(07-14-2021 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

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

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

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

I simply want to know why some here champion for unequal access to a fundamental right? Considering at least one is the biggest proponent of cartoons for their explanation of the advantages of equity over equal access, I dont think I am much surprised.

The outright lie in the 'Jim Crow 2.0' is simply the cherry on top.

I mean, in a perfect world we would expand a 24 hr voting opportunity to everyone.

But if one county wants to provide a more equitable outcome to its voters, can you provide a reason why it should be excluded from doing so?