Democrats Going on Offense for Voting Rights

source is paywalled. however i can figure it out.
hardening election security = "restricting voting" and other Dem disinformation
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so in conclusion, no one who has a right to vote is being barred from voting......thanks......
Click to expand...
look at the numbers. record turnouts in 2020 and the midterms -this "restricting voting" is pure disinformation.
I bet the FBI isn't trying to take it down though -not their political bent
 
Restricting voting assess in liberal voting areas are what republics have always tried to due, and when they hold a statehouse, they're free to do it.

In the few conservative neighborhoods of Boston, it only takes the pachys 15 minutes to vote.
I don't see the predominantly Democratic majority in the statehouse blocking them.
Then of course, Boston isn't some backwater cracker town. Nobody has a sister-mother, and everybody has teeth, real or replaced.
 
martin said:
You're dimwitted more than ignorant, Earl, also envious. If you thought I was ignorant, let alone appallingly so, you wouldn't follow me around like a dog, lobbing groans at every post.
Click to expand...

Ask a Republican this question:

'Would you rather disenfranchise 10,000 voters or let one person vote illegally?'

Their answer would be 'depends on whether those 10,000 people vote Democrat'.

Because that's EXACTLY what's happening.
 
anatta said:
HR1 Senate 1....no id required, cant purge voting lists etc.
Click to expand...

Yea, if it's just a rehash of HR 1 the Fuck the Voter's Act, or the equally egregious SB 1 John Lewis Voter's act, then it's nothing but an attempt to end open and fair democratic elections in America.

Those two bills were chock-a-block with horrible ideas that would essentially legalize mass voter fraud and cheating.
 
Concart said:
Ask a Republican this question:

'Would you rather disenfranchise 10,000 voters or let one person vote illegally?'

Their answer would be 'depends on whether those 10,000 people vote Democrat'.

Because that's EXACTLY what's happening.
Click to expand...

The real question is: Would you accept elections where the vote count is made up and the outcome is predetermined? That's where the Democrats are headed with their form of "voter rights."
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yea, if it's just a rehash of HR 1 the Fuck the Voter's Act, or the equally egregious SB 1 John Lewis Voter's act, then it's nothing but an attempt to end open and fair democratic elections in America.

Those two bills were chock-a-block with horrible ideas that would essentially legalize mass voter fraud and cheating.
Click to expand...

well the article is paywalled, and it appears to be state by state decisions, instead of massive federal over-reach
But you know the playbook by now.

Scream "RACIST"!, oppose any types of chain of custody hardening, signature verification hardening and extend the time for mail ins. Oh and universal mailout ballots
 
anatta said:
look at the numbers. record turnouts in 2020 and the midterms -this "restricting voting" is pure disinformation.
I bet the FBI isn't trying to take it down though -not their political bent
Click to expand...

No, it is not. The only way to beat it required an amazing turnout. It was simply not an even election. And this election does not make partisan gerrymandering OK. The reds have weaponized gerrymandering. Computers made it possible to be extremely selective and know how to draw districts to your advantage. Thomas Hofeller was the dean of gerrymandering and he knew that it was evil. He said his computer data should be obliterated if he died. It was not. Michigan has had a Dem majority vote for decades and they have never held control of Micjhigans congress.
 
Concart said:
Ask a Republican this question:

'Would you rather disenfranchise 10,000 voters or let one person vote illegally?'

Their answer would be 'depends on whether those 10,000 people vote Democrat'.

Because that's EXACTLY what's happening.
Click to expand...

false dichotomy....you don't need to disenfranchise anyone to stop people from voting illegally.......you just need to stop illegal voting......its not our fault if you have 10,000 illegal votes......
 
Nordberg said:
No, it is not. The only way to beat it required an amazing turnout. It was simply not an even election. And this election does not make partisan gerrymandering OK. The reds have weaponized gerrymandering. Computers made it possible to be extremely selective and know how to draw districts to your advantage. Thomas Hofeller was the dean of gerrymandering and he knew that it was evil. He said his computer data should be obliterated if he died. It was not. Michigan has had a Dem majority vote for decades and they have never held control of Micjhigans congress.
Click to expand...

lets face it.....if it weren't for gerrymandering there would be no Black Caucus in the House......gerrymandering was created to give blacks a voice in Congress.....as for Michigan, the supposed non partisan committee was handpicked by Gretch the Wretch......
 
Concart said:
Ask a Republican this question:

'Would you rather disenfranchise 10,000 voters or let one person vote illegally?'

Their answer would be 'depends on whether those 10,000 people vote Democrat'.

Because that's EXACTLY what's happening.
Click to expand...

you're anti-security because you like cheating.
:truestory:
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
(D)s have always stood up for the people and the Constitution. It has always been (R)s who are into repression, pressure to conform, and fear of progress and change.
Click to expand...

In fairness, I'm one lifelong registered Democrat who doesn't worship the constitution.

I recognize it for what I believe it to be--a sincere, well-meant effort by authors incompetent in the law.

Let's let the very best lawyers--not plantation owners--write our new one after the partition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top