(07-13-2021 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-13-2021 02:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Is it currently easier to vote in Texas or buy a gun? Should one or the other be easier or more difficult? Do either currently require a photo ID? Does the law that Texas is currently trying to pass change the answer to any of my questions?

I'll take a stab, as I understand things, in order:

Vote.
Probably neither, as both are constitutional rights.
Both.
No.

I agree with the above answers.

My problem with the brouhaha is that although the law mainly does administrative clean-up, such as setting hours and locations, it is being advertised by the Democrats as being racially suppressive, yet nobody I have asked can point to one single thing that suppresses ANY votes, much less racially targeted votes.

So, since they have chosen to make this a big deal, one must ask why? I think it is politically and financially motivated. Create a windmill to tilt at, rake in the dough and bring out their base in '22.

There are a couple of things I think should be eliminated or modified, and if the Democrats would engage in a bipartisan way, I think they would be modified in a compromise bill. But the choice has been made to make this an all-or-nothing battle, and I think that directive comes from the national party.

I particularly liked the populist move of flying out in *two* *chartered* jets.

Quite the resonation that little thing should provide.

I would love to find out who paid the 90k or so for that convoy.

It just occurred to me...... the 58 fleebaggers who bolted from Texas are saying how horrendous showing ID is, that is they are vehemently against the most basic election integrity steps in the ID regards.

But, guess what each and every one of these preening prima donnas had to have to get even on a private, chartered jet and fly away on it.

Just fing amazing.....

(07-13-2021 05:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I particularly liked the populist move of flying out in *two* *chartered* jets.

Quite the resonation that little thing should provide.

I would love to find out who paid the 90k or so for that convoy.

I guess they thought two jets would be "greener" than 50 cars.

My guess as to the funding: Hunter Biden, through the sale of some of his art. he is the Jackson Pollock of 2021.

J/K

My real guess is the DNC.

(07-13-2021 05:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It just occurred to me...... the 58 fleebaggers who bolted from Texas are saying how horrendous showing ID is, that is they are vehemently against the most basic election integrity steps in the ID regards.

But, guess what each and every one of these preening prima donnas had to have to get even on a private, chartered jet and fly away on it.

Just fing amazing.....

They will probably find ID necessary for their new lives in DC, too - hotels, restaurants, etc.

(07-13-2021 05:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It just occurred to me...... the 58 fleebaggers who bolted from Texas are saying how horrendous showing ID is, that is they are vehemently against the most basic election integrity steps in the ID regards.

But, guess what each and every one of these preening prima donnas had to have to get even on a private, chartered jet and fly away on it.

Just fing amazing.....

"No, no, no, that's different..."
said the hypocritical DemocratsCommunists.

(07-13-2021 05:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I particularly liked the populist move of flying out in *two* *chartered* jets.

Quite the resonation that little thing should provide.

I would love to find out who paid the 90k or so for that convoy.

...not to mention the irresponsible carbon footprint it left on poor mutha' Earth. How much climate did that trip change?
should've rode their tricycles and Big Wheels instead.

Biden’s claims destroyed

hmmmm..
Dems in Texas who don't want a bill they don't like passed decide to delay its passing indefinitely through the use of a strategy related to rules and parliamentary procedure (albeit apparently illegal due to their leaving the state, I hear). Sounds like...what's the word for when members of a legislature want to delay voting on something they don't like but don't have enough votes to just vote it down?...hmmm....help me out here...what IS that word for what democrats are doing?....it seems like Democrats are doing something that they have over and over said they DiDN'T like and wanted to get rid of...what is the word?
...it's a...it's a...
it's a... FILIBUSTER! yeah. Democrats are using a Filibuster to try to stop something they don't like. Wow! The hypocrisy is truly stunning!

#hypocrisyThyNameIsDemocratiICKparty
#DemocratsHateBlackPeopleSameAsTheyAlwaysHave

(07-12-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I just need somebody from either side of the aisle to explain to me the problems. Most of the explanations I hear involve some convoluted hypothetical. Chicken Little hysteria. Really folks, (1) how do the proposed changes suppress voting, and (2) how is that suppression targeted to minorities?

Among other things, the Texas bill prohibits two practices used in Harris County in 2020 - 24 hour early voting and drive-through voting. It also prohibits mailing absentee ballot applications to registered voters, also used in Harris County.

If any of those things reduce voting (and they will), it's voter suppression. They affect practices used by heavily urban counties with higher minority populations.

(07-15-2021 01:55 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  ...it's a...it's a...
it's a... FILIBUSTER! yeah. Democrats are using a Filibuster to try to stop something they don't like. Wow! The hypocrisy is truly stunning!

Hypocrisy, thy name is politician. Examples abound regardless of political stripe. I'm sure Texas Democrats would return post haste if the filibuster disappeared from the Senate.

(07-15-2021 08:41 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I just need somebody from either side of the aisle to explain to me the problems. Most of the explanations I hear involve some convoluted hypothetical. Chicken Little hysteria. Really folks, (1) how do the proposed changes suppress voting, and (2) how is that suppression targeted to minorities?

Among other things, the Texas bill prohibits two practices used in Harris County in 2020 - 24 hour early voting and drive-through voting. It also prohibits mailing absentee ballot applications to registered voters, also used in Harris County.

If any of those things reduce voting (and they will), it's voter suppression. They affect practices used by heavily urban counties with higher minority populations.

Were’n’t those emergency actions due to the pandemic? What is the rationale for keeping emergency procedures in place permanently? We don’t maintain the emergency traffic procedures used in a hurricane evacuation.

Anything that that limits voting 7/24/365 will technically suppress voting, hopefully the voting that is suppressed would be the illegal voting. But I don’t see how not having 24 hour voting suppresses black voting specifically. Is there some large group of black voters who can only vote between midnight and dawn, and who will not vote at all if they cannot vote then?

Having limit3d hours just means the same as any other establishment that has opening and closing hours - come back when we are open. That’s what I do. But



Any enterprise with limited hours is telling their clientele to come back during office hours. What do you tell your clients?

If the effect in those highly populated counties is proportional, then it is not racist. What evidence is there that more black voters than white, especially white conservative, will just walk away without voting if they cannot vote in the wee hours?

(07-15-2021 08:41 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I just need somebody from either side of the aisle to explain to me the problems. Most of the explanations I hear involve some convoluted hypothetical. Chicken Little hysteria. Really folks, (1) how do the proposed changes suppress voting, and (2) how is that suppression targeted to minorities?

Among other things, the Texas bill prohibits two practices used in Harris County in 2020 - 24 hour early voting and drive-through voting. It also prohibits mailing absentee ballot applications to registered voters, also used in Harris County.

If any of those things reduce voting (and they will), it's voter suppression. They affect practices used by heavily urban counties with higher minority populations.

"If anything [] reduce[s] voting, it's voter suppression" ---

Then, by that definition, any restriction on voting time, place, or manner is "voter suppression." Even any act of registration is.

That doesnt seem to be a very tenable, nor reasonable, definition of 'voter suppression'.

(07-15-2021 09:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:41 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I just need somebody from either side of the aisle to explain to me the problems. Most of the explanations I hear involve some convoluted hypothetical. Chicken Little hysteria. Really folks, (1) how do the proposed changes suppress voting, and (2) how is that suppression targeted to minorities?

Among other things, the Texas bill prohibits two practices used in Harris County in 2020 - 24 hour early voting and drive-through voting. It also prohibits mailing absentee ballot applications to registered voters, also used in Harris County.

If any of those things reduce voting (and they will), it's voter suppression. They affect practices used by heavily urban counties with higher minority populations.

"If anything [] reduce[s] voting, it's voter suppression" ---

Then, by that definition, any restriction on voting time, place, or manner is "voter suppression." Even any act of registration is.

That doesnt seem to be a very tenable, nor reasonable, definition of 'voter suppression'.

Yeah, it is only suppression in a technical sense. If you are open for voting 23 hours a day, and in that one hour, one voter is turned away, technically his vote is suppressed, at least until he decides to come back, as most will. What the Democrats are alleging is that voters turned away during the hours of closure and who do not come back at another time to cast their vote are disproportionately black, and what’s more, the Republicans know it, and what’s more, the only reason they have to restrict voting hours is because they know it disproportionately discourages black voters from voting. Seems like a lot of accusation based on no evidence.

I don’t see what would be wrong with returning to the hours available in 2016 or 2008, when NO outcry of targeted suppression was raised. My understanding is that the proposed hours and days of voting access in the proposed legislation are greater than those of 2008 or 2016. I could be wrong - it has happened before. Just ask my ex.

(07-15-2021 08:45 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 01:55 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  ...it's a...it's a...
it's a... FILIBUSTER! yeah. Democrats are using a Filibuster to try to stop something they don't like. Wow! The hypocrisy is truly stunning!

Hypocrisy, thy name is politician. Examples abound regardless of political stripe. I'm sure Texas Democrats would return post haste if the filibuster disappeared from the Senate.

Sadly, you are correct about this more often than not, unfortunately, OldSammy. As Owl#s had posted many times, while the Democrats are truly the party of evil, the Republicans often are too stupid at worst and inconsistent at best to stop the Marxist Democrats from destorying things. Plus, Democrats Hate Black People, based upon their own record and history. I could never participate in a prty that at its core platform believes in the extermination of Black People, the way the Democrats put openly in their platform. Sick.

(07-15-2021 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 09:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:41 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I just need somebody from either side of the aisle to explain to me the problems. Most of the explanations I hear involve some convoluted hypothetical. Chicken Little hysteria. Really folks, (1) how do the proposed changes suppress voting, and (2) how is that suppression targeted to minorities?

Among other things, the Texas bill prohibits two practices used in Harris County in 2020 - 24 hour early voting and drive-through voting. It also prohibits mailing absentee ballot applications to registered voters, also used in Harris County.

If any of those things reduce voting (and they will), it's voter suppression. They affect practices used by heavily urban counties with higher minority populations.

"If anything [] reduce[s] voting, it's voter suppression" ---

Then, by that definition, any restriction on voting time, place, or manner is "voter suppression." Even any act of registration is.

That doesnt seem to be a very tenable, nor reasonable, definition of 'voter suppression'.

Yeah, it is only suppression in a technical sense. If you are open for voting 23 hours a day, and in that one hour, one voter is turned away, technically his vote is suppressed, at least until he decides to come back, as most will. What the Democrats are alleging is that voters turned away during the hours of closure and who do not come back at another time to cast their vote are disproportionately black, and what’s more, the Republicans know it, and what’s more, the only reason they have to restrict voting hours is because they know it disproportionately discourages black voters from voting. Seems like a lot of accusation based on no evidence.

I don’t see what would be wrong with returning to the hours available in 2016 or 2008, when NO outcry of targeted suppression was raised. My understanding is that the proposed hours and days of voting access in the proposed legislation are greater than those of 2008 or 2016. I could be wrong - it has happened before. Just ask my ex.

Why no outcry before? Likely because the increase in using the 24-hr system weren't realized.

When we identify a practice that produces a good outcome (like increasing voter turnout) making a decision to allow said practice in the future is going to rankle feathers and a really good explanation is needed. The best explanation so far relies on the idea that more registered, legal votes in Area A are bad for Area B. IMO - eeehhhhhhhh.

Imagine if a politician argued for removing seat belt requirements because there wasn't an outcry for them before seatbelts were required. What about not advocating for marijuana legalization because our country had historically outlawed it, and only the dirty hippies had advocated for it. I don't think a lack of support for a practice during a specific period of time is a strong argument for not enacting the practice in the future.

(07-15-2021 12:09 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:45 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 01:55 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  ...it's a...it's a...
it's a... FILIBUSTER! yeah. Democrats are using a Filibuster to try to stop something they don't like. Wow! The hypocrisy is truly stunning!

Hypocrisy, thy name is politician. Examples abound regardless of political stripe. I'm sure Texas Democrats would return post haste if the filibuster disappeared from the Senate.

Sadly, you are correct about this more often than not, unfortunately, OldSammy. As Owl#s had posted many times, while the Democrats are truly the party of evil, the Republicans often are too stupid at worst and inconsistent at best to stop the Marxist Democrats from destorying things. Plus, Democrats Hate Black People, based upon their own record and history. I could never participate in a prty that at its core platform believes in the extermination of Black People, the way the Democrats put openly in their platform. Sick.

I bow down to that level of trolling. Well done!

(07-15-2021 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 09:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:41 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-12-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I just need somebody from either side of the aisle to explain to me the problems. Most of the explanations I hear involve some convoluted hypothetical. Chicken Little hysteria. Really folks, (1) how do the proposed changes suppress voting, and (2) how is that suppression targeted to minorities?

Among other things, the Texas bill prohibits two practices used in Harris County in 2020 - 24 hour early voting and drive-through voting. It also prohibits mailing absentee ballot applications to registered voters, also used in Harris County.

If any of those things reduce voting (and they will), it's voter suppression. They affect practices used by heavily urban counties with higher minority populations.

"If anything [] reduce[s] voting, it's voter suppression" ---

Then, by that definition, any restriction on voting time, place, or manner is "voter suppression." Even any act of registration is.

That doesnt seem to be a very tenable, nor reasonable, definition of 'voter suppression'.

Yeah, it is only suppression in a technical sense. If you are open for voting 23 hours a day, and in that one hour, one voter is turned away, technically his vote is suppressed, at least until he decides to come back, as most will. What the Democrats are alleging is that voters turned away during the hours of closure and who do not come back at another time to cast their vote are disproportionately black, and what’s more, the Republicans know it, and what’s more, the only reason they have to restrict voting hours is because they know it disproportionately discourages black voters from voting. Seems like a lot of accusation based on no evidence.

I don’t see what would be wrong with returning to the hours available in 2016 or 2008, when NO outcry of targeted suppression was raised. My understanding is that the proposed hours and days of voting access in the proposed legislation are greater than those of 2008 or 2016. I could be wrong - it has happened before. Just ask my ex.

Why no outcry before? Likely because the increase in using the 24-hr system weren't realized.

When we identify a practice that produces a good outcome (like increasing voter turnout) making a decision to allow said practice in the future is going to rankle feathers and a really good explanation is needed. The best explanation so far relies on the idea that more registered, legal votes in Area A are bad for Area B. IMO - eeehhhhhhhh.

Imagine if a politician argued for removing seat belt requirements because there wasn't an outcry for them before seatbelts were required. What about not advocating for marijuana legalization because our country had historically outlawed it, and only the dirty hippies had advocated for it. I don't think a lack of support for a practice during a specific period of time is a strong argument for not enacting the practice in the future.

So it’s as if they have never tried mint ice cream before, but now they demand it?

I really think you are reaching here. The examples I used were 2008 and 2016, hardly ancient history. 2008 in particular had record levels of black participation. Hardly suppressive. People who want to vote will find a way to vote. If they are not very motivated, I doubt polls open at 3AM will do the trick.

And as a former dirty hippie, (sorta, for a while) I resent the slur.

(07-15-2021 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 09:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 08:41 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  Among other things, the Texas bill prohibits two practices used in Harris County in 2020 - 24 hour early voting and drive-through voting. It also prohibits mailing absentee ballot applications to registered voters, also used in Harris County.

If any of those things reduce voting (and they will), it's voter suppression. They affect practices used by heavily urban counties with higher minority populations.

"If anything [] reduce[s] voting, it's voter suppression" ---

Then, by that definition, any restriction on voting time, place, or manner is "voter suppression." Even any act of registration is.

That doesnt seem to be a very tenable, nor reasonable, definition of 'voter suppression'.

Yeah, it is only suppression in a technical sense. If you are open for voting 23 hours a day, and in that one hour, one voter is turned away, technically his vote is suppressed, at least until he decides to come back, as most will. What the Democrats are alleging is that voters turned away during the hours of closure and who do not come back at another time to cast their vote are disproportionately black, and what’s more, the Republicans know it, and what’s more, the only reason they have to restrict voting hours is because they know it disproportionately discourages black voters from voting. Seems like a lot of accusation based on no evidence.

I don’t see what would be wrong with returning to the hours available in 2016 or 2008, when NO outcry of targeted suppression was raised. My understanding is that the proposed hours and days of voting access in the proposed legislation are greater than those of 2008 or 2016. I could be wrong - it has happened before. Just ask my ex.

Why no outcry before? Likely because the increase in using the 24-hr system weren't realized.

When we identify a practice that produces a good outcome (like increasing voter turnout) making a decision to allow said practice in the future is going to rankle feathers and a really good explanation is needed. The best explanation so far relies on the idea that more registered, legal votes in Area A are bad for Area B. IMO - eeehhhhhhhh.

Imagine if a politician argued for removing seat belt requirements because there wasn't an outcry for them before seatbelts were required. What about not advocating for marijuana legalization because our country had historically outlawed it, and only the dirty hippies had advocated for it. I don't think a lack of support for a practice during a specific period of time is a strong argument for not enacting the practice in the future.

So it’s as if they have never tried mint ice cream before, but now they demand it?

I really think you are reaching here. The examples I used were 2008 and 2016, hardly ancient history. 2008 in particular had record levels of black participation. Hardly suppressive. People who want to vote will find a way to vote. If they are not very motivated, I doubt polls open at 3AM will do the trick.

And as a former dirty hippie, (sorta, for a while) I resent the slur.

Cat is out of the bag. Imagine having not tried mint ice cream, then you're given in, and then told that you can no longer have that ice cream.

This, to be fair, is the exact reason many conservatives are wary of expanding government services. Once the public has a taste for them, it is much harder to claw them back.

I'm finding it hard to believe that you're struggling this mightily with the concept.

(07-15-2021 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='17500237' dateline='1626360288']


"If anything [] reduce[s] voting, it's voter suppression" ---

Then, by that definition, any restriction on voting time, place, or manner is "voter suppression." Even any act of registration is.

That doesnt seem to be a very tenable, nor reasonable, definition of 'voter suppression'.
[/quote


Yeah, it is only suppression in a technical sense. If you are open for voting 23 hours a day, and in that one hour, one voter is turned away, technically his vote is suppressed, at least until he decides to come back, as most will. What the Democrats are alleging is that voters turned away during the hours of closure and who do not come back at another time to cast their vote are disproportionately black, and what’s more, the Republicans know it, and what’s more, the only reason they have to restrict voting hours is because they know it disproportionately discourages black voters from voting. Seems like a lot of accusation based on no evidence.

I don’t see what would be wrong with returning to the hours available in 2016 or 2008, when NO outcry of targeted suppression was raised. My understanding is that the proposed hours and days of voting access in the proposed legislation are greater than those of 2008 or 2016. I could be wrong - it has happened before. Just ask my ex.

Why no outcry before? Likely because the increase in using the 24-hr system weren't realized.

When we identify a practice that produces a good outcome (like increasing voter turnout) making a decision to allow said practice in the future is going to rankle feathers and a really good explanation is needed. The best explanation so far relies on the idea that more registered, legal votes in Area A are bad for Area B. IMO - eeehhhhhhhh.

Imagine if a politician argued for removing seat belt requirements because there wasn't an outcry for them before seatbelts were required. What about not advocating for marijuana legalization because our country had historically outlawed it, and only the dirty hippies had advocated for it. I don't think a lack of support for a practice during a specific period of time is a strong argument for not enacting the practice in the future.

So it’s as if they have never tried mint ice cream before, but now they demand it?

I really think you are reaching here. The examples I used were 2008 and 2016, hardly ancient history. 2008 in particular had record levels of black participation. Hardly suppressive. People who want to vote will find a way to vote. If they are not very motivated, I doubt polls open at 3AM will do the trick.

And as a former dirty hippie, (sorta, for a while) I resent the slur.

Cat is out of the bag. Imagine having not tried mint ice cream, then you're given in, and then told that you can no longer have that ice cream.

This, to be fair, is the exact reason many conservatives are wary of expanding government services. Once the public has a taste for them, it is much harder to claw them back.

I'm finding it hard to believe that you're struggling this mightily with the concept.

Actually, paying for those expanded services is why conservatives are leery of the everything for everybody Democratic attitude.

I am finding it hard to believe you don’t consider cost.