What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

U.S. To Sue Georgia Over Restrictive Sew State Voting Law

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
76,768
Reaction score
27,178
Points
2,250
Pennsylvania, Georgia Michigan and North Carolina there was another,
There were many states. Jack is just a Jackass

As I routinely tell another poster. Put up and we can discuss.
Just typing it...is your opinion only. And you know all about opinions. :)
Its not opinion. Some people are literate. :dunno:

I'm sorry, this ruling was about ONE judge's opinion about a ruling of a SOS accepting signatures on those ballots. Not challenging the state constitutionality of mail in voting or the reasons the state did so.
Ultimately, this will probably be appealed.

And my by recollection, the Michigan legislature expanded that mail-in voting in a bipartisan fashion. :)
Second sentence
The Michigan Secretary of State thus usurped the constitutional role delegated to the state legislatures
Can you see it now?

Over ballot signatures. I see it. Has nothing to do with the constitutionality of mail-in voting.
I said "change election laws" I didnt get into specifics. You are arguing with yourself over "mail in voting"
 

BlindBoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
40,923
Reaction score
8,145
Points
2,030
Pennsylvania, Georgia Michigan and North Carolina there was another,
There were many states. Jack is just a Jackass

As I routinely tell another poster. Put up and we can discuss.
Just typing it...is your opinion only. And you know all about opinions. :)
Its not opinion. Some people are literate. :dunno:

I'm sorry, this ruling was about ONE judge's opinion about a ruling of a SOS accepting signatures on those ballots. Not challenging the state constitutionality of mail in voting or the reasons the state did so.
Ultimately, this will probably be appealed.

And my by recollection, the Michigan legislature expanded that mail-in voting in a bipartisan fashion. :)
Second sentence
The Michigan Secretary of State thus usurped the constitutional role delegated to the state legislatures
Can you see it now?

Over ballot signatures. I see it. Has nothing to do with the constitutionality of mail-in voting.
I said "change election laws" I didnt get into specifics. You are arguing with yourself over "mail in voting"
She didn't. She violated an Administrative Rules act by not following the proper procedure when instituting a new rule.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
76,768
Reaction score
27,178
Points
2,250
Pennsylvania, Georgia Michigan and North Carolina there was another,
There were many states. Jack is just a Jackass

As I routinely tell another poster. Put up and we can discuss.
Just typing it...is your opinion only. And you know all about opinions. :)
Its not opinion. Some people are literate. :dunno:

I'm sorry, this ruling was about ONE judge's opinion about a ruling of a SOS accepting signatures on those ballots. Not challenging the state constitutionality of mail in voting or the reasons the state did so.
Ultimately, this will probably be appealed.

And my by recollection, the Michigan legislature expanded that mail-in voting in a bipartisan fashion. :)
Second sentence
The Michigan Secretary of State thus usurped the constitutional role delegated to the state legislatures
Can you see it now?

Over ballot signatures. I see it. Has nothing to do with the constitutionality of mail-in voting.
I said "change election laws" I didnt get into specifics. You are arguing with yourself over "mail in voting"
She didn't. She violated an Administrative Rules act by not following the proper procedure when instituting a new rule.
She ignored constitutional roles. IE she unconstitutionally made changes.
This is rocket science.
 

colfax_m

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
33,272
Reaction score
12,531
Points
1,465
Second sentence
The Michigan Secretary of State thus usurped the constitutional role delegated to the state legislatures
Can you see it now?
The problem is that the authors seemed rather intent on shoehorning their agenda into a case which doesn’t really say that.

It says they didn’t follow procedures for rule making. It doesn’t say that they had no authors to make the changes.
 

BlindBoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
40,923
Reaction score
8,145
Points
2,030
Pennsylvania, Georgia Michigan and North Carolina there was another,
There were many states. Jack is just a Jackass

As I routinely tell another poster. Put up and we can discuss.
Just typing it...is your opinion only. And you know all about opinions. :)
Its not opinion. Some people are literate. :dunno:

I'm sorry, this ruling was about ONE judge's opinion about a ruling of a SOS accepting signatures on those ballots. Not challenging the state constitutionality of mail in voting or the reasons the state did so.
Ultimately, this will probably be appealed.

And my by recollection, the Michigan legislature expanded that mail-in voting in a bipartisan fashion. :)
Second sentence
The Michigan Secretary of State thus usurped the constitutional role delegated to the state legislatures
Can you see it now?

Over ballot signatures. I see it. Has nothing to do with the constitutionality of mail-in voting.
I said "change election laws" I didnt get into specifics. You are arguing with yourself over "mail in voting"
She didn't. She violated an Administrative Rules act by not following the proper procedure when instituting a new rule.
She ignored constitutional roles. IE she unconstitutionally made changes.
This is rocket science.
The rule change did not change election law is what I said. No court has ruled she acted unconstitutionally or change their election law.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
76,768
Reaction score
27,178
Points
2,250
I give up
 

blackhawk

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
30,094
Reaction score
11,061
Points
1,400
Location
Deep in the heart of Texas.
Yeah having to show a photo ID to vote and ending the provisions that were only set because of covid is really going to disenfranchise people from voting.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
34,920
Reaction score
18,931
Points
1,915
Location
Tejas
Let's see, anyone who can't get away to vote because of a job requirement
Most employers will give people time off to go vote, just like they are required to give time off for one to serve on a jury. Seems like that should be your focus.
the disabled, the house bound, the caregivers. Lot's of people.
How did all these people vote before junk-mail voting (fraud)?
Add to that, reducing the number of polling place causing people to stand and wait in long lines for hours, reducing the number of drop boxes..curiously, both happening in districts largely populated by people of color.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for being caught in long lines at the polls. In Texas, we open early voting at MANY MORE locations for TWO FUCKING WEEKS before election day. This complain is BULLSHIT!!!
Let's not even get started about those pesky mail in votes.
Yes, let's not even get into the discussion about all that junk-mail voting fraud.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
42,863
Reaction score
28,896
Points
2,615
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
The republicans shouldn't be able to pass laws that disenfranchises millions of people.

Millions? :21: In one state? :21: :21: You can't produce even ONE person disenfranchised to save your lousy life!

Just one more instance of the criminal left desperately trying to hang onto the only thing that wins them elections: the ability to manufacture votes as needed.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
34,920
Reaction score
18,931
Points
1,915
Location
Tejas
Filibustering the For The People Act isn't going to stop preventing the republicans from changing voting laws in their states to prevent people from voting.

I'm very glad to see the DOJ is doing this.

The republicans shouldn't be able to pass laws that disenfranchises millions of people.

The new law will not go into effect. The DOJ will get a judge to stop it from going into effect while the case is ongoing. Hopefully people will come out in droves next year to vote these republicans who hate democracy out of office to replace them with people who do love democracy and our nation.

ZERO EVIDENCE of voter disenfranchisement.

None.

Those claims are baseless.
 

JackOfNoTrades

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
12,117
Reaction score
10,728
Points
2,140
Location
Granite State
Let's see, anyone who can't get away to vote because of a job requirement
Most employers will give people time off to go vote, just like they are required to give time off for one to serve on a jury. Seems like that should be your focus.
the disabled, the house bound, the caregivers. Lot's of people.
How did all these people vote before junk-mail voting (fraud)?
Add to that, reducing the number of polling place causing people to stand and wait in long lines for hours, reducing the number of drop boxes..curiously, both happening in districts largely populated by people of color.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for being caught in long lines at the polls. In Texas, we open early voting at MANY MORE locations for TWO FUCKING WEEKS before election day. This complain is BULLSHIT!!!
Let's not even get started about those pesky mail in votes.
Yes, let's not even get into the discussion about all that junk-mail voting fraud.

No they won't. I've seen it multiple times first hand. But jury duty is seen as a public obligation and no employer is going to gripe about that. The easy answer here is to make election day a national holiday. Give everyone the day off and voila...problem solved. Answer was, most of them probably didn't. Whether that's through laziness, inaction, or inability, we can debate that endlessly. A lot of people who can easily get to voting places don't vote either.

Junk mail voting fraud is a red herring. It doesn't exist except in the minds of the alt-right. There is always fraud in elections. Hell, a lot of Republicans got caught in it this year. :) But not enough to swing an election that far. Sorry, that's a fantasy.

Here's the bottom line with mail-in voting. It should be automatic. A lot of states have used it for years. The military has used it for decades. All with no issues. Until 2020. The ability to signature match (which most states already do) eliminates all but the most egregious attempts at fraud. Now, if some state legislatures would allow mail-in votes to be tabulated prior to election day (Texas and Florida do), you could have your results signed, sealed, and delivered early the next day..instead of six days later.

Tell me, why are Republicans, conservatives, the right wing, and the alt-right so afraid of mail-in voting here? Isn't standing in a long line to check a few boxes a thing of the past?
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
42,863
Reaction score
28,896
Points
2,615
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
Let's see, anyone who can't get away to vote because of a job requirement
Most employers will give people time off to go vote, just like they are required to give time off for one to serve on a jury. Seems like that should be your focus.
the disabled, the house bound, the caregivers. Lot's of people.
How did all these people vote before junk-mail voting (fraud)?
Add to that, reducing the number of polling place causing people to stand and wait in long lines for hours, reducing the number of drop boxes..curiously, both happening in districts largely populated by people of color.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for being caught in long lines at the polls. In Texas, we open early voting at MANY MORE locations for TWO FUCKING WEEKS before election day. This complain is BULLSHIT!!!
Let's not even get started about those pesky mail in votes.
Yes, let's not even get into the discussion about all that junk-mail voting fraud.

No they won't. I've seen it multiple times first hand. But jury duty is seen as a public obligation and no employer is going to gripe about that. The easy answer here is to make election day a national holiday. Give everyone the day off and voila...problem solved.

Except who is going to PAY for all the billions lost in a whole day closed with no business, no income, or a whole day paid off.

Who's going to pay for all that, Jerky, YOU?

You can't even afford a garage.

In my entire life, I've yet to ever meet anyone wanting to vote who said they COULDN'T.
 

JackOfNoTrades

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
12,117
Reaction score
10,728
Points
2,140
Location
Granite State
Let's see, anyone who can't get away to vote because of a job requirement
Most employers will give people time off to go vote, just like they are required to give time off for one to serve on a jury. Seems like that should be your focus.
the disabled, the house bound, the caregivers. Lot's of people.
How did all these people vote before junk-mail voting (fraud)?
Add to that, reducing the number of polling place causing people to stand and wait in long lines for hours, reducing the number of drop boxes..curiously, both happening in districts largely populated by people of color.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for being caught in long lines at the polls. In Texas, we open early voting at MANY MORE locations for TWO FUCKING WEEKS before election day. This complain is BULLSHIT!!!
Let's not even get started about those pesky mail in votes.
Yes, let's not even get into the discussion about all that junk-mail voting fraud.

No they won't. I've seen it multiple times first hand. But jury duty is seen as a public obligation and no employer is going to gripe about that. The easy answer here is to make election day a national holiday. Give everyone the day off and voila...problem solved.

Except who is going to PAY for all the billions lost in a whole day closed with no business, no income, or a whole day paid off.

Who's going to pay for all that, Jerky, YOU?

You can't even afford a garage.

In my entire life, I've yet to ever meet anyone wanting to vote who said they COULDN'T.

OK. Finally. Something we can talk about. Despite your constant petty sniping.

Does it result in lost revenue for business? Sure. Maybe there's something we can do about that in the form of tax breaks, reimbursements, etc.
But think of what it avoids. Foremost, we'll know the winner the next early morning. Not six days down the pipe. And just think, you can finally proclaim
that NO ONE has any excuse anymore. Combine that with mail-in voting and being able to count those votes before election day...wow..problem solved. :)
You can sit and bray that at the end of the day, the results will be in. No one will be able to offer an ex
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
42,863
Reaction score
28,896
Points
2,615
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
Let's see, anyone who can't get away to vote because of a job requirement
Most employers will give people time off to go vote, just like they are required to give time off for one to serve on a jury. Seems like that should be your focus.
the disabled, the house bound, the caregivers. Lot's of people.
How did all these people vote before junk-mail voting (fraud)?
Add to that, reducing the number of polling place causing people to stand and wait in long lines for hours, reducing the number of drop boxes..curiously, both happening in districts largely populated by people of color.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for being caught in long lines at the polls. In Texas, we open early voting at MANY MORE locations for TWO FUCKING WEEKS before election day. This complain is BULLSHIT!!!
Let's not even get started about those pesky mail in votes.
Yes, let's not even get into the discussion about all that junk-mail voting fraud.

No they won't. I've seen it multiple times first hand. But jury duty is seen as a public obligation and no employer is going to gripe about that. The easy answer here is to make election day a national holiday. Give everyone the day off and voila...problem solved.

Except who is going to PAY for all the billions lost in a whole day closed with no business, no income, or a whole day paid off.

Who's going to pay for all that, Jerky, YOU?

You can't even afford a garage.

In my entire life, I've yet to ever meet anyone wanting to vote who said they COULDN'T.
But think of what it avoids.
Your constant wining?

Foremost, we'll know the winner the next early morning. Not six days down the pipe.
Only time we had to wait more than a few hours was with Gore and Biddum. They were both too busy looking for votes under rocks.

Combine that with mail-in voting
Mail in voting should never be more than a minor number of people who were either out of the country that day or too ill, etc., to get to the poll.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top