attention away from all the problems the Biden administration has caused so dam quickly. No more COVID to rely on, they need to revert back to page 101 "Race-Bait When In A Pickle"... Yeah that will work., Muddle their minds, keep them on the spin cycle...
The fact is the new voting laws do not discriminate against anyone. The facts are there for anyone to see.Sharlee: You didn't read my post so here it is again.
Sharlee, RMN, and Wilderness:
Sharlee: This is your request:
"I wish someone on the left would point out something in the Georgia law that is race specific. NONE of them can explain how it is discriminatory since it doesn't address anything based on race. This is the left's Don Quixote moment as they chase their windmills of racism."
Of course it doesn't address anything on race. Do you really think the framers of the bill are going to come out and say this bill is to suppress the black vote in the next election?...Give me break. As I said before that is what makes this so insidious. A conspiracy never has to be proven, it is just there and never goes away. That's is how Trump operates, based on lies and conspiracy theories. Did he prove any of these?
Alleged actions by Muslims as claimed by Britain First[1][4]
Belief that vaccines cause autism[1][2]
Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory[5]
Barack Obama birther conspiracy theories[1][2]
Clinton Body Count[1][6]
Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal[7][8][9]
Deep state in the United States[10]
Epstein didn't kill himself[11]
Suicide of Vince Foster[1]
Global warming conspiracy theory[1][2]
Hurricane Maria death toll controversy[1][2]
Italygate[12]
Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy[1][13][14]
Assassination of John F. Kennedy - alleged Rafael Cruz, the father of Texas Senator and Republican presidential candidate for the 2016 elections Ted Cruz, is tied to Lee Harvey Oswald.[15][16]
Murder of Seth Rich[17]
Obamagate – term ascribed in May 2020 to nebulous claims concerning the case of Michael Flynn and alleged unauthorized surveillance of Flynn and others.[18][19]
Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories[20]
Spygate[3][21]
Stop the Steal[22]
Syrian refugee as ISIS members conspiracy[1]
Trump Tower wiretapping allegations[1][2]
Voter impersonation[1][2]
Wind turbines cause cancer[1][2]
Here is the link as to how these new laws are being used to restrict the black people's vote in the next election This is from the NAACP and LDF and the black voters perspective. Please I challenge all of you to not only read the article, but also watch the entire video. If you don't understand what the black voter faces after this, then you are a lost cause in my book.
I told wilderness that in order to understand the other side, you have to be empathetic and put yourself in their place. He said I would rather not get emotional, but stay objective. Wilderness. I think a person can have empathy without being emotional.
Sharlee: That does not mean that I'm belittling the black person. It means I'm trying to support their cause and understand it from their perspective.
https://www.naacpldf.org/naacp-publicat … sion-bill/You are deflecting away from the fact that the Georgia new laws are not discriminatory.
This has nothing to do with being empathetic. This has to do with lawsuits that are making claims that black citizens are being discriminated against due to voting laws.
Yes, you provide a link where the complaints are listed...
I pointed out a few facts that show these problems were addressed very close to what many other states have in their laws.
You ignore the facts. completely. I have confidence the SC will address each and every lawsuit and use facts from the written laws, and in the end will rule that there is nothing that is discriminatory in Georgia's new laws.
In fact, I would think they will site the fairness of the new laws, and how Georgia bent over backward to try and alleviate their citizen's concerns and needs.
I appreciate yesterday's sound ruling, it set a good precedent. I don't think the SC will even hear most of the 7 or 8 cases that are seeing Georgia cover the new laws. I think they will hear Garland's case, and the rest will be denied due to being repetitious.Sharlee:
"Yes, you provide a link where the complaints are listed...
I pointed out a few facts that show these problems were addressed very close to what many other states have in their laws."
Those other state laws are discriminating as well. Why did John Roberts remove the part of the Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that prevented states from changing laws without review.
https://campaignlegal.org/update/five-d … -democracySo if I understand you correctly most states need to change voting laws. Laws that have worked well before this last election, and now that Dems feel they need to have no voter ID, and lots of unmonitored dropboxes, and vote harvesting. Go figure, is it me, or will all this lead to encourage fraud?
Sharlee:
If you read and understand what Section 5 is, it's about preclearance by the federal government of changing voting laws in those states that have a history of discriminatory voting practices. Section 5 had a formula that was used to determine that.
John Roberts and the GOP SC got way ahead of themselves by gutting Section 5 of the VRA in my opinion. In gutting Section 5, John Roberts concluded that racism is over in America, therefore, there is no need for Section 5 anymore.
There is no voter fraud other than Trump's conspiracy and all the people who believe there is have drunk Trump's Kool Aid.
The only fraud is Trump's lies about his election being stolen. Have they proved it...Are they going to prove it? The answer is no to both of those. That = conspiracy theory.
Let's face it. All of this is about people like me who want the democrats to win the next election and people like you who want the republicans to win the next election. So they are doing everything they can to make that happen.
But in addition to that Trumpers are wishing that after all the silliness of the recounts that Biden will step down and Trump will become president again. Long Live the King. However, as I said before that is not how the constitution works. Kamala Harris becomes the President.,,and after her it's Pelosi...Long Live Democracy.I don't think Biden would be removed if fraud was discovered. He is protected by the Constitution.
I do think if Arizona reports any substantial fraud that was perpetrated by either party --- that party will suffer in the next election.
Biden has his time to prove himself, as all presidents. It's unfortunate he will have the same treatment Trump got. He will be under a microscope.
You've presented your points quite well, here.
"Of course it doesn't address anything on race. Do you really think the framers of the bill are going to come out and say this bill is to suppress the black vote in the next election?"
Sound like you have a conspiracy theory. No real proof, but you know it's there.RMN: Talk to the black people. They will give you plenty of proof. I'm sure.
RMN: You are right I can't prove the future, but than neither can the conspiracy theorists. How many of Trump's I listed have been proven?
Just the way you folks see Trump's win being stolen?
I need to point out, you do this often. A question is passed and you deflect Trump. The question was simple, and it is on the subject, Yet here you are back to "Trump did this and that".
"I wish someone on the left would point out something in the Georgia law that is race specific. NONE of them can explain how it is discriminatory since it doesn't address anything based on race. This is the left's Don Quixote moment as they chase their windmills of racism."
We have covered a few of the left's complaints about what they claim is Georgia suppressing votes. You offered alike to an NAACP lawsuit. I offered facts to dispute many of their complaints. I pointed out drop boxes were never used in Georgia before 2020, but the new law has added drop boxes for voter convenience. They now can also have food and water 150 feet from the polls. Voting hours have been tweaked so more people can get to the polls. The state will also provide free voter ID's to any and all...
Do you feel these are promising new voting laws that will aid the voters of Georgia or will it suppress them from voting?
Hopefully, we can get back to the subject. It feels as if when you see facts you deflect.
In previous comments, I supplied all the resources to back up my information.Sharlee: In my book, Trump's conspiracy claim that the vote was stolen from him is the basis for all of this. I listed all of his conspiracies as not being proven because that is the nature of conspiracies. They are never proven and live on forever and the more he repeats them, the more people will believe him. That is also the nature of conspiracies.
The GOP is changing voter laws as a result of Trump's lies of losing the election. The new laws are supposed to prevent voter fraud. However they hope the end result will be to restrict the votes in the areas where Biden won the large black vote. It's all a smoke and mirrors game.
The laws don't state anything about restricting the black vote. We will only know when after the election takes place and a thorough analysis is done. Just like what the right is doing to Biden now.
I'm not deflecting. You just don't want to hear about how Trump's fraud is the basis for laws which are supposed to prevent fraud, but in fact their purpose is to restrict large black votes without specifying that in the laws. It will all come out in the wash during the next election cycle."Sharlee: In my book, Trump's conspiracy claim that the vote was stolen from him is the basis for all of this. "
First, your opinion is subjective, However, it is a popular view shared by some.
I think there could be a bit of truth to that statement. Many states have experienced their citizens up in arms about what they either felt was possible fraud, and the other half upset about what they see as voter suppression. IMO the media is responsible for both scenarios. I feel some states are changing mainly the laws their citizens were up in arms with. Some demanding Voter ID some demanding longer hours, and voting drop boxes, some wanting food, and water... I have sat back for the show, and just watching all the actors scream louder and louder.
"The GOP is changing voter laws as a result of Trump's lies of losing the election. The new laws are supposed to prevent voter fraud. However they hope the end result will be to restrict the votes in the areas where Biden won the large black vote. It's all a smoke and mirrors game. "
The new laws are not only to make it easier to vote but yes help curb voter fraud. Which does go on, in some amount. There is nothing to stop any pone from voting, many of the new laws now will include longer periods when people can vote at the polls, and vote via mail. You keep saying the same thing over and over... You do not address any given problem you feel would be unreasonable or discriminatory. Reda your posts...
"I'm not deflecting. You just don't want to hear about how Trump's fraud is the basis for laws which are supposed to prevent fraud, but in fact their purpose is to restrict large black votes without specifying that in the laws. It will all come out in the wash during the next election cycle."
Can you give any proof that states are changing laws due to Trump's fraud claims? You have. not so far. This is becoming non-sensical.
ONE LAST TIME --- What new voting law offense you or do you feel will discriminate against black people? I am very aware of Why you feel states are changing laws --- I am not aware of any laws that discriminate against blacks. Do you have one example? Otherwise why in the world do you make these kinds of claims?
It does not seem wise to take up a cause without at least proving there is a problem with a given law.
Yes, Mike there are "cities" but mostly dinky ones. Colorado Springs, Oklahoma City, etc.
Conservatives have been attacking the so called Democrat run large cities. Well, the overwhelming majority of the largest cities in America have Democratic mayors and we can presume from that that the urban areas are a far stronger constituency for Democrats than Republicans.
I think that the GOP, in all of its recent behavior, attacking voters from large metropolitan areas, a preponderance of which are black and minority of the battleground states, have revealed their true colors. If it wasn't for that urban vote, Trump might have won in these states. The urban areas have residing within large number of groups of people who vote against Republicans rather consistently, the very largest of that block were black.
So, race and living areas are a factor.Dinky ones? If you add up all the "dinky" ones, you'll find there are quite a few republicans living in urban areas. Why should size matter? Living in a city is living in a city no matter what its size.
So, you're telling me only large Democrat run cities are affected? If there a "only Democrat Run Large City" amendment in the Georgia law I didn't see? I've never seen it in any of the laws.
Again, I will stick with the fraud of the 2020 election. I know some people who are in Arizona. The DOJ is threatening a lawsuit if the results are released any time soon. According to them, the audit clearly shows Biden did not win the state of Arizona. I'm sure if similar audits were done in other states, it would be clear Biden should not be president. The Democrats and the federal government are fighting these audits with all their resources. They don't want people to know the truth.
President Donald Trump reached new heights for a Republican candidate by obtaining 12 percent of the black vote. Many black men voted for him.Mike, It was a good victory when the SC banned the collection of absentee ballots by anyone other than a relative or caregiver, and the other threw out any ballots cast in the wrong precinct in Arizona. Set a good precedent. Makes me comfortable that the SC is standing strong against all the drummed-up cases of voter suppression.
I would think many of the cases filed in regard to voter suppression won't even be taken up by the SC.I hear you Mike but there is a reason why smaller cities and rural areas are more predominantly Republican and Democrats enjoy the support of a greater numbers of urban dwellers. Of course there are always exception, but the rule is that the overwhelming number of "real big" cities in America belong to an overwhelming Democrat constituency with few exceptions.
We have yet to have the "proof" of all these fraud claims, until then then all of this remains pure conjecture. But, I have heard Trump boast that he expects to be reinstated into office by August. By what mechanism that would occur short of treason and insurrection from a rabid right, I don't know. It certainly is too early to "count chickens" regardless of the Qanon crystal ball.
Mike, at only 12 percent, I would a different adjective than many, few would be more appropriate. But the ladies have not lost their senses and have given Trump far less support"I have heard Trump boast that he expects to be reinstated into office by August."
Cred, This is just leftist propaganda. I've see those articles as well. There is not one that has a direct quote from President Donald Trump. They all claim "sources close to Trump" or people who know people who know Trump," etc., etc.
The problem in Arizona is one they've never had before. If it can be proven that Biden did not win Arizona, that means their secretary of state certified a fraudulent election, she could be put on trial. That would be huge. Do I think it will happen? NO. Biden is bringing the full weight of the federal government down on Maricopa county in Arizona to prevent the results from being released. The lawsuits have begun. So, it's going to be interesting to see how this all pans out.
Happy Fourth of July!And a Capital 4th to you as well, Mike
If what have been reading about Trump is propaganda, I certainly wouldn't see it confirmed on a esteemed conservative website like "National Review".
Yeah, it will be interesting to see just how far all of this will go.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/ … -is-right/
I wasn't privy to the entire article as I am not a member but the introduction supported what I have been saying. Am I missing something, somewhere?
I appreciate your opinion... But, let me just add a few eggs to this mixed-up Omelet. Just to put some meat to my opinion why I think Georgia's new laws taken some of the very problems you mention. has considered the complaints of all citizens.
First I see you have mentioned the dropbox compliant --- "The issues are the impositions put upon the urban Atlanta (Fulton County) voters lack of dropbox facilities".
You may not be aware of this, but Georgia never used dropboxes before this last election. They added them during COVID. They have seen realized the need for dropboxes and added them to the new voting laws. It was very clear lines were long, and this was new for Georgians...This may have been due to COVID. Do you feel only blacks were in those very long lines? I can provide many resources that show blacks as well as whites waiting to vote in the long lines.
The fact there were more drop boxes placed in Urban areas, and they were well used... Most likely another reason the new voting law has left them in the places where they could be suitably monitored. Most states do use drop boxes, but they are in locations that are well monitored. I think Georgia is wise to follow other states' laws that show drop boxes are useful but need to be monitored to ensure they are in no respect tampered with.
"Prior to the 2020 election, drop boxes weren't used in Georgia. They were brought in as part of emergency Covid action."
Resource https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56650565
Fact dropboxes were doubles in Atlanta and Fulton due to the population in urban areas. https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/f … o-add-more absentee-ballot-drop-box-locations/U7S4JOQEZFA57FECJSQ5PEQNY4/
I reviewed the laws here in Michigan for drop boxes, they are almost identical to Georgia's new requirements for drop boxes. My county has a drop box in secure settings one per hundred thousand citizens.
Why do you feel Georgians need a different ratio than Michiganders? ( I live in a very Republican community, the law is set for all counties, no different in communities that may be Democratic.
The Supreme Court will hopefully be non-bias.
I am not sure how you think the GOP can stop minorities from voting?
It is so odd we have come to look at Georgia's voting laws so differently. While reading the bill when it first came out, before the media went full speed to cause distension by calling the laws racist --- I came to the view that Georgia was really making an effort that would really please their citizens. Actually, their laws needed updating. They now resemble most of the other states voting laws.
I hope my information will at best have you taking a bit longer look at Georgia's new laws, and you might see they are very much like most states. Most likely they mirror your own state.
The media is really stretching this voter suppression BS out of context. I came to my sentiments after a lot of research on the subject. Believe it or not, there are two sides. I have offered a few facts that the media has not reported. Maybe simple facts about Georgia never having dropboxes before the 2020 election, and the fact that the new laws mirror most other states. Those facts are really important in the entire picture. Do you see other state's citizens wanting our dropbox laws changed or the fact of where they are placed? In my view, Georgia's laws did need updating to mirror what worked in other states...
Hey, I am saying it as I see it. As I appreciate it when you tell it as you see it.
It would seem we have once again come at a problem using different variables.The point that I need to make here is that this problem just didn't materialize out of thin air in November 2020.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/2 … out-432405
I support the idea of monitoring drop boxes as long as they are adequate in number and accessible to more people over longer periods of time.
Of course the GOP cannot physically stop me from casting a ballot, but an 11 hour wait in line without refreshment is discouraging as to my remaining to complete the task at hand.
The ratio for the use of drop boxes should be based on population within a specific geographical area. That, whether it be Georgia or Michigan.
Thanks for your links. I just wonder why blacks according to your BBC article seem to be always subject to longer lines and wait times?
You have presented your case well as there is enough ambiguity in the Garland suit to give Republicans an easy way to discredit it. I think more effort needs to be put upon Georgia and states with large urban population to make certain that facilities are available to avoid long wait times, which coincidentally affects minority vote turnout as so many live in urban areas. If that is not successful with the court WE may have to "bum rush" the polls voting out legislators and officers of the state's Executive branch.
It is natural for Republicans to want to discourage those voters who consistently vote against their candidates and policies, but their attempt to control the electoral outcome has to fall within parameters of being both legal and ethical.
You have made your case well, just remember that there was a time not so terribly long ago where states legislatures used arcane tools to discourage people they did not want to vote from voting. These were primarily conservatives, so the concept is not exactly unknown. They were all supported under the concept of "States Rights". With conservatives, you never really know if we are truly beyond such tactics."Of course the GOP cannot physically stop me from casting a ballot, but an 11 hour wait in line without refreshment is discouraging as to my remaining to complete the task at hand."
I never understood what the problem is with waiting in line. If I believe I may have to wait in line for a long time, I take my own refreshments. I take a backpack with the food I like as well as drinks. I even have a chair I can take if necessary. I don't like the idea of depending on someone else to take care of me for such things. I can easily take care of myself.RMN: That's because you are a special person.
Why is my group subject to waiting in long lines while yours are not? It is more than food, it can be about work and other responsibilities. That is why the day for voting should be designated a holiday.
Otherwise, your point is well taken, as to why not bring along a sandwich or two?
Sharlee: I know about the Arizona case and the SC. I want you to realize that would not be possible if John Roberts had not gutted Section 5 of the VRA because it requires review by a federal board. This is spelled out in the lawsuit.
You and others have a way of downplaying my comments. But I have read all 43 pages of the lawsuit and I'm here to tell you almost every source that you asked from me is in that lawsuit. You just refuse to read it because you are afraid of what you will learn. All you read are bullets points about how the law discriminates about black voters, but never the background behind it.
More than likely Garland's lawsuit will be overruled, but its not because it doesn't have merit. Thanks to Mitch McConnell, he has contrived to stack the court with the GOP advantage. This is all about a power play to ensure the GOP advantage in the next election cycle.
Garland's law suit gives the history of black voter discrimination and the rational as to how they were a deciding force in the last election and how these laws have been very carefully crafted to take that force away from them for the next election cycle.
Yes, the laws don't specify discrimination but if you apply them to the how the blacks were a force in the last election, they are definitely discriminatory. And they use the lie of preventing further voter fraud as their justification.I did read the Garlands case as you requested. And due to reading Georgia's voting bill, it made Garland's case more coherent, and it's clear his lawsuit has listed all the new laws that Georgia added to their voting laws.
Garland is calling for relief under Section 2 --- "The Voting Rights Act authorizes the Attorney General to file a civil action on behalf of the United States of America seeking injunctive, preventive, and permanent relief forVIOLATIONS OF Section 2 of the Act. 52 U.S.C. § 10308(d)."
Section 2 clearly allows voting rights plaintiffs to prevail in two ways. 1. They can either prove that an election law was enacted with racist intent.
2. or they can show that it results in people of color being denied their right to vote.
THE SC WILL GIVE A JUDGEMENT ON THOSE TWO COUNTS. Hopefully fairly.
In the past, John Roberts argued: "that prohibiting laws that merely have the effect of disenfranchising voters is unnecessary because voting rights plaintiffs can fairly easily prove that racist laws were enacted with invidious intent."
Garland clearly hopes to prove that the points under his case were directed to make it hard for Blacks to vote. His points were very much what we have been conversing about. The very laws that he feels are discriminatory.
Examples from Garlands case -- Require most voters who lack certain identification numbers to photocopy another form of identification each time they request an absentee ballot, reduce the period of time in which voters may apply for an absentee ballot, and restrict the use and availability of drop boxes to return that ballot; • Prohibit distributing food and water to voters waiting in line to cast their ballots; an more...)
The Voting Rights Act authorizes the Attorney General to file a civil action on behalf of the United States of America seeking injunctive, preventive, and permanent relief for violations of Section 2 of the Act. 52 U.S.C. § 10308(d).
If Garland can prove that the state of Georgia sought to discriminate he will win his case. IMO it will be hard due to the new laws seem overly fair.
In my view, white people suffered all the same inconveniences as black in Georgia in the last election, and like Black people, and white people are bound to follow the new voting laws. Sorry, I see nothing racist in the laws Georgia added to their voting laws. Yes, there were problems voting in the last election, IMO due to COVID. But white people also suffered through the same inconveniences.
I did not set out to downplay your view, just to debate it. I tried very hard to offer sources to back my views.
"Garland's lawsuit gives the history of black voter discrimination and the rationale as to how they were a deciding force in the last election and how these laws have been very carefully crafted to take that force away from them for the next election cycle."
I see this very differently -- I ask does it help to claim discrimination if none was possibly intended? White people suffered the same problems in the last election in Georgia. I am not sure what will stop blacks from voting in our future elections. The laws have been made to make it easier to vote than ever before in Georgia.
Did you visit Georgia's Voting information website that I offered the link to? You need to have a look at the information in regards to all that you seem to have concerns about. You may be very surprised, and I really think you will see why Garland will not be able to prove discrimination.
https://georgia.gov/voting
Georgia can stand behind these very fair mined voting laws they have their citizens covered from A - Z.
Yet, at this point, the media the Dems in Washington continue to promote a very race-baiting hateful theory. This is political, and a very destructive ploy at that. This is not fair to anyone, especially black citizens.Sharlee: The web site looks very peachy keen, no pun intended and very simple and straight forward to use. My background is technical writing and until procedures that are like flow diagrams are validated, there is no way of telling where the pit falls are.
I'm sure if that web site is presented to the SC, they will find nothing wrong with it and definitely no discrimination. However, the proof of the pudding is when it is actually put into use and see how all the rules, regulations, and laws that it encompasses affects the black voters as to whether it discriminates or not.
It is called usability testing. If in the next election if black people complain that they can't vote when or where they want to, like in the last election then it is discriminating.The website has provided the actual information on voting rules/laws for citizens. The rules are straightforward and give very simple information on voting rules. You seem to be adding in your own doubts that Georgia is up to no good.
Yes, in the end, the improvements some states feel will make it easier to vote could not pan out.
" If in the next election if black people complain that they can't vote when or where they want to, like in the last election then it is discriminating."
REALLY --- so what your saying is if black people don't like the rules it is discrimination? Voting laws are made for all citizens, it is possible some citizens due to some variable may not prefer a rule. That does not automatically mean that citizen was discriminated against.Sharlee: Here is what Garland is arguing. All that applies except the food and water clause. The website does not disclose any of the following:
COMPLAINT
The United States of America, plaintiff herein, alleges:
1. In March 2021, the Georgia legislature enacted an omnibus election
bill known as Georgia Senate Bill 202 (2021) (“SB 202”). See Exhibit 1. The legislature passed the bill against the backdrop of:
• Georgia’s history of discrimination against Black Georgians,
demographic shifts in the state leading to an increase in the number of
Black voters and other voters of color;
• A dramatic increase in Black Georgians’ use of absentee voting
- 2 -
• Heavily publicized Black voter mobilization efforts (including efforts to
overcome long lines in precincts serving Black voters); and
• Black Georgians’ unprecedented recent successes in electing candidates of choice.
2. In particular, SB 202’s provisions:
• Prohibit government entities from mailing unsolicited absentee ballot
applications and impose substantial fines on third-party organizations that
send follow-up absentee ballot applications;
• Require most voters who lack certain identification numbers to
photocopy another form of identification each time they request an
absentee ballot, reduce the period of time in which voters may apply for
an absentee ballot, and restrict the use and availability of drop boxes to
return that ballot;
• Prohibit distributing food and water to voters waiting in line to cast their
ballots; and
• Prohibit counting out-of-precinct provisional ballots unless they are cast
after 5 p.m. on Election Day.
The Georgia legislature enacted SB 202 with knowledge of the disproportionate effect that these provisions (collectively, the “challenged provisions), both singly
- 3 -
and together, would have on Black voters’ ability to participate in the political process on an equal basis with white voters.
3. The Attorney General files this action pursuant to Sections 2 and
12(d) of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. §§ 10301 & 10308(d), to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
4. In this action, the Attorney General challenges portions of SB 202,
which was signed into law on March 25, 2021, and makes significant changes to Georgia’s election laws.
5. In enacting SB 202, the Georgia General Assembly intended to deny
or abridge the right of Black Georgians to vote on account of race or color.Yes, however, you leave one thing out --- Garland needs to give proof, evidence of his claims to the court. He certainly has presented an argument that he feels shows a long list of problems of discrimination, but no real proof of discrimination as of yet. The court will look at the new laws, and weigh them against Garland's complaint.
I am only giving my opinion, after looking at his case, his complaints -- And viewing the new laws, and taking into consideration the last election was different than any other due to COVID --- And considering the new laws seem to provide solutions to many of Garlands concerns.
The court may also consider white people were subject to the same problems as blacks in the last election, and that discrimination was not evident. IMO, the new laws do not discriminate against either race.
Black people are as able-bodied to vote as white people. Black and white share rural as well as urban neighborhoods. His case IMO just does not prove anyone was discriminated against, and the new laws
are suitable to provide voting opportunities for all races.
I don't feel we need to look at black as less able to vote at the polls or get their vote mailed in absentee. I am not willing to say they are hampered due to their skin color in regard to being able to vote. As I have said before, this all tends to indicate Blacks are less intelligent than white people and can't maneuver themselves to cast a ballot. (Which I totally disagree with.)
I am not backing down this to me is political, and meant to race-bait. It is a very disgraceful ploy at the expense of the black race.Sharlee: You are right that is all your opinion. My opinion is based on Garland's argument. It's not about their skin color it is about how they represent a large voting bloc in the last election. If they were white Albanians and had a large voting bloc in Georgia, I believe Georgia would try to abridged their vote as well. That's what is insidious about these laws, they don't call out skin color, but their intent is give advantage to the GOP.
Yes there was precedent set with the SC on the two Arizona laws being overruled, but we don't know how the SC is going to rule on something that would abridge others right to vote. They overruled the repeal of Obama Care which was a big surprise to the GOP. So we have to wait and see.And yes, you know who forged a compromise in 2012 with the four Supreme Court liberal justices to uphold the signature domestic achievement of Obama. -- that was Justice Roberts. So keep in mind he remained very clear-headed and fair. As I said I will put my trust in the SC, and I will be on board with their decision. No sour grapes...
When I state I don't see anything racist in Georgie's new laws I do so with a fair mind, and lot's of research.
Hey, I most certainly could be wrong, due to maybe looking at it from another angle.
MartyMade Twitter post explains things perfectly. Thanks to Tucker Carlson for reading it on his show.
"Tucker Carlson Reads Viral Thread About “Why So Many People Believe The Election Was Rigged”
https://wiredailynews.com/2021/07/10/tu … as-rigged/
Here is the Twitter Feed by Marytrrmade referred to by Tucker Carlson
https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1 … 8956088321First --- Trump was the president that officially gave the date that our troops would be pulled out of Afghanistan --- Just a fact so people don't credit this move to Biden --- Source https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ … 667248001/
PP --- "He is leading from behind when he tells Putin that he will respond in kind to cyber attacks? He is leading from behind when he wants people to go door-to-door to get others vaccinated?"
These are nothing but a bunch of meaningless words. Biden has taken no action on either. He just comes out and appeared confused reading words he is clearly not comprehending. Just deadpanned reading the words.
Words, that's all -- Sort of like when the Democrats say they will be changing their voting laws... All talk thus far. Biden did away with sanctions so the Russian pipeline could be completed. I would assume to kiss Germany's butt... Or Putin's? Your borrowing from if comes...
PP --- "Why is is it that states that support Trump are the ones who's people are dying from the Delta Variant and refuse to get vaccinated? It's because of the right wing propaganda that is being spewed by Fox and MAGA news."
It is clear many states that mitigated less, and pretty much stayed open are having higher numbers of Delta virus. This is America, and we have the freedom to choose. Trump and his entire family have been vaccinated. This is a fact and was well reported. So not sure why you attribute many red states citizens reluctance to get vaccinated. People have the right to refuse the vaccine as our black population here in Michigan has done. My gosh, trump worked to get us many vaccines why would anyone think Trump was against vaccines. Your logic escapes me.
PP --- "The real problem is that Trump has divided and continues to divide this country into a 21st century civil war to satisfy his sick ego of losing the election. His Jan. 6 insurrection involved shootings and killings. And his supporters are ready to take action again.
All he has to do is give the order."
I can only offer an opinion on your sentiment --- I do think Trump gave many that had no voice before a voice. However, there are several variables that I think are dividing the country. Number one leftist ideologies that the majority of American's find unpalatable, and unamerican.
Two, the Democratic party using race to stir up pure hate.
There, and this is just in the early stages, an administration that lacks any common sense, and ignores the needs of the common citizens to push fluffy ideologies while crime is running ramped, our borders are wide open, and the American citizens are once again being ignored by elites in Washington. The Democrats ignore huge problems and are creating more and more problems every day. Take the push for CRT, parents are up in arms, and thus far are being ignored. Let's see how that plays out in the fall...
the party is doomed in the 2022 elections as will they be in 2024 due to their own stupidity.Sharlee:
"First --- Trump was the president that officially gave the date that our troops would be pulled out of Afghanistan --- Just a fact so people don't credit this move to Biden --- Source https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ … 667248001/
Biden had a choice, leave the Troops there or pull out. He decided to pull out completely and let them fight their own wars.
"It is clear many states that mitigated less, and pretty much stayed open are having higher numbers of Delta virus. This is America, and we have the freedom to choose. Trump and his entire family have been vaccinated. This is a fact and was well reported. So not sure why you attribute many red states citizens reluctance to get vaccinated. People have the right to refuse the vaccine as our black population here in Michigan has done. My gosh, trump worked to get us many vaccines why would anyone think Trump was against vaccines. Your logic escapes me."
Just because Trump and his family got the vaccine, doesn't mean that all his followers are going to get it. I'm sure Tucker Carlson got his vaccines as well, but he continues to bad mouth the vaccine and that is where many of his red state people get the information from.
Sure, people have the right to refuse the vaccine and they will pay the price for that. Not only that, but it is selfish to not help each other to overcome this virus. But by not getting vaccinating, they are increasing the potential to spread the Delta Variant.
I blame Tucker Carlson who only cares about high ratings so that his sponsors will pay him the ridiculous salary he gets. He should go to jail for how he has manipulated this country for his own self-interest.
It's survival of the fittest and they are not going to survive or they are going to be in very poor health. It is the natural order of things.
"Two, the Democratic party using race to stir up pure hate.
There, and this is just in the early stages, an administration that lacks any common sense, and ignores the needs of the common citizens to push fluffy ideologies while crime is running ramped, our borders are wide open, and the American citizens are once again being ignored by elites in Washington. The Democrats ignore huge problems and are creating more and more problems every day. Take the push for CRT, parents are up in arms, and thus far are being ignored. Let's see how that plays out in the fall..."
The words that you use like: “fluffy ideologies, race baiting, wide open borders, elites in Washington, and CRT” are fraught with right-wing propaganda. The democrats will probably lose the next election, but it’s not because they don’t have a platform. What is the right-wing platform? Count the ballots again and again, change the voting laws, obstruct any bipartisan compromise for infrastructure, make Biden a one term president by obstructing and criticizing his every move, repeal Obama Care, bring more Qanon people into congress, more tax breaks for the wealthy?
"Biden had a choice, leave the Troops there or pull out. He decided to pull out completely and let them fight their own wars."
This is factual. He decided to pursue Trump's solution to a war that was never going to end. To Bad Bush or Obama did not pull out and save us lot's of money, and once again walking out of a war that made no sense.
Not sure about Tucker's stance on the vaccine. As a rule, I find him scarily honest, and he adds facts to make it even scarier. he is blunt, and certainly, there is no doubt about what his opinion is.
I certainly hoped more citizens would get vaccinated. And yes they will spread it mostly among themselves and become part of the herd. (I am aware there is a small chance vaccinated people can still get Delta. However, stats show vaccinated people can still contract Delta but have a low percentage of becoming very ill with the new variant.
Not much we can do other than move on, and handle each mutation as it comes.
"What is the right-wing platform? "
America First. Peace through strength, solve our problems with common-sense solutions that benefit America, law and order, a good economy, a Government that works for the people, and that does not work hard to turn one against the other for mere votes. We want free speech, not big tech controlling the narrative. I could go on... Most of what I mentioned was apparent under Trump. And is now a memory, and yes many are very mad and will work hard to take back the White House. Many of us appreciated what Trump accomplished, and his American spirit.
Know we have a man that truly has no connection to the people, He hid in his basement, and spoke little, now he stays in the WH and said what he is told to say IMO most citizens will not tolerate Biden for another term. We have witnessed what a working president can get done. Many citizens will not return down a failing path. The American first movement has really just begun. It's going nowhere but forward. The Republicans can see it will no longer be business as usual. They will move with the people or be moved to the side.Sharlee:
America First. Peace through strength, solve our problems with common-sense solutions that benefit America, law and order, a good economy, a Government that works for the people, and that does not work hard to turn one against the other for mere votes.
M-We have peace through strength. We have a good economy. The GOP is turning one against another for more votes.
We want free speech, not big tech controlling the narrative. I could go on... Most of what I mentioned was apparent under Trump. And is now a memory, and yes many are very mad and will work hard to take back the White House. Many of us appreciated what Trump accomplished, and his American spirit.
M-Yes, you really liked Trump’s over 10,000 documented lies and misinformation. Could that be the reason social media banned him? He didn’t have American spirt. He had Trump spirit. All he did is play to people’s fantasies. He lied to them about the pandemic. I already gave you a list of all his conspiracy theories that never were proven, but they are still alive and well.
We have free speech. If we didn’t, there would not be Fox /MAGA news. We wouldn’t have had the Jan. 6 insurrection. We wouldn’t have had Qanon members in congress who think Biden is like Hitler with his brown shirt campaign to get more people to take the vaccine.
So all the things that you listed that Biden is not doing is just a matter of bringing Trump back and presto, he will take care of all of those things?I must decline from responding to your comment. We just don't agree on where the county is headed under Biden, and where it was under Trump.
Would I have preferred Trump won? Yes, As I said I think he was getting the country on the right track. I realize you feel differently, But I was very satisfied with his leadership. I never bought into the media propaganda, just followed his wins.There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It's a way of how many liberals communicate when they disagree. This seems to me to be predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them.
Here is an example of our conversation that clearly shows total disregard for my thoughts.
ME --- We want free speech, not big tech controlling the narrative. I could go on... Most of what I mentioned was apparent under Trump. And is now a memory, and yes many citizens are very mad and will work hard to take back the White House. Many of us appreciated what Trump accomplished, and his American spirit.
Your response --- Yes, you really liked Trump’s over 10,000 documented lies and misinformation. Could that be the reason social media banned him? He didn’t have American spirt. He had Trump spirit. All he did is play to people’s fantasies. He lied to them about the pandemic. I already gave you a list of all his conspiracy theories that never were proven, but they are still alive and well.
Your smugness is thick --- You completely come off as feeling superior, and that your opinion negates mine completely. You did not even address my thoughts . You just pompously pumped up your own thoughts.
As a rule, I offer sources to back a thought or opinion to make sure the person I am having a conversation with can see how I formed my opinion. As I have in our conversation in regard to Georgia's new voting laws.
I clearly disputed many of the falsehoods that are being passed around via media in regard to GA's new laws. You pretty much continued to bring these falsehoods even though I offered actual facts you were just not correct. It would seem you are unmovable in your opinion even when facts are presented.Sharlee:
ME --- We want free speech, not big tech controlling the narrative. I could go on... Most of what I mentioned was apparent under Trump. And is now a memory, and yes many citizens are very mad and will work hard to take back the White House. Many of us appreciated what Trump accomplished, and his American spirit.
Your response --- Yes, you really liked Trump’s over 10,000 documented lies and misinformation. Could that be the reason social media banned him? He didn’t have American spirt. He had Trump spirit. All he did is play to people’s fantasies. He lied to them about the pandemic. I already gave you a list of all his conspiracy theories that never were proven, but they are still alive and well.
M- To me, what you implying is that twitter, Facebook, and other companies banned Trump because he put out too many lies (over 10,000) that were getting in the way of the truth, so they banned him. In Trump’s rallies and speeches, he plays to the audience. He plays to their fantasies and he tells them what they want to hear and see. It’s a big production with music food and a lot of criticism about the left “Fake New. Enemy of the people. They don't even realize, they are being radicalized and brain washed.
S-Your smugness is thick --- You completely come off as feeling superior, and that your opinion negates mine completely. You did not even address my thoughts . You just pompously pumped up your own thoughts.
M- I don’t feel superior. As a matter of fact, I’m afraid Trump and the right-wing propaganda are going to ruin this country. We are already in a civil war of sorts and people have been killed and injured as a result of Jan. 6 and they could do it again.
S-As a rule, I offer sources to back a thought or opinion to make sure the person I am having a conversation with can see how I formed my opinion. As I have in our conversation in regard to Georgia's new voting laws.
I clearly disputed many of the falsehoods that are being passed around via media in regard to GA's new laws. You pretty much continued to bring these falsehoods even though I offered actual facts you were just not correct. It would seem you are unmovable in your opinion even when facts are presented.
M- I thought I offered actual facts as well. You notice, that I also provide links to back-up my comments. To me it is as if you feel superior because you think your research is more superior than my links and you read all the laws and didn't see any evidence of voter rights being abridged.
The truth is Trump lied about the election being stolen from him and we will not know what effect these new laws will bring about until they are used. Congress and the SC are weighted towards, Trump and conservatives. That’s a fact.
I asked you what the republican platform is about and you gave me campaign slogans that don’t show how they are going to implement them into policies. You think republicans are the only ones who want freedom of speech?
It turns out that conservatives are constantly throwing in the face of liberals, that they are more American than the liberals. Liberals are smug, race baiting, socialist, communist parasite, free loaders who like big government and hate freedom of anything and want to take away the guns and liberty of real American Conservatives.
And now RMN says they can’t comprehend complex subjects because they are too stupid. Therefore, they get confused easily and don’t know what they are talking about. Give me a friggin break.
You talk about Trump's performance and don't care about his behavior. I'm curious, what are the result of his performance do you like?
PP -- " To me, what you implying is that twitter, Facebook, and other companies banned Trump because he put out too many lies (over 10,000) that were getting in the way of the truth, so they banned him. In Trump’s rallies and speeches, he plays to the audience.
I did not attribute the big tech problem had anything to do with Trump.
My comment -- We want free speech, not big tech controlling the narrative
.
Big tech censors out whatever they please. One can make mention of Biden in a derogarory tone, such as put Hitler in the sentence and its removed, On ecan out and out call Trump Hiitler and their good to go. Twitter, and facebook chose to cesor anything they find objective politically. IMO this kind of censoring is unexceptable.
PP -- We are already in a civil war of sorts and people have been killed and injured as a result of Jan. 6 and they could do it again.
This in my view is hyperbolic. We are not in a civil war. We are at a point that Americans are split politically on which way they want the country to go. I note you did not address all the riots of last summer that went on fro month. 19 people were killed, and hurt, many buildings were burnt, and busisnesses ruined. I certainly did not approve of those violent riots the liberals were involved in . I did not approve of the many Dem states defunding their police. But you don't find me constantly adding these facts into my conversations.
Is this not your opinion? It more sounds like a mantra. I would assume that many American's don't share your beliefs in regard to your many complaints about Trump. He factually received 74 million votes. So, it's very possible they did not share your opinion. The rest of your comment is just a Trump bashing,most of what I don't agree with.
PP -- To me it is as if you feel superior because you think your research is more superior than my links and you read all the laws and didn't see any evidence of voter rights being abridged.
My research was in this case better than internet articles. I offered Government siyes that listed their voting laws. And I posted quotes from GA's actual bill in regards to a couple of stiicking points we had. Iafgain did read the GA bill (not any other states Bills)and felt confident to quote what I understood. I don't believe any of the bill showed disrimantion. The laws made very good sence.
PP- I asked you what the republican platform is about and you gave me campaign slogans that don’t show how they are going to implement them into policies.
I gave a long list of the Republican platform, it may well have sounded like campaign slogans --- But they are what I feel it is relivant in regard to Republicans are looking for, and will run on.
PP -- It turns out that conservatives are constantly throwing in the face of liberals, that they are more American than the liberals. Liberals are smug, race baiting, socialist, communist parasite, free loaders who like big government and hate freedom of anything and want to take away the guns and liberty of real American Conservatives.
I do believe at times some of us on the right do certainly bring up features we attribute to liberals such as not being true Americans,that Demacrats use race-baiting when campaigning, lean toward being socialists and all the rest.
I myself have stated some of these very things . I try to keep them in context to what is being discussed, and offer those thoughts as my view. Much of what you mentioned are at times notable when having an open conversation. It's hard not to point these things out.
Many of us do see a wide swing to the left in the Demacratic party. So, naturally as conservatives many of us find this distastful, and truely unexseptable. Again am not speaking for all, but some...
PP -- You talk about Trump's performance and don't care about his behavior. I'm curious, what are the result of his performance do you like?
My gosh this a very long list. so I will offer once again a Government site that presents Trumps accomplishments. I hope you will take time to look at this site, and really look at what he did accomplish. I think you will be shocked most has not really been reported to the general public. What you will see are facts.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/tr … lishments/
In regards to his behavior, he was out spoken, often unnecessarily
overly blunt, and at times ill spoken.
However, he did the job he was hired to do. He did it better tan mos t in my view. He made promises, and worked hard to try to bring as many as he could to fruition. He always put America first. He was in no respect a talking head politician my view. I am done with that type of president.Sharlee:
PP -- " To me, what you implying is that twitter, Facebook, and other companies banned Trump because he put out too many lies (over 10,000) that were getting in the way of the truth, so they banned him. In Trump’s rallies and speeches, he plays to the audience.
I did not attribute the big tech problem had anything to do with Trump.
My comment -- We want free speech, not big tech controlling the narrative
Big tech censors out whatever they please. One can make mention of Biden in a derogarory tone, such as put Hitler in the sentence and its removed, On ecan out and out call Trump Hiitler and their good to go. Twitter, and facebook chose to cesor anything they find objective politically. IMO this kind of censoring is unexceptable.
M- We want free speech as well, but not free speech that is designed to bring harm to others. That is precisely why Trump was banned. Why do you think he was banned?
PP -- We are already in a civil war of sorts and people have been killed and injured as a result of Jan. 6 and they could do it again.
This in my view is hyperbolic. We are not in a civil war. We are at a point that Americans are split politically on which way they want the country to go. I note you did not address all the riots of last summer that went on fro month. 19 people were killed, and hurt, many buildings were burnt, and busisnesses ruined. I certainly did not approve of those violent riots the liberals were involved in . I did not approve of the many Dem states defunding their police. But you don't find me constantly adding these facts into my conversations.
M- The black people are included in my view of this civil war I’ve seen you add those facts many times. That is part of what makes this a civil war. It’s about the blacks as well as the whites and it includes all the white superiority troops like the proud boys, oath keepers, and the three percenters.
Is this not your opinion? It more sounds like a mantra. I would assume that many American's don't share your beliefs in regard to your many complaints about Trump. He factually received 74 million votes. So, it's very possible they did not share your opinion. The rest of your comment is just a Trump bashing,most of what I don't agree with.
M- When you say most of American’s don’t share my beliefs, you are only talking about Trump supporters. America is more than just Trump supporters.
PP -- To me it is as if you feel superior because you think your research is more superior than my links and you read all the laws and didn't see any evidence of voter rights being abridged.
My research was in this case better than internet articles. I offered Government siyes that listed their voting laws. And I posted quotes from GA's actual bill in regards to a couple of stiicking points we had. Iafgain did read the GA bill (not any other states Bills)and felt confident to quote what I understood. I don't believe any of the bill showed disrimantion. The laws made very good sence.
M- To you the laws made very good sense, but you didn’t agree with Merrick Garland’s argument that Georgia’s laws are abridging black peoples’ right to vote. I told you and I believe it is too soon to tell how these laws are going to affect the black people’s votes.
PP- I asked you what the republican platform is about and you gave me campaign slogans that don’t show how they are going to implement them into policies.
I gave a long list of the Republican platform, it may well have sounded like campaign slogans --- But they are what I feel it is relivant in regard to Republicans are looking for, and will run on.
PP -- It turns out that conservatives are constantly throwing in the face of liberals, that they are more American than the liberals. Liberals are smug, race baiting, socialist, communist parasite, free loaders who like big government and hate freedom of anything and want to take away the guns and liberty of real American Conservatives.
I do believe at times some of us on the right do certainly bring up features we attribute to liberals such as not being true Americans,that Demacrats use race-baiting when campaigning, lean toward being socialists and all the rest.
I myself have stated some of these very things . I try to keep them in context to what is being discussed, and offer those thoughts as my view. Much of what you mentioned are at times notable when having an open conversation. It's hard not to point these things out.
M- So that makes them O.K., all the name calling without any proof is O.K. as long as you give the context.
Many of us do see a wide swing to the left in the Demacratic party. So, naturally as conservatives many of us find this distastful, and truely unexseptable. Again am not speaking for all, but some...
M- Again that makes it O.K. because it is unacceptable to you and others like you. I bet most of the people who use those terms don’t even know what real socialism and communism are about. They are just right-wing talking points, just like CRT. Woke, cancel culture, deep state and many more derogatory names that can't be substantiated.
PP -- You talk about Trump's performance and don't care about his behavior. I'm curious, what are the result of his performance do you like?
My gosh this a very long list. so I will offer once again a Government site that presents Trumps accomplishments. I hope you will take time to look at this site, and really look at what he did accomplish. I think you will be shocked most has not really been reported to the general public. What you will see are facts.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/tr … lishments/
In regards to his behavior, he was out spoken, often unnecessarily
overly blunt, and at times ill spoken.
However, he did the job he was hired to do. He did it better tan mos t in my view. He made promises, and worked hard to try to bring as many as he could to fruition. He always put America first. He was in no respect a talking head politician my view. I am done with that type of president.
M- Funny, I see Trump as a talking head, spewing lies with what he calls “Truthful Hyperbole. Just like right now Trump has declared Jan. 6 was nothing more than a love fest, with great loving respectable people and that Ashlie Babbitt was a wonderful, loving person that was shot right between eyes. According to the reports she was shot in the shoulder, but that’s O.K., it was just Trump lying again with his truthful hyperbole.
I guess that is why you like Carlson, Ingraham, and Hannity. They are all in your face kind of people. In my view, they are very dangerous and ruining this country, by their lies and propaganda. The fact that they have huge audiences is even more concerning.
I can't believe you would give me a link to the Trump White House and expect me to believe all that propaganda. No more than I would expect you to believe links to Biden's White House.
Here they are and I don' expect you to believe a single one of them. Of course, it is not going to be as many as Trump because Biden has not been in office for four years yet.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/priorities/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/priorities/covid-19/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
I know you dislike Biden as much as I dislike Trump, so have a great day.PP- We want free speech as well, but not free speech that is designed to bring harm to others. That is precisely why Trump was banned. Why do you think he was banned?
Again -- when I say big tech is preventing free speech --- I am referring to the general public. Trump does have the same right to free speech as all citizens. He has recently filed lawsuits in regards to social media taking away what HE feels are his rights to free speech. Why was he banned? --- Twitter claimed his tweets could due to the risk of further incitement of violence.
PP -- I guess that is why you like Carlson, Ingraham, and Hannity. They are all in your face kind of people. In my view, they are very dangerous and ruining this country, by their lies and propaganda.
I have made mention that I don't frequently watch any talk jocks. I have certainly researched some of the hooplas that have surrounded Tucker in the past few weeks. And as I have expressed right here on this thread to you --- I find his commentary in the face and his delivery hyperbolic, but he does dot all his I's and crosses his T's. His form of journalism does disturb some due to how in the face he gets. No one likes to be hit between the eyes bluntly with ugly problems. But he does his homework and has a right to give his opinion. (Again you are assuming I watch talk jocks
Do I prefer in your face kind of people? In many cases I do, I truly respect Mark Levin and his straightforward approach to getting his point across.
In regard to the White House website I posted --- I would not have posted the link if I did not find all on it is factual. Have you found one of the accomplishes nonfactual?
I would prefer you offer a nonfactual accomplishment than just taking the attitude that the site has presented propaganda. If you have an example of propaganda from the site I will be glad to offer the facts on
any given accomplishment that has been presented on the website.
You seem to not be able to accept the true accomplishments of the Trump administration, even when presented to you on an official White House website.
You even go so far as to say ". No more than I would expect you to believe links to Biden's White House. "
If Biden had a website that lists factual accomplishments, I certainly would accept them to be factual.
The link I offered has factual accomplishments of the Trump administration. Not sure why you label these accomplishments as propaganda. Each listed accomplishment is factual and can be proved to be factual. Please offer one that you find non-factual. I would not stand behind a website that provided propaganda.
In regards to your links --- each one is informational, what Biden hopes to do. Although interesting, his words are just words. There are no actual accomplishments listed. Only what the Biden demonstration hope to accomplish. I have not been able to find an official website on Biden's accomplishments. I am sure at some point he will put out an official site to list accomplishments.
I will be interested in what accomplishment on the link I provided was false.
Is it wise just to automatically call any website propaganda, without offering an example that leads you to believe it to be a site that is promoting propaganda? Is this fair or better yet is it the intelligent thing to do? I will keep an open mind and assume you have found something on the link to be untrue. Please provide me with at least one example of a mistruth.Sharlee: Fox News talk jocks dotting the i's and crossing the t's is B.S. They lie every chance they get. That is what is so concerning to me because they have a huge audience who they influence with their B.S.
I posted Biden's links to his White House site, but it's interesting you assume they are not factual, just like I assume Trump's are not factual as well.
Do you think I made up "Truthful Hyperbole" and he plays to people's fantasies? I got those from reading his book on the Art of The Deal.
You should read that and also Mary Trump, his niece's book about the Trump family, "Too Much and Never Enough", You will see what a miserable childhood he had and how that drives his Narcissistic ego to this day. That is what the stolen election is all about. He has to win, no matter what the cost. Here is what the author of the Art of The Deal said about Trump. (The link is at the bottom of this page.)
His long time lawyer and friend Roy Cohn told him "Never admit to guilt, no matter how deep in the muck you get".
Another long time friend of the family Norman Vincent Peal who wrote the Power of Positive thinking told him and his father always present the positive side to everything, no matter even if it is negative.
That's why he presented the virus as being benign and it would go away in a very short period of time. He said he wanted to be the countries cheerleader. That's why right now he is calling Jan. 6 a love fest...And he has millions of people who believe him. There are others like you who will just look the other way, because they only are concerned about his "great performances."
Here is a graphic representation of Trump's mantra of promises made and promises kept. It shows the promises that he made and were kept, those he had to compromise, and the ones he never kept. (At the bottom of the page)
I'm telling you all of this, because this is what I learned about Trump and his family and how it affects his behavior. To me he is nothing more than a used car salesman who has influenced million of people to buy his used cars. In the old days, they called them snake oil salesman.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … umpometer/
Trump's author of the Art of The Deal
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/inte … -schwartz/I DID IN NO respect say that the links you posted were not truthful. This is what I stated
"In regards to your links --- each one is informational, what Biden hopes to do. Although interesting, his words are just words. There are no actual accomplishments listed. Only what the Biden demonstration hope to accomplish. I have not been able to find an official website on Biden's accomplishments. I am sure at some point he will put out an official site to list accomplishments"
Where in that statement do you feel I called your links untrue?
I have no interest in conversing about Trump's childhood. You are deflecting. We were discussing a question you ask me ---- What did I feel Trump accomplished. I offered you a link, you claimed it was all propaganda. I asked you to offer me just one accomplishment listed that was not true or as you called it propaganda. You deflect Trump's children, his childhood, his niece's book, and so on.
I really have no interest in Trump-bashing. You asked a question, I answered it by providing a long list of Trump's accomplishments.
I will once again ask you to list just one of the accomplishments on the list I provided you from Trump's official White House site that is not factual.
It is very apparent you are making an effort to deflect from the very conversation you started. Let's deal first with the link I offered on Trump's many accomplishments that you claim are propaganda. I claim everyone is a fact, and an accomplishment. Tie for you to offer which of the list you found to be untruthful or as you put it propaganda.Sharlee: You asked for it and I can do them one at time.
America gained 7 million new jobs – more than three times government experts’ projections.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/11/trump … alsehoods/Again you need to consider the stats on the website I offered were pre-pandemic. "The economy added 6.7 million jobs, and unemployment fell to the lowest rate in half a century."
:
Oct 2019 --- https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trump … 19-update/
Posted on January 20, 2020-- https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/trump … 20-update/
Please provide just one accomplishment from the list, and I will provide the facts. I am in no way even being pulled into reading your link. Just copy and paste on accomplishments from the White House website that lists Trump's accomplishments. I will be glad to defend and offer proof of anyone your choose with a reputable resource.
You are deflecting.I hope you actually looked at my link. If you did you would have noted the economic numbers were pre- pandemic. His economic picture was one of the best in our history until our Country had to be shut down. Hopefully, this fact-checker will confirm most of the stats on the White House link I posted.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/trump … 20-update/
If you want to see how Biden is doing I actually just posted a thread on that. It is shocking how quickly he is ruining our economy with his poor decision-making. The stats are pretty shocking and are getting little media coverage.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … -the-thingSharlee: Yes, I'm using your link. The Fact Check you posted shows the good and the bad about Trump. The second link you posted is yours. I would rather see what Fact Check has to say about Biden's performance. We know yours is biased.
Here is the next one from your list.
Middle-Class family income increased nearly $6,000 – more than five times the gains during the entire previous administration.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/11/trump … 000-boast/"Tax data analyzed by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of University of California at Berkeley also shows more modest gains for middle-income households. Their analysis finds that the middle 40% of households — middle-class families — saw their pre-tax income rise 2% to $73,582 in 2018.
Even so, more recent data suggest that Americans are seeing stronger income growth. The typical household saw its annual income rise from $60,973 in January 2017 — when Mr. Trump was inaugurated — to $65,976 in August 2019, according to recent research from Sentier Research. That's a gain of about $5,000 during the past two and a half years. '
""Economy is doing very well"
So what accounts for the difference between the Census and the data from Sentier, a well-known research firm that specializes in analyzing household income and worker earnings? For one, Sentier is using monthly data, which captures more variation than the Census's annual average. Secondly, Sentier adjusted its data to reflect 2019 dollars, which would make the figures slightly higher than the Census's reported data.
Lastly, roughly a third of the $5,000 boost came during the first eight months of 2019, a period that the Census data doesn't reflect.
"What we've seen is the economy is doing very well," said Gordon Green of Sentier Research. "The economy is healthy, the labor market is very tight. There have been wage gains. What we are showing is reflecting what is going on in the overall economy."
Green, a former Census official, said his research firm is strictly non-partisan, and declined to comment on whether Mr. Trump's policies or an ongoing economic recovery are boosting household incomes. As for which data should be examined to get an accurate sense of household income gains, Green said, "People should look at both."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-inco … s-by-7000/Sharlee: You just disregarded all of this from fact check.
Trump first made the $5,000 claim on Oct. 16, saying, “We have numbers that just came out where not including taxes, the median household income for the average American has increased $5,000 in a very short time since I’ve been president.” It has become a favorite talking point. Trump made the claim again on Oct. 21, Oct. 23 and Oct. 25.
He draws his figures from an Oct. 10 item by the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, whom Trump tried unsuccessfully to appoint to the Federal Reserve Board earlier this year. Moore in turn bases his analysis on monthly figures from Sentier Research, run by two former Census executives.
Every month, Sentier produces an estimate of median household income for the previous 12 months, which it bases on a single question included in the Current Population Survey. The Census Bureau conducts the CPS every month for the Bureau of Labor Statistics; its principal purpose is determining the unemployment rate, and Census states flatly that it is “not an income survey.”The website I offer provided stat at the end of Trump's time in office As of January 2021. Hopefully, you read the link I provided in regards to the Census department not actually having all the data needed to offer complete factual stats. Please refer to the two other links that offer fact checks on stats for Oct, and then Jan.
"Economy is doing very well"
So what accounts for the difference between the Census and the data from Sentier, a well-known research firm that specializes in analyzing household income and worker earnings? For one, Sentier is using monthly data, which captures more variation than the Census's annual average. Secondly, Sentier adjusted its data to reflect 2019 dollars, which would make the figures slightly higher than the Census's reported data.
Lastly, roughly a third of the $5,000 boost came during the first eight months of 2019, a period that the Census data doesn't reflect.
"What we've seen is the economy is doing very well," said Gordon Green of Sentier Research. "The economy is healthy, the labor market is very tight. There have been wage gains. What we are showing is reflecting what is going on in the overall economy."
Green, a former Census official, said his research firm is strictly non-partisan, and declined to comment on whether Mr. Trump's policies or an ongoing economic recovery are boosting household incomes. As for which data should be examined to get an accurate sense of household income gains, Green said, "People should look at both."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-inco … s-by-7000/Also, note all the other historic stats on this link, gives a wonderful picture, actually, an unbelievable account of all this president offered America while he was in office. He has a growing number of things he can be proud of, and Americans should be thankful for.
Note medium-income chart I took my stats from Jan 2020 the Oct stat are older and do not give an adequate picture as the Jan 2020 stats.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/trump … 20-update/
I would think you would be concentrating on the Biden economy, the one that is at this point experiencing inflation. And some economists are very doubtful if we will see an end to this inflation in the next four years. It's very clear the Dems here on HP take Bidens attitude, don't address the problem Biden is causing, just don't acknowledge them.
Inflation has reached a three-decade high. The past two years with the need for several emergency’ spending packages, bond buy-backs, and printing lots of money it seems to mirror the same mistakes Government made in the Carter era.”
https://nypost.com/2021/06/10/latest-ec … t-working/
This is incredible. It looks like President Donald Trump DID win Arizona as well as Georgia.
“The news coming out of Georgia is beyond incredible. The hand recount in Fulton County was a total fraud! They stuffed the ballot box — and got caught. We will lose our Country if this is allowed to stand,” Trump said in response to the news, according to a released statement.
“]I]n Fulton County the hand recount was wrong by 60%; 100,000 tally sheets for ballots were missing; they duplicated thousands of extra votes for Joe Biden. ”News from Georgia: 'The Hand Recount Was Wrong by 60%"
https://www.westernjournal.com/trump-ce … enNUM1h41YThis mess needs to be brought into court. This is not being widely reported by the media. My God this is so corrupt, and hopefully, the Governor of Georgia will do the right thing, and report the truth. Where this goes from here --- who knows, it certainly can not be allowed to happen again.
Related Discussions
- 49
Democrats who won't accept Presidential election results
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...
- 35
Georgia, Texas Voters Wait Hours to Vote
by Allen Donald 3 years ago
Reports from Georgia and Texas reveal people waiting in line to vote for up to 8 hours. This should simply not occur in our country. It is flat-out voter suppression and intimidation to make somebody wait 8 hours to vote.Where I live, I received my ballot in the mail. I filled it out the same day....
- 67
How to Stop Minorities from Voting - Let Me Count the Ways!
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
The following list is just a small selection of the many ways conservatives are trying to suppress minority voting. From https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/opinions … ndex.html:1 - "In rural Randolph County, Georgia, the local board of elections (all two members -- a third recently...
- 44
Why don't I have to show an ID to vote for president or anyone else?
by Judy Specht 12 years ago
Why don't I have to show an ID to vote for president or anyone else?I have to show an ID to any policeman that asks, to get a prescription,see the doctor, get my blood drawn, board an air plane, get my taxes done, write a check, accept a job, withdraw money at the bank and sometimes when I use a...
- 76
GOP=RIP how do you ever hope to win with an attitude like this?
by Credence2 3 years ago
A little backgroundhttps://news.yahoo.com/gop-warns-hr-1-c … 43930.htmlI find this more than a bit irritating about Republicans and conservatives generally.If you can't win the hearts and minds of the electorate with your ideas and policies, then your usefulness has come to an end."In...
- 39
Election Integrity 2024! What's happeing on the battle front?
by Tim Mitchell 6 months ago
‘They Are Miles Ahead’: Despite ‘Election Integrity’ Hype, GOP Could Be Walking Into 2024 Legal Buzzsaw by the Daily Caller (Mar 14, 2024)https://dailycaller.com/2024/03/14/repu … h8QW8SmTL0Phew! About a 4,000 word article or somewhere around a 16 minute read. I moved from a cup of coffee to...