(07-14-2021 03:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 02:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 02:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  state agency

So, I gather you are fine with rich areas having better schools, say Fort Bemd County, vs. poor ones, say, Presidio County, as long as the three R’s are taught.

Everybody is equal, it’s just that some are more equal than others.

Seriously, how does prohibiting 24 hour voting adversely impact minority voters? Is there a large population of black voters who won’t vote at all if they cannot vote at 4:00 am? I can see lots of reasons not to have 24 voting - you need election officials on duty, poll watchers, security guards, other workers just to enable two votes to be cast? Especially when those two votes could as easily be cast at another time within the weeks of extended voting?

Clearly this is a made up problem, not a real one.

Regarding the 24-hour voting... it's seems that the more people that engage in the democratic process the better, no?

Personally I find it hard to get to the the polls 7:30-6:00 pm (I make it happen but I'm in a position where I can make my own schedule to some extent). I'm sure others have schedules that are much more difficult than mine.

If there are areas that CAN provide 24-hour voting and choose to provide it... why not?

As I said earlier, I came of voting age at a time when if you could not show up at the polls between 7 and 7 on the designated Election Day, you were SOL. Like I said, I drove five hours from Houston to cast my first vote.


Now, I can spend two weeks or more choosing my time. I like that. But why not make it 4 weeks? Why not make it 10? Why not make it anytime? If one is going to cast a straight party ticket, what is the need to wait? Go ahead and vote for a nominee to be named later.

I am Ok with allowing local option, letting the rich counties out-access the poor ones. I am also ok with not doing it, allowing nobody to have special access.

Perhaps if the Democrats had not made this all (our way) or nothing (the highway), they could have negotiated some changes. Maybe they really didn’t want to, preferring to have a campaign issue.


My questions are not if we should do this or do that, but why the Democrats in both Texas and DC label this as voter suppression and Jim Crow 2.0. I ask not if these choices are good or bad, but why the Dems call them suppression.

Wait, so you actually agree with letting counties do 24 hr voting if they can support it? Then why such push back towards me?

I don’t care either way. Like you, I am fine with rich people counties getting advantages over poor, if they can pay for them. No need for schools or public defenders to be equal. Let Dallas County have gold restroom fixtures if they want, as long as the people in Deaf Smith Count have outhouses.

I just want to know why the Democratic Party characterizes these reforms as racially suppressive. I have asked many times, and I think I am being dodged.

Let me be blunt here: it is an outright, big fat LIE. Can I get you to agree on that?

My asking this is what you call push back.

Go ask the democratic party - don't rely on me to be their proxy.

I do not believe that the push for the ban on 24 hr voting is racially motivated. I think it is motivated to drive down Dem representation since the places that implemented it during the pandemic were urban areas that skew blue. I don't know if I've specifically heard this proposal we've been discussing as being racist, though.

I am calling your challenging of my opinion, and telling me I basically support segregation, as pushback - what else should I call it?