The Atlanta Braves.....are acting brave

ITS TOO HARD?!?!?

Is that going to be how you put it?

Have to figure out how to get down to the DMV and then register with the ID from DMV. How hard is that going to be for you?

I hope you will learn that is not a valid argument for one second.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

You're still arguing against voter ID. What good does it do to require an ID to get one's name on the poll list if no one is verifying ID when the vote is cast?

No, I'm just stating a fact. You're the one arguing in favor of voter ID at the polls. I simply don't care much about that part of the bill. Actually, IIRC the bill eliminates signature verification for absentee ballots in favor of valid ID.

The water thing is an obviously ridiculous knee jerk reaction to how Georgians voted these last 2 elections. It serves no purpose in preventing voter fraud.

The independence of local community election boards threat is much more of an issue for me. So is the shortening of the time for voters to request absentee ballots in a run off election, and the tiny window this bill affords absentee voters to request and return their ballots. That's really going to affect military voters, out of state voters and rural voters.

This bill substantially changes the way some Georgians vote, both Republican and Democrat voters. It will take a lot of re-education efforts to get everyone up to speed on what they need to make sure they can vote, and that their votes will be counted for the 2022 election. Democrats are good at that, for their voters. Are Republicans?

a reply to: Justoneman

Why are you trying to pull me into a voter ID argument, when I have no problem with Georgia requiring ID?

There's a lot more to this so called "voter suppression" bill than voter ID requirement changes.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You responded much better than I in that regard. BTW, I’m the one referenced in regards to the bottle water in line. However, during the work day, I give myself a few minutes to browse, respond on ATS. I didn’t get a chance to respond to that question.

You made excellent points and something I think many can pick up on, “Political Nativity”, not by choice, but simply not knowing the full impact of the reality of the situation. The situation being that Politics is extremely dirty and people can and do use loopholes to get what they want.

It’s like we know rules are there to be followed, but some people put too much faith into their fellow humans “Integrity” and assume we’re all lock step and key, ‘fraid that isn’t so. Times that by x1000 and in all precincts, we have a growing problem. Now, all of a sudden, these voter laws suddenly make sense.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, I'm just stating a fact. You're the one arguing in favor of voter ID at the polls. I simply don't care much about that part of the bill. Actually, IIRC the bill eliminates signature verification for absentee ballots in favor of valid ID.

Some day, people are going to actually admit their position and try to stand behind it. That's my version of Utopia.

You are trying to equate voter ID at time of registration to reasonable voter ID requirements. That is pure BS and you know it. The purpose of a photo ID is to establish one's identity. Voting is not a right; it is a privilege granted to citizens of a nation. One should have to prove they are a citizen in order to vote. If someone cannot prove they are a citizen, then they probably aren't citizens.

And that's the whole thing in a nutshell right there. Anyone who opposes voter ID is supporting illegal voting. Period.

By the way, on what page did the bill talk about removing the requirement for signatures?

There is not poll tax. Poll taxes are illegal. That's why comparing voting rights to purchasing and picking tickets is dumb.

That wasn't the comparison. That's your warped interpretation of the comparison designed specifically to confuse the issue.

When one purchases a ticket, one has paid for an item they have not taken possession of. In order to take possession of that purchase, they must prove their identity to those in charge of the purchased item. When one registers to vote, they are claiming a privilege that they have not yet exercised. When they go to exercise that privilege, they must prove their identity to those in charge of overseeing that privilege.

There's your comparison, and it is absolutely appropriate.

The water thing is an obviously ridiculous knee jerk reaction to how Georgians voted these last 2 elections. It serves no purpose in preventing voter fraud.

So you are in favor of bribery and legal loopholes, then?

All that section does is close a loophole in a law that was designed to prevent intimidation of voters at the polls. I therefore take it you are in favor of intimidation at the polls as well.

The independence of local community election boards threat is much more of an issue for me. So is the shortening of the time for voters to request absentee ballots in a run off election, and the tiny window this bill affords absentee voters to request and return their ballots. That's really going to affect military voters, out of state voters and rural voters.

What are these time limits? They're in the bill and I have linked it for you twice.

This bill substantially changes the way some Georgians vote, both Republican and Democrat voters.

I do not care... I do not care AT ALL... about your binary partisanship. You can stop that crap right now. I'm in no mood to play the red/blue game with you, or anyone else for that matter.

So far the only change I have seen is that people need to have a photo ID with them. If they drive, they already have one (or should have). If not, they need a photo ID, by your own admission, just to register to vote... so what is the problem with carrying it when they vote? Is it too heavy? Has some Republican devil coated it with a corrosive substance whole they were sleeping? What?

Until you can give times specified in the bill, I'm not even going to entertain your uninformed conclusion on that issue. Either read what you're commenting on and debate like an adult, or expect to be called out regularly. This is ATS, not the comments section at CNN.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why are you trying to pull me into a voter ID argument, when I have no problem with Georgia requiring ID?

There you go, already backtracking. You certainly are arguing against voter ID. Own it. Act like an adult. You just admitted that you think voter ID should only apply to registration and not actual voting.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You certainly are arguing against voter ID.

I am not. I'm merely arguing that the comparison between voting rights and picking up items purchased with a credit through Will Call are not comparable. I don't care about Georgia's voter ID regulations. I don't care about Alabama's voter ID laws, and I don't care about Texas' voter ID laws.

You just admitted that you think voter ID should only apply to registration and not actual voting.

I did not. I stated the fact that all states require ID to register, but not all states require ID for a registered voter to cast a ballot. That's not an opinion.

Stop imagining dragons where there aren't any!

I care about laws, like the ban on the distribution of bottled water, that punish voters. I care about local election boards losing their independence, so that state legislators can find or toss votes that local election officials won't. I care about shortening the time to request and return absentee ballots, and I care about lack of access to ballot drop off locations and hours.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You are trying to equate voter ID at time of registration to reasonable voter ID requirements.

Nope.

Voting is not a right; it is a privilege granted to citizens of a nation.

Voting is a constitutionally protected right of all US citizens of age, except certain felons.

That wasn't the comparison.

Of course it was, and it was posted as hypocritical and ironic. I disagee, There is no comparison from being able to purchase tickets to a show and voting rights.

When one purchases a ticket, one has paid for an item they have not taken possession of. In order to take possession of that purchase, they must prove their identity to those in charge of the purchased item. When one registers to vote, they are claiming a privilege that they have not yet exercised. When they go to exercise that privilege, they must prove their identity to those in charge of overseeing that privilege.

A bank or credit card company is liable to refund a customer's order if they don't deliver the goods in good faith. There's insurance for that. Companies don't like to lose money.

ID theft is a crime. But, if someone steals your identity to vote in your name, you don't get that vote back, You don't have recourse, after the fact. You can't even prove it happened.

All that section does is close a loophole in a law that was designed to prevent intimidation of voters at the polls. I therefore take it you are in favor of intimidation at the polls as well.

I'm sure that you can provide plenty of examples of people being intimidated while waiting in line to vote, by people handing out water! There must be, if it's such a big problem they had to make a new law!

I do not care... I do not care AT ALL... about your binary partisanship. You can stop that crap right now. I'm in no mood to play the red/blue game with you, or anyone else for that matter.

Who cares what kind of mood you're in. The fact is, this bill may backfire on Republicans, because it effects Republican voters just a much as it effects Democrats. However, Democrats are a lot better organized at educating their voters than Republicans are.

Until you can give times specified in the bill, I'm not even going to entertain your uninformed conclusion on that issue.

Oh NO! How shall I carry on!?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why are you trying to pull me into a voter ID argument, when I have no problem with Georgia requiring ID?

There you go, already backtracking. You certainly are arguing against voter ID. Own it. Act like an adult. You just admitted that you think voter ID should only apply to registration and not actual voting.

TheRedneck

Maybe you can act like a big boy now, and try quoting my actual argument against voter ID laws in this thread, instead of projecting what anti voter ID movie is playing out in your own head.

a reply to: TheRedneck

By the way, on what page did the bill talk about removing the requirement for signatures?

Georgia ends ballot signature matching www.washingtontimes.com...

The Georgia pre-election court settlement with Democrats that so riled former President Donald Trump is essentially gone under the state’s new election overhaul law: Verifying mail-in ballot signatures has been replaced by checking voter ID numbers.

And you wish to believe the Washington Times or NYTimes for that matter on things. The biggest liars known to mankind are going to spin it. THE PEOPLE want this. Trump it is proven represents us overwhelmingly too.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

By the way, on what page did the bill talk about removing the requirement for signatures?

Georgia ends ballot signature matching www.washingtontimes.com...

The Georgia pre-election court settlement with Democrats that so riled former President Donald Trump is essentially gone under the state’s new election overhaul law: Verifying mail-in ballot signatures has been replaced by checking voter ID numbers.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I don't care about Georgia's voter ID regulations.

And yet, here you are, vigorously defending the status quo amid a Georgia voting bill.

I did not. I stated the fact that all states require ID to register, but not all states require ID for a registered voter to cast a ballot.

And you seem very happy about that, since you seem to think that somehow requiring an ID at time of registration is sufficient.

I care about laws, like the ban on the distribution of bottled water, that punish voters. I care about local election boards losing their independence, so that state legislators can find or toss votes that local election officials won't. I care about shortening the time to request and return absentee ballots, and I care about lack of access to ballot drop off locations and hours.

In other words, you care about laws you agree with because they favor your political partisanship... the others? Well, the hell with them, amiright?

I must have touched a nerve... multiple replies?

Voting is a constitutionally protected right of all US citizens of age, except certain felons.

In other words, a privilege. That'[s what I said.

ID theft is a crime. But, if someone steals your identity to vote in your name, you don't get that vote back, You don't have recourse, after the fact. You can't even prove it happened.

Quite convenient, I must say. Does the DNC know you're giving away their secrets?

To a thinking person, that would indicate that more security is needed for voting, not less.

The rest of that post is not even worth justifying with an answer.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

WOW!

HEY EVERYBODY! THE

WASHINGTON TIMES IS NOW

THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE!

SOOKIECHACHA SAID SO!

Try reading the bill. I didn't ask for what some editor thought.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I would have linked the New York Times if I thought you'd read it. The Washington Times seems like a more agreeable source for most people posting in this thread.




I didn't enter this thread to argue voter ID laws.

I entered this thread to defend US corporations', in this case MLB's, right to boycott Georgia's voter law, according to the United States Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United. Corporations are people, and money is free speech.

In doing so, I also emphasized that there is a lot more to this bill than just voter ID changes.

And, I certainly don't post according to whatever mood I think YOU may be in, or to pretend to be a lawyer or politician that can just casually read through a 98 page bill and give a professional analysis.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I would have linked the New York Times if I thought you'd read it. The Washington Times seems like a more agreeable source for most people posting in this thread.

I asked for information from the bill. As usual, you decided that meant someone else's opinion. No newspaper, news channel, or news organization writes these bills. The Georgia legislature does that, and I don't need nor desire some idiot in a suit working for a big company to tell me what to make of it.

But I will give you credit; you did finally post something from the actual bill. I suppose that is an improvement. Stand y while I read the text for myself.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

OK, I have had time to read the sections you posted. I can see where someone not paying attention to the wording could have thought that this bill removed the requirement for signatures. I have transcribed the complete text, removing the striken wording with the few exceptions below, in order to hopefully make this mass of linguistic absurdity somewhat readable. This is taken from a better link and I begin at line 1055 on page 42:

(1) Upon receipt of a timely application for an absentee ballot, a registrar or absentee ballot clerk shall enter thereon the date received. The registrar or absentee ballot clerk shall verify the identity of the applicant and determine, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, if the applicant is eligible to vote in the primary or election involved. In order verify the identity of the applicant, the registrar or absentee ballot clerk shall compare the applicant's name, date of birth, and number of his or her Georgia driver's license or identification card issued pursuant to Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Title 40 on the application with the information on file in the registrar's office. If the application does not contain the number of the applicant's Georgia driver's license or identification card issued pursuant to Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Title 40, the registrar or absentee ballot clerk shall verify that the identification provided with the application identifies the applicant. In order to be found eligible to vote an absentee ballot in person at the registrar's office or absentee ballot clerk's office, such person shall show one of the forms of identification listed in Code Section 21-2-417 and the registrar or absentee ballot clerk shall compare the identifying information on the application with the information on file in the registrar's office.

(2) If found eligible, the registrar or absentee ballot clerk shall certify by signing in the proper place on the application and then:

(A) Shall mail the ballot as provided in this Code section;
(B) If the application is made in person, shall issue the ballot to the elector within the confines of the registrar's or absentee ballot clerk's office as required by Code Section 21-2-383 if the ballot is issued during the advance voting period established pursuant to subsection (d) of Code Section 21-2-385; or
(C) May deliver the ballot in person to the elector if such elector is confined to a hospital.

(3) If found ineligible or if the application is not timely received, the clerk or the board of registrars shall deny the application by writing the reason for rejection in the proper space on the application and shall promptly notify the applicant in writing of the ground of ineligibility, a copy of which notification should be retained on file in the office of the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk for at least one year. However, an absentee ballot application shall not be rejected due to a mismatch between the signature identifying information of the elector on the application and the signature identifying information of the elector on file with the board of registrars. In such cases, the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk shall send the elector a provisional absentee ballot with the designation 'Provisional Ballot' on the outer oath envelope and information prepared by the Secretary of State as to the process to be followed to cure the signature discrepancy. If such ballot is returned to the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk prior to the closing of the polls on the day of the primary or election, the elector may cure the signature discrepancy by submitting an affidavit to the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk along with a copy of one of the forms of identification enumerated in subsection (c) of Code Section 21-2-417 before the close of the period for verifying provisional ballots contained in subsection (c) of Code Section 21-2-419. If the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk finds the affidavit and identification to be sufficient, the absentee ballot shall be counted as other absentee ballots. If the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk finds the affidavit and identification to be insufficient, then the procedure contained in Code Section 21-2-386 shall be followed for rejected absentee ballots.

Notice the bolded lines where "signature" has been changed to "identifying information." In other areas, "signature" has been changed to "discrepancy."

However, the next section clearly requires a signature on the oath:

(4) If the registrar or clerk is unable to determine the identity of the elector from information given on the application or if the application is not complete or if the oath on the application is not signed, the registrar or clerk should promptly contact the elector in writing to request the necessary additional information and a signed copy of the oath.

Based on this more in-depth analysis of the bill, it appears that the writers did not remove the requirement to have absentee ballots signed, but simply increased the amount of information that must be submitted to make it harder for fraudulent voting attempts to succeed.

This is why I ask for information from the bill. The New York Times and Washington Examiner both got it wrong. As did you, because you relied on them instead of reading it for yourself.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well, that is good news.

Sports needs to learn they are entertainment, not politics.

What's worse is that the crowds they're buckling over for aren't even fans of the sport.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Another rant of outrage full of misrepresentation and absurd exaggeration.

Dropboxes should be illegal unless manned by election officials 24/7 to ensure that people are not voting twice (or more).

Dropboxes are to receive mailed ballots. No different from mailing the ballot except that the chances of it arriving on time are better. And mail voting is legal. Deal with it.

I can't confer with my wife when we go vote.

So, silence in car? Silence while in the polling line? Is that part of the new law? If you are disabled you can even have someone in the polling booth with you, can't you?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Forgive my breaking this up, but I felt the incorrect information on requiring signatures deserved a separate post. held by an ordinaryMow, on to this little nugget of more misinformation:

I entered this thread to defend US corporations', in this case MLB's, right to boycott Georgia's voter law, according to the United States Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United. Corporations are people, and money is free speech.

I support the right of corporations to act as they choose within the law. However, Major League Baseball is not an ordinary corporation. It is a public-private partnership in that those stadiums are built with taxpayer dollars, not with corporate profits. Therefore it has a responsibility to the public to uphold the law which exceeds that held by an ordinary corporation. The law in this case is the Georgia bill, which has been (if I understand correctly) passed by the Georgia legislature and signed into law by the Georgia Governor. That makes it law.

If MLB wants to enjoy the flexibility and freedoms associated with ordinary corporations, they need to repay the citizens of the various states and municipalities the moneys spent on the stadiums, including construction, maintenance, and upkeep, plus reasonable interest.

For any government entity of any position to attempt to circumvent law via actions taken to punish another branch of government (in this case, the State of Georgia) is an abhorrent exercise in tyranny and should be met with immediate and severe repercussions. What you are advocating for is that the government has no limits and can force other branches and governmental organizations to abide by their will through punitive tactics. That means that, as a citizen of your state, you can be punished for actions taken by your state which the Federal government does not like.

This is tyranny.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

If MLB wants to enjoy the flexibility and freedoms associated with ordinary corporations, they need to repay the citizens of the various states and municipalities the moneys spent on the stadiums, including construction, maintenance, and upkeep, plus reasonable interest.

Absolutely. If there are such stipulations in their contracts.

This is tyranny.

Hyperbole much? Yes, yes you do.

a reply to: Phage

Dropboxes are to receive mailed ballots. No different from mailing the ballot. And mail voting is legal. Deal with it.

A dropbox specified for ballots only is not "no different from mailing the ballot." It is a special receptacle for ballots only, which invites fraud.

Legal does not always equal right.

So, silence in car? Silence while in the polling line? Is that part of the new law? If you are disabled you can even have someone in the polling booth with you, can't you?

The car is not within the campaign-free zone established by law.

While in the polls (we don't really have lines here, Phage; we know how to vote), yes, any communication of any partisan nature is prohibited. Violators are asked to refrain; if they persist, they are asked to leave; if they refuse, law enforcement will remove them. I've seen it happen.

Another person is allowed to accompany someone who is disabled; however, they must be a family member or caregiver, and they are not permitted to instruct the voter on who they should vote for. I'm sure it has happened, but if caught the ballot is torn up and replaced, and the person accompanying is required to leave the area until the voter finishes and the officials have the ballot in hand.

You seem unable to refrain from using wild hyperbole and strawman arguments tonight, Phage.

TheRedneck