(05-21-2020 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not speaking for others, but I've made similar observations of others. I think numbers also uses this phrase... when your only tool is a hammer, you see everything as a nail.

I think numbers takes issue with the positions that she takes.
I think OO is taking issue that she reaches those positions through the same flowchart.

As a generic example only... again not speaking for them....
But if the only voter suppression she's worried about ending is black democrats, that's an issue for anyone who is being suppressed, but isn't a black democrat. This is commonly noted when people's only political experience is representing a narrow constituency... Boxer in CA never had to consider Republicans very much.

You can see the type of election reforms Abrams advocates for by going to the Fair Fight website. Then you can decide whether or not the only voter suppression she's worried about ending is black democrats.

https://fairfight.com/legal-action

What part of my response did not make it crystal clear that I was not speaking for anyone, or about anyone... but merely making 'generic' statements? This is why I think your obtuseness is intentional... because I couldn't possibly have been more clear.


As to Stacy Abrams, she's not on any ballot where I am registered to vote and if she were to become so, I can't imagine there is anything that she could support that would cause me to vote for Biden. I've said it before and will repeat it here... NOT because I support his policies, but I'd have voted for Bernie over lots of Republicans.

That said, purely out of courtesy to you... (which you routinely deny me, I might add)... I looked at the website. Hardly a laundry list of her positions.

I'm shocked to see that a professional website doesn't say... 'I'm a racist, just not in the traditional manner'. /sarcasm I'm sure Trump's website doesn't say "I'm a Russian asset' or 'I hate immigrants'.


But lets play....

She wants to end use it or lose it. I don't know GA's policy and am not going to look it up, but I've seen many of these that I support 100%. If you go 8 years without voting or re-registering, I don't think purging is a bad idea. Passports, which only allow an American Citizen to return to their home country expire every 10. I don't see these policies as things that simply need to be ended... Amended, maybe... What alternative does she support? Registering to vote is easy, especially with all the 'get out the vote' drives, often funded by minority support groups. I don't support her here.

Ending 'exact match'. My father, son and I all have the same first and last names. Not for anything important, certainly not voting, but I can't say we've never 'abused' this. If I did a search of all the Ham Bone's in the country, there are probably tens of thousands of us. Again, what is the specific policy (I'm not asking, I just mean it could be abused but doesn't have to be abusive) but again. what alternative does she have to ensure that people don't improperly vote?

Ending machine voting and using paper.... pretty dumb idea in my book. Paper is much less secure than electronic... and electronic can be verified by getting a print-out of the vote. The 1980's want their technology back.

Ensuring uniform election procedures... That's a bit like saying 'fair fight'. It depends on how you define fair... on what you want done in each place. N. Korea under the Kim's is/was pretty uniform.

Ensuring votes are counted fairly and consistently... ensuring fair elections... wow... she's really going out on a ledge with that idea.

I see a whole lot of 'people were disenfranchised' comments, including supposed anecdotes, but little in the way of facts.

It will be interesting if such a case ever goes to trial if any of those people actually come forward. In a fairly recent SCOTUS case regarding supposed disenfranchisement because of voter ID, I recall that a great story about percentages of people who could possibly be disenfranchised as a result... totalling thousands of possible voters... Despite allegations of thousands of such people, there was not one single actual person presented who simply had no way of verifying their eligibility... and was not given numerous opportunities to correct it, both before and after the election. The court noted this in their decision... which iirc, was not 5-4 but more like 6-2 with someone abstaining because of a conflict. Going from memory, but the basic point is true. Lots of people think/claim to be disenfranchised who are victims of their own 'gaming' of the system... like they register in one place so they can get their kids in that school, but then live somewhere else... or they don't put an address so their ex can't find them for child support. I personally know a person I just described... listened to them complain all about it so I tried to help them... Re-register... nope, won't do that. Okay, go vote where you 'say' you live' ... nope. I should have the right to vote 'here' even though I don't live 'here'... okay... go rent a UPS box with a physical address... nope... it's $48 while a USPS (not elegible as a physical address) is only $28.