46th President of the United States, Joe Biden

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

Given that THIS time they're alleging fraud when there's no evidence for it, what's to stop them alleging fraud NEXT time when there's no evidence for it?

Well, they've alleged fraud, identified the 'reasons' and introduced measures. They'll have to find another reason for the next election. Considering they have the power to introduce the new regulations, they will only have themselves to blame.

[paulguitar]

blackrabbit said:

My sense is that the Dems deep down know there was some voter fraud

If this is the case, why has a highly motivated (and let's face it, not overburdened with integrity) Republican party not been able to produce one shred of proper evidence?

[gregs656]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

gregs656 said:

These elections laws advanced by Republicans do not seek to treat all people equally, so you should disagree with them in principle.

In fact, if you are interested in free and fair elections you would also disagree with these laws in principles, as you would recognise that putting up weird barriers to prevent people from voting is not how these things should work.

Which parts of the new legislation prevent people from voting?

Do you think legislation should be in place to encourage eligible voters or dissuade them?

Do you think barriers to voting are a good thing?

[166 MM Barchetta]

Now that Biden is in charge, I wonder if he can sign an executive order to get that fence he wanted building finally built?
I mean, it’s not like it’s a wall is it, and if it was only a billion in 2006 then it can’t be much more now......

[anonymous-user]

gregs656 said:

Do you think legislation should be in place to encourage eligible voters or dissuade them?

Neither.

[gregs656]

Also this legislation is cropping up all over the place even in states where there was no question of fraud (those claims were bunk anyway).

It will depress the GOP vote as well.

IMO one of the great outcomes of the 2020 election was the size of the turnout on both sides. They should be looking to build on that, not take it away.

I don’t think this is a partisan issue particularly, for people who are not directly effected at least, it is in the interests of all of us for America to shore up the principles of a democratic system and build on it where they can (the electoral college being an obvious starting point).

This kind of stuff just wouldn’t get off the ground in the UK, they mess around with boundary lines and constituencies but fundamentally if you are a registered voter (which is easy) actually voting is extremely straight forward. That is how it should be.

[gregs656]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

gregs656 said:

Do you think legislation should be in place to encourage eligible voters or dissuade them?

Neither.

Ok, then again you would be against this legislation in principle.

So why are you arguing for it?

[blackrabbit]

paulguitar said:

blackrabbit said:

My sense is that the Dems deep down know there was some voter fraud

If this is the case, why has a highly motivated (and let's face it, not overburdened with integrity) Republican party not been able to produce one shred of proper evidence?

I think its in ones and two's here and there. Not a lot but maybe enough to tip the balance in some instances and this is why so much tactical gamesmanship on the ground from activists in both parties to gain slight advantage. If GA wasn't so close I doubt there would be so much outrage from the Dems about this law as its no stricter than many Democratic states already.

I do personally know of two instances where friends kids who were at college voted in two states for the presidential election and also then voted in GA senate race as they have drivers licences in both states. Apparently it was quite a thing and encouraged by many activist students on social media to turn GA. So I am saying yes some fraud always goes on but how much is anyone's guess.

[anonymous-user]

gregs656 said:

Ok, then again you would be against this legislation in principle.

So why are you arguing for it?

I'm against any situation, direct or indirect, that offers inducements to one group and not to another. If polling stations in democrat areas, even for altruistic, apolitical reasons, offer inducements that are not available at all polling stations, I believe that is wrong.

[HM-2]

blackrabbit said:

I think we all know that in reality in an election as close as this that each side wants all the advantage they can get.

I don't think this really excuses blatant and self-admitted attempts to deny legitimate voters their democratic rights under the guise of "preventing voter fraud", though.

blackrabbit said:

Fulton and Dekalb county in GA have the highest portion of fraud in unemployment claims, pandemic claims, medicare claims etc in the state in the past decade. Also by far the highest crime statistics.

Not sure I'm seeing the relevance here, unless you thing "deprived areas tend to have higher crime rates" is a justification to preventing people who live there from voting.

blackrabbit said:

Is it a now really a coincidence that these counties are the ones where the Dems are whining about so called voter suppression by the state changing laws and asking for IDs?

Obvious JAQing off aside, contentions about the actions of Republican state governments to try and impede the ability of primarily Democrat groups to vote stretch far further than this single cherry-picked example.

blackrabbit said:

My sense is that the Dems deep down know there was some voter fraud

Your "sense" ignores thirty years of in-depth national academic research into the prevalence of voter fraud.
If you wish to assert its occurrence, the onus is on you to provide actual evidence- something I'm fairly sure you're entirely unable to do given that the entire might of the Republican party, billions of dollars spent and scores of court cases has been unable to earth a single scrap of.

blackrabbit said:

It is also a fact that activists will give gifts including food and drink to people in line to vote to influence them.

No, it isn't. It's a wild assertion with exactly zero evidence to support it.

Providing food or drink to people in order to encourage them to vote is actually perfectly legal in the US.
Providing food or drink to people in order to encourage them to vote a particular way is already a federal crime.

If there was actually a problem with the latter, the people doing so are already open to prosecution. The new law is entirely unnecessary to address actual illegal behaviour, and criminalises activities that are expressly permitted within federal election law.

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

gregs656 said:

Ok, then again you would be against this legislation in principle.

So why are you arguing for it?

I'm against any situation, direct or indirect, that offers inducements to one group and not to another. If polling stations in democrat areas, even for altruistic, apolitical reasons, offer inducements that are not available at all polling stations, I believe that is wrong.

Nothing prevents these inducements from being provided to other groups. Nobody decreed "only voters in Democrat areas may have food and water when waiting in line". If you can't get a bottle of water handed to you one area because nobody bothers to turn up to do so, that doesn't provide a reason or justification for banning it everywhere else.

What an utterly asinine position.

Edited by HM-2 on Wednesday 28th April 17:53

[anonymous-user]

HM-2 said:

> don't think this really excuses blatant and self-admitted attempts to deny legitimate voters their democratic rights.

Can you explain which voters have had their right to vote removed and the practical measures introduced that prevent them from voting?

[captain_cynic]

gregs656 said:

Also this legislation is cropping up all over the place even in states where there was no question of fraud (those claims were bunk anyway).

On that matter, why aren't we seeing the same types of legislation appearing in Democrat controlled states targeting districts that are predominantly Republican?

Is it because they don't need to?

The Democrats know there was fraud in the 2020 election. Some of it was even proven... But it was all commited by the Republicans and it didn't alter the outcome one bit.

[HM-2]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

HM-2 said:

> don't think this really excuses blatant and self-admitted attempts to deny legitimate voters their democratic rights.

Can you explain which voters have had their right to vote removed and the practical measures introduced that prevent them from voting?

I have, repeatedly, across multiple pages of this thread and on multiple occasions, including today, at length. Stop sealioning.

[Countdown]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Countdown said:

Given that THIS time they're alleging fraud when there's no evidence for it, what's to stop them alleging fraud NEXT time when there's no evidence for it?

Well, they've alleged fraud, identified the 'reasons' and introduced measures. They'll have to find another reason for the next election. Considering they have the power to introduce the new regulations, they will only have themselves to blame.

Yes, they've made up some reasons this time. They'll either use the same reasons next time or will think of new ones.

It's been pointed out numerous times that the rules/policies governing elections did not change between this election and previous elections. So in 2016 when the GOP won the rules were fine and dandy. In 2020 when they lost then suddenly the processes were susceptible to fraud.

To paraphrase Mr Royle "Fraud my arse!". Voters were much more highly motivated to vote resulting in record turnouts. the GOP know that if turnouts remain high they will lose. So their solution is to make it as difficult as possible for people to vote.

[anonymous-user]

HM-2 said:

I have, repeatedly, across multiple pages of this thread and on multiple occasions, including today, at length. Stop sealioning.

I'm asking you to justify your claim that people have had their right to vote taken away. You can't because they haven't. You're telling lies.

[gregs656]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

'm against any situation, direct or indirect, that offers inducements to one group and not to another. If polling stations in democrat areas, even for altruistic, apolitical reasons, offer inducements that are not available at all polling stations, I believe that is wrong.

What ever.

[Countdown]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

gregs656 said:

Ok, then again you would be against this legislation in principle.

So why are you arguing for it?

I'm against any situation, direct or indirect, that offers inducements to one group and not to another. If polling stations in democrat areas, even for altruistic, apolitical reasons, offer inducements that are not available at all polling stations, I believe that is wrong.

A stranger handing you a bottle of water is not an inducement.

Would you change your vote if somebody gave you a free bottle of water? if not, what makes you think others would?

[anonymous-user]

gregs656 said:

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

'm against any situation, direct or indirect, that offers inducements to one group and not to another. If polling stations in democrat areas, even for altruistic, apolitical reasons, offer inducements that are not available at all polling stations, I believe that is wrong.

What ever.

Is it not a fair position? If people in some areas need food and drink whilst waiting to vote, make it entirely apolitical and make ALL the polling stations provide food and drink. That way nothing is being taken away and it is fair for everyone.

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

A stranger handing you a bottle of water is not an inducement

I agree (that it is not an inducement to vote in a particular way). Who said it was?

[silentbrown]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Can you explain which voters have had their right to vote removed and the practical measures introduced that prevent them from voting?

Not sure if you're being obtuse or just pedantic?

If UK elections required you to vote in person, but the only polling station was on the Isle of Lewis, you haven't lost your *right* to vote, but the *ability* to vote has been taken from you. (Quickly checks that RMcD's profile doesn't say "Isle of Lewis... )

We all saw voters queuing for many hours in 2020. It depends on the state, but time off work to vote is typically unpaid, limited to 2 hours, requires advance notice. Some states have no laws requiring employers to allow staff time off to vote.