All Star Game out of Atlanta

[R2Dawg]

All I'll say is this.

We've had issues with the last two elections and America needs to clean some things up and we need to make sure that actual real, alive citizens are voting. And voting only once. I have no idea why anyone that believes in American ideals has a problem with that unless they just want to cheat and rig elections.

Secondly Rob Manfred should be fired and pulling the All Star Game out of Atlanta over this is complete and utter bullshit. This has zero to do with baseball. ZERO.

Agree. Every American should want fair elections. It is un-American to not want it.

The cancel culture has taken over spinless CEOs everywhere. The high corporate tax ends up hurting all Americans but with the way they are acting, in some way I say stick it to the CEOs. How bout taxing their salary like by 90% and see how they like it. How bout cancel the CEOs in society. They will still have plenty to live on 10% of 3mil a year is enough. They will change their tune then. They are caving to the ones in power thinking it will help them. The left is destroying sports - the one unifying piece of our culture. They don't want to unify America.

The cancel everyone off the face of earth if we don't like you is pure evil, un-American and must go.

[TimberBeast]

Misdirection works

[Commercecomet24]

Agree. They won't find a "pure" state, just like the wokes won't, and the Republicans who cry "RINO" about everyone who isn't in lock step in their party won't. It's constant circular firing squad.

Exactly and this is what bothers me the most about all that's going on right now. There's no end game, it's just as you mentioned a constant circular firing squad. We're becoming more and more divided and it sucks.

[Rex54]

Exactly and this is what bothers me the most about all that's going on right now. There's no end game, it's just as you mentioned a constant circular firing squad. We're becoming more and more divided and it sucks.

There's most definitely and end game. Oh no we're divided boo hoo - those in power set up our society to divide you. That's how they keep their power, divide and conquer. "Democracy" is a joke. But please carry on hoping and wishing things just will magically get better because of "our Ideals" as Todd mentioned. Let's see where that gets you.

[BiscuitEater]

No they won't, because these "tactics", as you call them, have all been proven to be baseless grifts by opportunistic grifters who knew they were telling bald-faced lies. Literally every single example of fraud has been thoroughly explained, debunked, or flat out proven to bogus. Every. Single. One. (fyi...in most cases by Republican state office holders).

Please list the Courts, dates and rulings that 'proved' every single claim was ' bogus' because I don't think they wanted to see the evidence.

Just because an election official 'claims' there was no fraud is no difference than Sidney Powell claiming there was!

Courts 'prove' or disprove cases based on evidence presented! Not state office holders!!

[BiscuitEater]

Hell, the Catholic Church believed the Earth was at the center of the Universe, despite Galileo being like "Na....just look through this telescope, and you'll see the light"...

It wasn't just the Church but all the greatest scientists of his day believed the earth center model. The Church just followed the 'science' of the day.

Actual center of our universe is a point in space called the barycenter. The barycenter is very close to the sun but constantly shifts. But, you can go ahead and believe the sun is the center if it makes you feel better.

[Cooterpoot]

Nothing is ever as bad as it seems. Things aren't any worse today than 50 years ago. They're actually better.

[Rex54]

Nothing is ever as bad as it seems. Things aren't any worse today than 50 years ago. They're actually better.

What a pathetic and cowardly cope.

[R2Dawg]

Nothing is ever as bad as it seems. Things aren't any worse today than 50 years ago. They're actually better.

Not sure what lens you are looking thru but newsflash, we ain't better than 50 years ago. Way worse.

[William Tecumsah Sherman]

Social media mob is the cause of businesses and corporations bending the knee. When it wasn?t around, it didn?t happen.

[WinningIsRelentless]

Look at the end of the day some of the law is good but some of it just paints a picture oppression.

Banning people from passing out water and snacks in long lines is not a good look. I completely understand banning campaigns from being able to pass them out, but banning everyone is just stupid.

[RocketDawg]

Look at the end of the day some of the law is good but some of it just paints a picture oppression.

Banning people from passing out water and snacks in long lines is not a good look. I completely understand banning campaigns from being able to pass them out, but banning everyone is just stupid.

The intent is to ban politicians and their supporters from handing out water and snacks. I read on the other board that in black districts the average wait time in Atlanta was 56 minutes. That sounds terrible - if the election was in July or August. But in November? Nobody's going to pass out for lack of water in the chilly temperatures of autumn. Regardless, if people are having to wait an hour to vote something needs to be done about the number of voting precincts.

[Irondawg]

Look at the end of the day some of the law is good but some of it just paints a picture oppression.

Banning people from passing out water and snacks in long lines is not a good look. I completely understand banning campaigns from being able to pass them out, but banning everyone is just stupid.

This language could have been written better but it does allow election officials to put out self service water and food.

I don?t know but this seems like one of those laws put in for the express reason of stopping something that was happening. Much like ridiculousness on some warning labels.

The point is that I don?t know when it ends at others have said. These people have to stop catering to Twitter mobs that aren?t the consumers of their products and Trump being even more of a prick isn?t going to help matters.

Once they move it somewhere the alt right will immediately find something in that city or state that is equal or worse then Georgia and start skewering them. MLB just hopes that the media will give them a cookie for their virtue signaling and not run those stories. Otherwise they?ll be stuck in a loop of constantly getting berated by the media for their venue choice.

[BrunswickDawg]

This language could have been written better but it does allow election officials to put out self service water and food.

I don?t know but this seems like one of those laws put in for the express reason of stopping something that was happening. Much like ridiculousness on some warning labels.

The point is that I don?t know when it ends at others have said. These people have to stop catering to Twitter mobs that aren?t the consumers of their products and Trump being even more of a prick isn?t going to help matters.

Once they move it somewhere the alt right will immediately find something in that city or state that is equal or worse then Georgia and start skewering them. MLB just hopes that the media will give them a cookie for their virtue signaling and not run those stories. Otherwise they?ll be stuck in a loop of constantly getting berated by the media for their venue choice.

Yes - campaigns might have been out giving away water in line. I know special interest groups were. But was that a problem? Again, Georgia already has a ban on any political activity within 250 feet of a polling location. They problem isn't giving out water - the problem is we have lines circling the inside of a school gymnasium, going out the door, and extending more than 250 feet from a building. Why? Because some counties in Georgia have cut the number of voting locations or have not kept up with growth and have not provided enough voting locations, equipment and manpower to make the process efficient and easy for all. Those are the issues the legislature should be working to fix - instead they ban water and won't let someone hold your place in line so you can go pee.

[Beaver]

the problem is we have lines circling the inside of a school gymnasium, going out the door, and extending more than 250 feet from a building. Why? Because some counties in Georgia have cut the number of voting locations or have not kept up with growth and have not provided enough voting locations, equipment and manpower to make the process efficient and easy for all. Those are the issues the legislature should be working to fix - instead they ban water and won't let someone hold your place in line so you can go pee.

Section 18 states, "If, at the previous general election, a precinct contained more than 2000 electors and if electors desiring to vote on the day of the election had to wait in line for more than one hour before checking in to vote, the superintendent shall either reduce the size of such precinct so that it shall contain no more than 2000 electors in accordance with the procedures prescribed by this chapter for the division, alteration, and consolidation of precinct no later than 60 days before the next general election. For administering this Code section the chief manager of a precinct which contained more than 2000 electors at the previous general election shall submit a report thereof to the superintendent of the reported time from entering the line to checking in to vote. Such wait time shall be measured no fewer than three different times throughout the day (in the morning, at midday, and prior to the close of poles) an such results shall be recorded on a form provided by the Secretary of State. Any such change in the boundaries of a precinct shall conform with the requirements of subsection (a) Code Section 21-2-261.1"

Does this not address the very issue you're talking about here?

[RocketDawg]

Section 18 states, "If, at the previous general election, a precinct contained more than 2000 electors and if electors desiring to vote on the day of the election had to wait in line for more than one hour before checking in to vote, the superintendent shall either reduce the size of such precinct so that it shall contain no more than 2000 electors in accordance with the procedures prescribed by this chapter for the division, alteration, and consolidation of precinct no later than 60 days before the next general election. For administering this Code section the chief manager of a precinct which contained more than 2000 electors at the previous general election shall submit a report thereof to the superintendent of the reported time from entering the line to checking in to vote. Such wait time shall be measured no fewer than three different times throughout the day (in the morning, at midday, and prior to the close of poles) an such results shall be recorded on a form provided by the Secretary of State. Any such change in the boundaries of a precinct shall conform with the requirements of subsection (a) Code Section 21-2-261.1"

Does this not address the very issue you're talking about here?

Where I live, in Madison County, Alabama there are 72 voting locations and 302,542 registered voters as of Oct 19, 2020. That's an average of 4,202 per polling station. So we average over twice the number of voters per precinct that Georgia allows. One polling place near me has over 8,000 registered voters, according to posters on NextDoor. Some said they were waiting over 3 hours to vote.

[BrunswickDawg]

Section 18 states, "If, at the previous general election, a precinct contained more than 2000 electors and if electors desiring to vote on the day of the election had to wait in line for more than one hour before checking in to vote, the superintendent shall either reduce the size of such precinct so that it shall contain no more than 2000 electors in accordance with the procedures prescribed by this chapter for the division, alteration, and consolidation of precinct no later than 60 days before the next general election. For administering this Code section the chief manager of a precinct which contained more than 2000 electors at the previous general election shall submit a report thereof to the superintendent of the reported time from entering the line to checking in to vote. Such wait time shall be measured no fewer than three different times throughout the day (in the morning, at midday, and prior to the close of poles) an such results shall be recorded on a form provided by the Secretary of State. Any such change in the boundaries of a precinct shall conform with the requirements of subsection (a) Code Section 21-2-261.1"

Does this not address the very issue you're talking about here?

Beaver - I think this thread and its links answer most of your questions. I don't want to clog up the thread with a Todd4State length post****
Disclaimer - Yes I know this is from a staffer from Fair Fight Action (Stacey Abrams organization) - but it is the best line by line break down of the negative points of the law that I've seen

[Irondawg]

Beaver - I think this thread and its links answer most of your questions. I don't want to clog up the thread with a Todd4State length post****
Disclaimer - Yes I know this is from a staffer from Fair Fight Action (Stacey Abrams organization) - but it is the best line by line break down of the negative points of the law that I've seen

So anytime I read through things like this there a a few lens through which it can be viewed. (1) Is it written to stop a loophole that could happen or has happened (2) They're out to get me (3) It's to benefit a certain group at the expense of another.

Taking it tweet by tweet as they group things together:

1) Most of these are aimed at not letting special interest groups fill out ballots for people and send them in. The idea of this I'm perfectly fine with because I'd prefer to not have people voting for other people or influencing votes. The first two on the list are a little concerning not so much because I don't think someone shouldn't be allowed to challenge but when you open it up to individuals you're going to just get a ton of bogus claims you have to go respond to. Still I don't think there is really anything really nefarious here that would really restrict voting. Am I missing something?

2) This is all election board mumbo jumbo that I can't really say what the impact would be, if any. However it's all post-ballot casting so while this may have its flaws it doesn't restrict voting

3 & 4) More election board stuff that I can't really say why they feel the need to change it. Could be a good change, could be a bad change but I can't really understand the impact here. If Democrats won control of the legislature are these still all bad? I only ask because if the continued reference to "GOP". I'd rather read this is a "bad" way to do things other than it put election in the hands of the evil GOP. But once again I don't see anything that overtly restricts voting unless this gives certain people power to choose voting locations, number of machines there, etc.

5) This one is a little meatier and it's hard to gauge without knowing specifics. For example the tweet states that 20K provisional ballots were done in last election. How does that compare to previous. How many of those are done out of precinct? I would have to think that out of precinct provisional ballots make up a good chunk of "iffy" ballots. I don't really mind the sworn statement piece but can see where limiting it to 5-7 could be slightly limiting. I'm guessing that's there because normally the poll working would sent someone to the correct precinct, but late in the day there may not be a chance to get there. I don't really see this as being overly suppressive.

6) Drop box stuff is a little meatier, but I need more knowledge. For example when would you use a drop box vs. mail? It might not be nearly as restrictive as it sounds. I don't mind removing them after early voting access b/c why would they even be there after the deadline? The availability could be an issue, but as mentioned earlier if they can mail it then it might not be that much an issue. Inside vs. outside seems like a weird rule and having manned security vs. surveillance is a bit cost increase. I wonder how much box tampering (if any) there was last year. I can't see the point of some of these changes unless there were issues at places last year. You could at least make a basic argument that this is more restrictive, but I don't think it's making it massively more restrictive to cast a ballot.

7) More meat stuff. Shortening the request timeline is neither here or there. It's still 2.5 months which is a lot of advance time. Stop date of 11 days out vs. 6-7 is somewhat restrictive. Not sure if this is suppression tactic or simply a way to insure less votes arrive past election day. Could be argued either way. I'm behind voter ID laws so personally I don't have an issue with this so long as getting state issued ID is easy enough. 41 and 42 I don't quite follow but I certainly don't have a problem with 42 requiring DOB. It's required on every other form in the universe I sign.

8) 43-45 I'd like to see more explanation of why these changes were necessary. I don't really mind 44 honestly as I can get some logic behind that one. Not sure why reducing the other windows is automatically bad, there are some benefits there as it just gets it all over with faster as well.

9) These last ones I can see partial logic behind as many would reduce potential tampering. The voting machine issue is only for non-general elections anyway.

So basically I just read through the list of everything bad by a biases source and still think that anyone who would refer to this stuff as Jim Crow is an idiot. Is everything in here good? Almost assuredly not, but there is no massive vote restriction in here either. Am I missing something that's right under my nose or is this a massive mountain out of molehole stuff and because Biden used the words "Jim Crow" everyone just believed him and ran with it?

[Tbonewannabe]

So anytime I read through things like this there a a few lens through which it can be viewed. (1) Is it written to stop a loophole that could happen or has happened (2) They're out to get me (3) It's to benefit a certain group at the expense of another.

Taking it tweet by tweet as they group things together:

1) Most of these are aimed at not letting special interest groups fill out ballots for people and send them in. The idea of this I'm perfectly fine with because I'd prefer to not have people voting for other people or influencing votes. The first two on the list are a little concerning not so much because I don't think someone shouldn't be allowed to challenge but when you open it up to individuals you're going to just get a ton of bogus claims you have to go respond to. Still I don't think there is really anything really nefarious here that would really restrict voting. Am I missing something?

2) This is all election board mumbo jumbo that I can't really say what the impact would be, if any. However it's all post-ballot casting so while this may have its flaws it doesn't restrict voting

3 & 4) More election board stuff that I can't really say why they feel the need to change it. Could be a good change, could be a bad change but I can't really understand the impact here. If Democrats won control of the legislature are these still all bad? I only ask because if the continued reference to "GOP". I'd rather read this is a "bad" way to do things other than it put election in the hands of the evil GOP. But once again I don't see anything that overtly restricts voting unless this gives certain people power to choose voting locations, number of machines there, etc.

5) This one is a little meatier and it's hard to gauge without knowing specifics. For example the tweet states that 20K provisional ballots were done in last election. How does that compare to previous. How many of those are done out of precinct? I would have to think that out of precinct provisional ballots make up a good chunk of "iffy" ballots. I don't really mind the sworn statement piece but can see where limiting it to 5-7 could be slightly limiting. I'm guessing that's there because normally the poll working would sent someone to the correct precinct, but late in the day there may not be a chance to get there. I don't really see this as being overly suppressive.

6) Drop box stuff is a little meatier, but I need more knowledge. For example when would you use a drop box vs. mail? It might not be nearly as restrictive as it sounds. I don't mind removing them after early voting access b/c why would they even be there after the deadline? The availability could be an issue, but as mentioned earlier if they can mail it then it might not be that much an issue. Inside vs. outside seems like a weird rule and having manned security vs. surveillance is a bit cost increase. I wonder how much box tampering (if any) there was last year. I can't see the point of some of these changes unless there were issues at places last year. You could at least make a basic argument that this is more restrictive, but I don't think it's making it massively more restrictive to cast a ballot.

7) More meat stuff. Shortening the request timeline is neither here or there. It's still 2.5 months which is a lot of advance time. Stop date of 11 days out vs. 6-7 is somewhat restrictive. Not sure if this is suppression tactic or simply a way to insure less votes arrive past election day. Could be argued either way. I'm behind voter ID laws so personally I don't have an issue with this so long as getting state issued ID is easy enough. 41 and 42 I don't quite follow but I certainly don't have a problem with 42 requiring DOB. It's required on every other form in the universe I sign.

8) 43-45 I'd like to see more explanation of why these changes were necessary. I don't really mind 44 honestly as I can get some logic behind that one. Not sure why reducing the other windows is automatically bad, there are some benefits there as it just gets it all over with faster as well.

9) These last ones I can see partial logic behind as many would reduce potential tampering. The voting machine issue is only for non-general elections anyway.

So basically I just read through the list of everything bad by a biases source and still think that anyone who would refer to this stuff as Jim Crow is an idiot. Is everything in here good? Almost assuredly not, but there is no massive vote restriction in here either. Am I missing something that's right under my nose or is this a massive mountain out of molehole stuff and because Biden used the words "Jim Crow" everyone just believed him and ran with it?

Biden sounds like he just got info from a message board and did the knee jerk reaction. Honestly, it is the same as President Trump except he is on the Left instead. The biggest thing that seems to be driven into the ground is requiring ID is voter suppression. Almost all states require this so is it all of the other stuff that is supposed to be "Jim Crow like"?

[Johnson85]

Beaver - I think this thread and its links answer most of your questions. I don't want to clog up the thread with a Todd4State length post****
Disclaimer - Yes I know this is from a staffer from Fair Fight Action (Stacey Abrams organization) - but it is the best line by line break down of the negative points of the law that I've seen

None of that is particularly evil. There's plenty in it that is bad. But a lot of what they are claiming is so terrible is pretty standard.

For example, it's always been illegal to photograph your completed ballot just about everywhere, because they don't want people selling votes. To keep the same "protections", they are doing the same thing for votes cast outside of the voting booth.

The SOS stuff is primarily driven by having a SOS that they don't trust. Their current SOS kept silent while major news outlets were mischaracterizing a conversation involving Trump; I can understand not wanting him to have much power. Maybe the current SOS's shortfallings made them look at the set up and realize they had too much discretion vested in one official, leaving too much room for abuse. Maybe they are pitching a hissy fit and changing a bunch of provisions that are fine because of one bad SOS that won't be there long term. Regardless, not exactly Jim Crow.

Thte sanction powers for improperly sending out VBM applications seems entirely appropriate?