The Atlanta Braves.....are acting brave

a reply to: TheRedneck

Maybe, just maybe, the guy who introduced and lobbied for this measure of the bill understands what's in it.

[Georgia Secretary of State, Brad] Raffensperger also defended the new ID requirement for absentee voting, saying that it was necessary to eliminate the state’s much-maligned signature-matching requirement that relied on election workers to compare the signature on an absentee ballot to the one on a voter file.

Even if it is reported by thehill.com...

Get over it. Signature verification in Georgia is over, done, kaput!

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

The thing is, we don't have history written yet. So its impossible to know which side anyone will be one. But what I do know is this: a key element of critical race theory has to do with creating your reality. When you hear someone say "They spoke word to power", that is what is being intimated. In other circles, this is a whackadoo concept that circulated among the folks who carry crystals a few years ago. And i won't discount the benefits of positive thinking.

But positive thinking does not create your reality. Nor do words. A group of morons gathered together agreeing on the morose doesn't make the morose true. Although those morons can choose to live in a subreality where they believe it is true.

You can likely tell by my wording here that i view this as just absolutely absurd. I get the connection between words and thought. Humans are wired to think in words, and will gravitate towards that sans hearing issues. We whisper words under our breath while reading, and often while thinking. Its not easy to hear, but its often there. So i get it. Words can be powerful. But words cannot alter reality, unless you grasp on reality was tenuous to begin with.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Wow, maybe you're right. I wasn't aware the Georgia Secretary of State was also a member of the Georgia legislature! I mean, who'da thunk that? Gee, if he thinks so, I guess those words in the bill mean nothing.

(Of course he isn't, but whatever helps you sleep at night. You're still relying on someone else telling you what to think.)

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Okay.
Now you're just trolling, playing games you accuse others of.

Hope you had fun derailing DTOM's thread.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What do you expect? You come in this thread making accusations that are not backed up in the wording in the bill, and when asked where that wording is, proceed to quote every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the book instead of directly answering the question.

And when called on it, you just repeat the process.

If I cared what ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, or even Fox thought about this bill, I can watch them and get it straight from the horse's mouth. I do not need you to interpret the news for me. Get that? I do not need you to interpret the news for me. I never did, and I never will.

So yeah... I guess I was trolling you. Takes one to spot one.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Still trolling.
Still denying.
Still detracting with personal insults, projections and lies.

I expect more from an ATS moderator. "Be the change you want to see."

You're smarter, so you say, than all the legal and political analysts, the Georgia Secretary of State, and now, I suppose the Governor is just another Tom, Dick or Harry too. Oh well...

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp Explains His State’s New Election Law: www.dailysignal.com...

But it’s really pretty simple, the bill makes it easy to vote and hard to cheat. It replaces an arbitrary signature match on absentee ballots by mail with the voter ID, which is free in Georgia.

The fact of the matter is, there is no mechanism in this bill for signature verification, and you can't cite any such mechanism in the bill.

Governor Kemp is wrong, in my opinion. The totality of this measure makes it harder to vote and easier to cheat. Instead of improving the signature verification process, they just tossed it. Instead of adding an ID requirement, as an extra failsafe, signature verification has been replaced. Preferably, a state ID and the last 4 digits of a Social Security number, are all that's required for all absentee ballots, mailed in or dropped off.. Absent those forms of ID, there is a limited menu of other suitable forms of ID, that may be submitted. Signature verification is not among that menu list.

What's the purpose of a picture ID, if the picture and the signature on the ID are never considered? It's a lot easier to get ahold of state ID numbers and the last 4 digits of a Social Security number than to forge a signature well enough to bypass computer alga rhythms.

There are lots of criminal caveats, to intimidate and trip up voters, and very few actual mechanisms to protect against fraud.

There's a lot more in this sinister bill than just ID requirements. Enough that some pretty powerful corporations are expressing their discomfort in various ways.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Mob fallacies aside, i could not care less what corporations are saying about voting laws. No more than I'd care what Jesse Ventura has to say about COVID. I generally stick to a wheelhouse concept when allowing someones opinion to have a lot of impact. In this arena, the wheelhouse of corporations is control for consumerism. So there is that. And we cannot forget the bailout secured by democrats for the airlines...debts must be repaid and all that.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You're smarter, so you say, than all the legal and political analysts, the Georgia Secretary of State

I did not say that. I implied I trust my own understanding of legal principles more than I trust that of anyone in power or in the media. That much is true.

The fact of the matter is, there is no mechanism in this bill for signature verification, and you can't cite any such mechanism in the bill.

I already did. ABC didn't mention it, though, so you skipped right past it.

You say it yourself: what is the purpose of a signature if it is not verified? Georgia ID (like Alabama ID) contains a signature which can and does serve as a reference for future signatures. My personal signature is almost completely illegible; many times I have pulled out my state ID to prove that, yes, that is my legal signature. The fact that the oath is required to be signed implies a signature verification.

If a signature verification is not used, then anyone can draw a line, or just make a dot, in the signature space and it can be accepted as a legal signature. The bill specifically states that the voter must sign the oath, or the ballot is rejected until signed.

It may be true that the verification is based now on the state ID and not the signature in the registrar's office. Perhaps that is what the Governor meant; I don't know and I don't tend to worry over what other governors do as a general rule. I have quite enough to deal with over Governor Mee-Maw and her particular brand of tyranny. But a signature is still required along with additional state ID information. That signature is now only one of several pieces of "identifying data" that are verified, according to the wording in the bill itself. I don't care what ABC, NBC, CNN, CNS, MSNBC, BBC, OPN, Fox, Reuters, the AP, or the Kennebunkport newspaper say about it. I read the bill. I can read.

If reading the bill is trolling, then I plead guilty. I don't see how I can make that any clearer.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
... USAtoday opinion...

That says it all, doesn't it? The sad part is people who read (or listen to) "opinions" mistake it for news. Our media is defunct and have zero value except for the local news stations giving weather and traffic reports. Those haven't been politicized yet.