(07-15-2021 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 11:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  “After all, if one county has its polls open 2 hrs longer each day during the voting period, that is diluting the votes of counties that don't...”


Isn’t that the point of wanting to have the big counties open longer?



But never mind - I have discovered I don’t really care one way or the other, as long as somebody can logically explain why one way or the other is racially suppressive.

The point of having bigger counties open longer is to dilute the votes of smaller counties? Not to me. I am for allowing counties to be open longer to enhance the ability of their constituents to vote.

You missed the point of that question to Tanq. He is taking me to town because I apparently support inequities, while he doesn't (despite that fact that he is fine with some counties operating polls for longer periods of time - you know, what I was saying they shouldf be able to do if they would like).

I am saying you are a hypocritical poseur who pretends to support equal access and equal rights. That is, you support the ones your political stance tells you to.

Everything you have said to this point is 'allow 24, and screw the ones who cant.' n With ZERO concern over dilution issues.

And, you seem entrenched in that even with the very real issue of denial of equal access. I think you called that 'garbage' or 'twisted' or somefink.

But this is fun --- in lad world, sometimes supporting equal access and equal opportunity is the goal, that is when supporting the group(s) that lad subjectively supports. But when it comes down to real fundamental issues of equal access, lad is seemingly ready to ditch that goal at the side of curb like a 18 wheeler driver ditches a deadbeat hitchhiker.

Ahh.... and the kicker is the rationale behind this widely varying policy of ignoring the true ideal of equal access is that (and get this one) the key difference is that 'it does good for people'. But, in practice, it isnt 'doing good for people', it 'does good for people that lad supports doing good for, and to fk with anyone else.'

And no, apparently lad has no friggin' clue as to both the current state poll laws and the proposed one, as one would readily notice differences in times between big cities and others. But, the differences are structured to be de minimis in practice, since, well, you know, equal access concerns and this small concept called 'statewide races'.

And honestly, who the fk cares that if you have city above 600k, the pre-voting gets to open for a Saturday over the rest of the poor Kinko-s starved denizens of Texas.

But, when you start talking about 24 hour opening of polls, and the attitude is 'let the rich ones swim and the poor ones can fk themselves', yes there is an issue.

For as much as lad preaches to the world about equity, he sure is gd clueless about that and the concept of equal access. As has been the case in other issues.

I mean criminy, every state in the fing Union has very consistent statewide laws in, that is in order to be compliant with the notion of equal access in this respect. But, that concern of actual dilution seems to be non-existent for lad in his quest to make sure that *his* selected areas can get to 24 hour voting. Otay.....

I can't keep track of who is saying what, here.

So it is NOT OK for some counties to offer 24-hour voting if other counties do not offer that?

Is it or is it not OK for one county to have polls open for 10 hours when the adjacent county opens them for 12?

What about traffic? What about # polling locations / population?

It seems that it is going to be impossible to create complete equality to have a completely equal [amount of time measured front walking out the front door to returning back home after voting]. Therefore it seems reasonable to me to let the counties/precincts direct their protocols as they see fit (trying to bring in as many voters as they can).