President Biden thread

8 minutes ago, Beerman said:

No. It's unsolicited mail in ballots that are to be restricted.  

Drive up voting is not private voting is not private if others are in the car.  And, its simply not necessary.

24 hour voting is a costly expense.   And, again, not necessary.

OK.  I answered your questions.  Now, tell me what you find to be so objectionable about the proposed law.

A good opinion article here, that includes a lot of factual info too back it up.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-voting-bill-voter-suppression-11626297555

A ban on the distribution of mail-in ballot applications

SB 1 and HB 3 prohibit local election officials from sending unsolicited applications to request a mail-in ballot, with the House version making it a state jail felony. Both bills also prohibit the use of public funds “to facilitate” the unsolicited distribution of applications by third-parties, which would keep counties from also providing applications to local groups helping to get out the vote. Political parties would still be able to send out unsolicited applications on their own dime.

The proposal is a direct response to Harris County’s attempt to proactively send applications to all 2.4 million registered voters last year with specific instructions on how to determine if they were eligible. The Texas Supreme Court ultimately blocked that effort, but other Texas counties sent applications to voters 65 and older without much scrutiny. Though those voters automatically qualify to vote by mail, mailing unrequested applications to them in the future would also be blocked.

Please read the first paragraph.  They want to forbid people receiving unsolicited ballot APPLICATIONS.  We are NOT talking about unsolicited ballots here which I don't believe is safe unless someone explains it to me otherwise.  All registered voters in my state received applications for a mail-in ballot.  If we wanted the ballot we mailed the form back with our signature.  When the votes are actually counted that signature (very recent)is matched with the signature on the ballot.  As for 24 hour balloting:  did you ever work a 24 hour shift?  Very common in the anesthesia world.  Did you ever even work a night shift?  Believe me, we poll workers work for cheap!  It's no big deal to have 24 hour option but I agree with you that it isn't necessary if people were allowed to VOTE BY MAIL.  

I wonder if that pedophile device that Sacha Baron Cohen or Borat as I always call him, that he used on Roy Moore is brought into a republican rally, how many people would be identified? 

I know it already went off in a frenzy when Trump walked by it with Matt Gaetz, but it also went off when Lindsay Graham walked by and he's just gay so it must not be working well ??????

33 minutes ago, Beerman said:

No. It's unsolicited mail in ballots that are to be restricted.  

Drive up voting is not private voting is not private if others are in the car.  And, its simply not necessary.

24 hour voting is a costly expense.   And, again, not necessary.

OK.  I answered your questions.  Now, tell me what you find to be so objectionable about the proposed law.

A good opinion article here, that includes a lot of factual info too back it up.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-voting-bill-voter-suppression-11626297555

Just wondering if you support the military Beerman? 

I heard they use mail in ballots. Think the panda bears in Arizona have their other assignment? There's bamboo everywhere ???

31 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Why does a application need to be sent to everyone?  The applications are easy to get if you ask for one.  How does not sending one equate to "restrictive voting laws"?  

The proposed law is not eliminating VOTE BY MAIL.

I imagine you are correct that poll workers are cheap.  Which will make it more difficult to find them to cover 24/7 over a week or two.  it'll also make more difficult for poll watchers.  

So, those are your big objections? 

You do know that our President is comparing the proposed law to Jim Crow laws?  And, the media keeps referring to it as a "restrictive voting law".

You're hardly making the case for either of those claims. 

Crikey mate, you actually are making a cogent argument! 

48 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Why does a application need to be sent to everyone?  The applications are easy to get if you ask for one.  How does not sending one equate to "restrictive voting laws"?  

The proposed law is not eliminating VOTE BY MAIL.

I imagine you are correct that poll workers are cheap.  Which will make it more difficult to find them to cover 24/7 over a week or two.  it'll also make more difficult for poll watchers.  

So, those are your big objections? 

You do know that our President is comparing the proposed law to Jim Crow laws?  And, the media keeps referring to it as a "restrictive voting law".

You're hardly making the case for either of those claims. 

How do the proposed changes make the elections safer from fraud...what problem or risk was remedied?

4 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Deflection.

Your side isn't making any kind of argument about what you just asked.

No.  From the President to the MSM and all Dems in between,  are repeating the lie that these types of voting laws are suppressive and racist.  But, when confronted with with is actually in the law as has happened here above, its impossible to keep up that farce. 

 

 

 

The people who are writing the laws are the folks making the argument that they are protecting election security, etc.  

6 hours ago, Beerman said:

Why does a application need to be sent to everyone?  The applications are easy to get if you ask for one.  How does not sending one equate to "restrictive voting laws"?  

The proposed law is not eliminating VOTE BY MAIL.

I imagine you are correct that poll workers are cheap.  Which will make it more difficult to find them to cover 24/7 over a week or two.  it'll also make more difficult for poll watchers.  

So, those are your big objections? 

You do know that our President is comparing the proposed law to Jim Crow laws?  And, the media keeps referring to it as a "restrictive voting law".

You're hardly making the case for either of those claims. 

The applications are NOT sent to EVERYONE.  They are only sent to REGISTERED VOTERS.  We all saw pictures of the folks in lines in Milwaukee during the primaries in April.  Only 5 voting sites were open in a city that normally has 180 sites.  Why would anyone say this isn't Jim Crow?  The Republican Legislature of Wisconsin thought this would eventually bring a win to Trump but they thought wrong.  People get really riled up when they have to stand for 14 hours in a line in freezing weather during the height of a deadly pandemic.  It's restrictive because Republicans don't want urban voters to vote and resort to keep voting as an 18th century exercise instead of modernizing the system to make it easier for registered voters to vote by mail.  Are you kidding me?  I don't think they removed any ballot boxes or mail boxes in Punckydoodle Corners.  Why are they creating all this chaos to address a non-problem?  To deflect people from the fact that they have no platform and want to move backward to the 1950's.  Old white men are becoming increasingly irrelevant because they are ossified in time as well as bereft of ideas (generally speaking) and morals.