The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[UKMikey]

Looks like the MLB All Star Game is definitely "reportedly" moving to Denver.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...reportedly-moved-denver-wake-georgia-n1263029

Sounds like it's time for Greg Abbott to start throwing a few dozen more lawsuits at Obama. That'll definitely fix it ha ha.

 

[Joey D]

The Home Run Derby in Denver is going to be awesome. I support this move.

 

[TexRex]

The takeaway here is that Trump has been a sack of **** for decades. I'm fairly certain this is pretty widely known, but it's right there on the screen. His remarks in the clip from 1986 could very easily have been from January of 2021.

It is shameful that the right to vote is being kneecapped by partisan ****-heels.

 

[Danoff]

It’s things like this that keep this thread alive.

So we're to assume that MLB is just hardcore partisan democrat? Let's see, on the one hand we have partisan politicians rolling back democracy (incrementally) and arguing on the record in court that doing so benefits their particular political party, and this is the motivation to do so....

And on the otherhand we have MLB which is wanting to distance itself from a state that is engaging in rolling back democracy....

And from the two of those we're to conclude that MLB is playing partisan politics? What kind of alternate reality do these people live in?

 

[ryzno]

Requiring an ID is rolling back democracy?
Y'all are funny, oh if I'm correct CO requires ID, right Danoff?

 

[Danoff]

Requiring an ID is rolling back democracy?
Y'all are funny, oh if I'm correct CO requires ID, right Danoff?

Are you intentionally trying not to be aware of what Georgia is requiring? There are a large number of provisions aimed at achieving one specific goal, making it harder to vote - especially for people with less means to do so. One specific provision of the GA law makes Colorado's voting system outright illegal in GA. Colorado does a fantastic job of handling votes, I have no complaints. It's very convenient and secure, I wouldn't want the Georgia system. But Georgia has gone out of its way to make it illegal to even try to enact a similar system there - all in the name of partisan politics and preventing people from voting if they belong to a demographic that might vote "wrong" (meaning not for seditionist conspiracy theorists).

Yes that is rolling back democracy.

Edit:

It looks like a number of measures are aimed specifically at being able to punish election officials that don't do what they're told... you know, the thing that stopped GA from trying to overturn the election to Trump.

Edit:

Also, if you want to ask me a question, use the @ symbol with my username or include me in a quote. Otherwise I might not see your question and let you get away with strawmanning me and not responding.

Edit:

Did you really think MLB was moving the all star game to Colorado from Georgia because Georgia enacted a law that Colorado already has? Did you ask yourself whether that makes any sense, or did you just go with it because it fit a victim narrative?

 

[Joey D]

Requiring an ID is rolling back democracy?
Y'all are funny, oh if I'm correct CO requires ID, right Danoff?

There's more to it than just ID laws though.

For starters, the absentee process has changed and made it more difficult for people to get those ballots. It's also made the time frame in which they get those ballots shorter as well as making the registration date a week sooner. You're also not able to vote out of precinct anymore with a provisional ballot unless you meet a really specific condition. So say you live on the outskirts of Atlanta and work right in the heart of the city. It might be easier for you to vote at the polling place next to your office, but now you can't unless it's after 5 pm on election day. Votes must be tabulated by 5 pm on the Wednesday after election day too. This means that some areas will need to count ballots rapidly and could very much lead to errors.

Another roadblock is with rural voters. Elections are expensive and the state has made it impossible for third-party organizations like Schwarzenegger Institute to provide donations to help offset the cost of the election process. This means in some rural areas there might be few polling places and make it more difficult for some people to vote. This seems a bit like Republicans shooting themselves in the foot though since I have to assume a majority of rural voters are Republican. Some counties in Georgia had mobile buses that acted as polling places too, but those are now illegal to use.

Going along with the whole cost of elections, places that have long lines will now be required to hire more staff. I'm not sure how that fixes anything since the hold-up isn't typically the staff, it's the number of voting booths. But this will further add a cost to elections that don't really need to be there.

Another thing that hasn't really been publicized is that some scanned ballots will now be part of the public record and viewable through the state's website. I'm not 100% sure what that all entails, but I'm not sure that's a good look since ballots are supposed to be secret.

Probably the biggest change that could affect the most Georgians would be the new laws surrounding the election board. It gives the state government the power to basically intervene in local elections. If the legislature feels that a local election board is underperforming, it can oust the board and install whomever it wishes in that position. This is just a breeding ground for corruption no matter what party is in charge. If you want to influence an election, this is probably the easier way to do it.

Other things in the law are clearly targeted at black and poor voters too. With fewer accessible drop boxes it makes it harder to cast your ballot (I totally get why someone wouldn't put it in the mail) and it mostly affects urban areas, and those areas are predominantly black.

I don't think the laws are as bad as some people have made them out to be and they certainly aren't on the caliber of "Jim Crow", but they do make voting more difficult for some people and opens the door to more restrictive voting measures in the future. Voting should be easy, accessible, and available for all American citizens. I don't mind the voter ID thing, but many of the other provisions in the bill are just wasteful and ripe for corruption.

I really hope the US passes a federal law that makes mail-in voting universal with some sort of signature matching and ID process attached to it. It works extremely well for Utah and there's no reason it couldn't work elsewhere. Republicans can't even say that it would be rigged either since Utah's mail-in elections almost always result in a Republican winning.

 

[Danoff]

Probably the biggest change that could affect the most Georgians would be the new laws surrounding the election board. It gives the state government the power to basically intervene in local elections. If the legislature feels that a local election board is underperforming, it can oust the board and install whomever it wishes in that position. This is just a breeding ground for corruption no matter what party is in charge. If you want to influence an election, this is probably the easier way to do it.

Yea they kinda tried to get both sides of it - make sure urban areas have fewer votes counted, and then make sure they can arbitrarily overturn the result if it comes to that. It's also retroactively punitive based on the last election, this is from bloomberg:

everyone agrees that it punishes Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger by stripping his office of its authority. That alone makes the outrage over this law justified.

I don't think the laws are as bad as some people have made them out to be and they certainly aren't on the caliber of "Jim Crow",

In some ways they're worse than Jim Crow. It's not the same, obviously, but the undermining of election official authority and centralizing control of the outcome on the state government is profoundly undemocratic in a way that is deeply unAmerican and incompatible with the basic principles of representative government.

I really hope the US passes a federal law that makes mail-in voting universal with some sort of signature matching and ID process attached to it. It works extremely well for Utah and there's no reason it couldn't work elsewhere. Republicans can't even say that it would be rigged either since Utah's mail-in elections almost always result in a Republican winning.

I think Utah's system is effectively banned in Georgia by this law.


Edit:

To the casual observer, it might not appear that some of these provisions will have much change. How much effect can making it illegal to automatically mail absentee ballot applications have? But you have to keep in mind that within the last year Georgia was the focus of at least 3 extremely close election outcomes in which the Republicans lost by tiny margins. It doesn't take much of a thumb on the scale to tilt it back.

 

[TexRex]

I shudder to think what they'll do next in the event that they push enough people away with these tactics and lose again as a result.

 

[eran0004]

Requiring an ID is rolling back democracy?

The problem with requiring ID is that some groups are more likely than others to have one, for example are people who are privileged enough to own a car more likely to have a driving license.

Now, you could make the case that if you really cared about the election you would make sure to get an ID, but the problem with that is that you ask the group without an ID to make an extra effort in order to be eligible for voting, while those who already have an ID for other purposes can vote with minimal effort. It is going to skew the voter turnout, and most likely in favour of the republican party (and you don't need to be very cynical to see that this is the reason for why they decided to make this change).

It's not bad per se to require an ID, but there needs to be a good option for those who don't have one.

 

[Joey D]

In some ways they're worse than Jim Crow. It's not the same, obviously, but the undermining of election official authority and centralizing control of the outcome on the state government is profoundly undemocratic in a way that is deeply unAmerican and incompatible with the basic principles of representative government.

I just don't like how some are solely focusing on the race aspect of this instead of it being undemocratic. Yes, some of the bill's provisions will disproportionately affect blacks in certain areas, however, the bill as a whole will affect Georgians in general, regardless of their race. I guess that's why I mean as I don't see it as the same caliber as Jim Crow. I probably could've worded that better.

I think Utah's system is effectively banned in Georgia by this law.

It absolutely would since we send a ballot to every registered voter, which is exactly how it should be in other states I think. If you're registered, you get a ballot and you can choose whether to fill it out and send it back it/drop it in a dropbox, or ignore it and go in person to vote. I agree that in some respects we probably need to take a better look at how signature matching works, but with AI it should be pretty easy to do and had to be cheaper than hiring hundreds of poll workers.

The problem with requiring ID is that some groups are more likely than others to have one, for example are people who are privileged enough to own a car more likely to have a driving license.

You can use any form of government ID, which you pretty much have to have if you want any kind of job in the US. You don't need a license, but you can get a state-issued ID card. Here in Utah, they're $20 and good for five years. If you can't afford it there are several groups that will help you get one too. So unless you're homeless or a migrant worker, chances are you have access to getting a government ID. Even then, most of the homeless population here in Salt Lake has an ID card since virtually every shelter helps them obtain them and allows them to use the shelter's address.

The only hold-up with getting an ID right now would be COVID, but even then there are ways to get one with minimal effort. Those who don't have an ID are typically choosing not to have one for whatever reason.

 

[Liquid]

@Joey D What would happen hypothetically if, in Utah, you voted by post for a Democratic candidate but also went and voted in person for a Republican candidate?

 

[Danoff]

I just don't like how some are solely focusing on the race aspect of this instead of it being undemocratic. Yes, some of the bill's provisions will disproportionately affect blacks in certain areas, however, the bill as a whole will affect Georgians in general, regardless of their race.

I agree, and I share that sentiment to a degree. But there is a big portion of society that is just totally done with the obfuscation and looks purely at outcome to determine if something is "racist". Will it disproportionally harm or help people of a particular skin color? Racist, done. Moving on. I can understand that too, since there is a whole segment of the right which has learned how to throw darts that appear to hit everyone but actually only hit their intended demographic, which this very much appears to be.

So basically... a racist person says "we can't just say we don't want black people voting, let's find a way to stifle voting in ways that will disproportionately hit black people but could theoretically hit everyone", and then when they get called racist they say "this affects everyone the same" despite knowing damned well that it doesn't. I can understand why people are ready to just ignore any kind of excuse and look at the results. It's basically the entire concept behind gerrymandering to begin with. Stack the deck in a way that's one step removed from the intended outcome.

You could even imagine a non-racist person enacting such laws without racist intent. For example, a non-racist republican realizes that black people tend to vote democrat, and then supports a bill which makes it illegal for black people to vote. Obviously that's a profoundly racist law, but he just wanted to win re-election, he actually doesn't have a racist bone in his body, it's just that gerrymandering a win required carving out this unfavorable demographic.

 

[Populuxe]

@Joey D What would happen hypothetically if, in Utah, you voted by post for a Democratic candidate but also went and voted in person for a Republican candidate?

Can you show an example of that actually happening?

 

[Liquid]

Can you show an example of that actually happening?

It was a hypothetical scenario posed out of curiosity.

@Joey D What would happen hypothetically if, in Utah, you voted by post for a Democratic candidate but also went and voted in person for a Republican candidate?

 

[Joey D]

@Joey D What would happen hypothetically if, in Utah, you voted by post for a Democratic candidate but also went and voted in person for a Republican candidate?

When you mail in a ballot, the signature on it is compared to the signature they have on file (there's up to five for any one person). Also, the ballots are typically scanned in daily and your name goes into a registry that removes you from voting in person since when you show up at a polling place, it's cross-checked. An encrypted version of this database is shared with other states so that someone can't go to, say Arizona, and vote again. The database is interfaced somehow with the US Postal Service as well so they know when you move too. When I moved apartments, I went online to update my address and voter registration but it was already populated.

The state also knows your party affiliation, although I have no idea if they use that in the general election. However, they do use it in the primaries. If I try to vote in a Republican primary they're going to know since I'm not a declared Republican. It's easy to switch your party affiliation, but it's still probably enough of a hassle that most people don't do it. Even as a declared Libertarian, I get a letter from the state saying that there are no primaries for my declared party. I expect that in some cases, they might use it to help prove fraud or at least use it to build a case. If you're a registered Republican who's never switched party affiliations or voted for anyone other than a Republican and suddenly your ballot has nothing but Democrats, that might raise some suspicion. I don't know if they do this though.

Do things slip through the cracks? Yup but it's negligible and nothing that anyone in the state worries about. To game the system, you'd have to drop a mail-in ballot in a dropbox on the same day you went in person and then hope that the signature checks miss it or that the ballot isn't scanned in. There needs to be quite a few failures for someone to vote twice.

Probably the biggest instance of fraud we could potentially have is someone voting for someone else in the household and then forging the signature. But in the event that does happen, the checks should catch it, especially if the person says they never got a ballot or shows up in person to argue the same thing. There have been very few instances of this though.

 

[Populuxe]

It was a hypothetical scenario posed out of curiosity.

Yes, I understand, but hypotheticals can be used to make very bad law. Look at all the awful anti-trans bathroom laws that were launched a few years ago. They were all based on a hypothetical premise: what if a man masquerading as a trans woman entered a woman’s public restroom so they could assault women? There was no record of it ever happening, and it painted all trans people as predators. The only purpose of that hypothetical was to scare cis people and punish trans people.

Just as sexual assault was already illegal and no extra laws were needed, voting twice is already illegal. In the absence of any evidence of election fraud, there is no need for even more draconian voting restrictions.

 

[Liquid]

@Joey D Great post, thanks for the info. It's not good enough for Georgia though.

 

[Danoff]

@Joey D Great post, thanks for the info. It's not good enough for Georgia though.

Basically we have the same system in Colorado. If someone tries to vote twice, the vote that gets registered first is accepted and the second one is invalidated. There is follow-through, and potentially big penalties for trying to do that. Trump actually advocated that his supporters try this leading up to the election last year - even though it's voter fraud. Colorado does signature matching, and prevents you from voting in person if your signature and ballot has already been recorded. You can dispute it too. I got an email when my ballot was received, and another one when it was counted.

 

[Danoff]

Looks like I should maybe have gone easier on @ryzno earlier. He was just touting what is apparently the conservative talking point:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/colorado-voting-rules-georgia-major-league-baseball-all-star-game
https://nypost.com/2021/04/06/mlbs-all-star-game-moves-to-colorado-despite-stricter-voting-laws/
https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-...o-voting-laws-amid-mlb-dispute-204944498.html

I find it absolutely gross that these "news" outlets are willing to pretend that Colorado voting rules are stricter than Georgia. We have the 2nd highest voting turnout in the country*, and we auto-mail every registered voter a ballot, Georgia just banned auto-mailing every registered voter a mail-in ballot application, let alone a ballot.

We do apparently have slightly higher requirements for in-person voting (not that GA would do that given that they expect conservatives to vote in person), but only a tiny fraction of our votes (like 6%) are cast in person. It's 94% mail-in here in CO, exactly the kind of thing GA is trying to avoid. We also have drop boxes everywhere. In CO, we try to make it convenient and easy to vote, and it shows in turnout. In GA the new laws are aimed at making it harder to vote, especially in urban areas, and aimed at undermining election officials.

The idea that Fox is parading this... made up narrative as fact is gross.

*Colorado is 2nd behind Minnesota, Georgia is at like 26th in the nation, a record for Georgia, but apparently too high

 

[UKMikey]

Maybe it's not time to close the thread up just yet. Yet another Capitol rioter has just been arrested:

N.J. man assaulted cops at Capitol, bragged about being at riot, authorities say

Dressed in a “Make America Great Again” shirt, a black helmet and a gas mask while armed with chemical spray, authorities say multiple videos show Quaglin as one of the aggressors in attempting to breach the Capitol on Jan. 6.

As he did so, according to the complaint against him, Quaglin was recorded on video allegedly assaulting multiple officers who were holding off the rioters. After the attempted insurrection, Quaglin bragged about his role in it on social media, posting that he was “in the middle of it” and was sure he was “going to make the news,” according to the criminal complaint.

Around 1:36 p.m. on Jan. 6, video shows Quaglin approach the police barrier outside the building and start screaming at them, according to the complaint.

“You don’t want this fight,” he can heard yelling. “You do not want this f------ fight. You are on the wrong f------ side. You’re going to bring a f------ pistol, I’m going to bring a f------ cannon. You wait! You wait! You wait! Stay there like a f------ sheep!”

 

[Danoff]

Maybe it's not time to close the thread up just yet. Yet another Capitol rioter has just been arrested:

N.J. man assaulted cops at Capitol, bragged about being at riot, authorities say



View attachment 1002913

Quaglin? Quag... Q?

We got him!

 

[UKMikey]

Quaglin? Quag... Q?

"Do it on the tables / Quaglino's place or Mabel's" -- Roxy Music, "Do The Strand"

 

[Keef]

especially in urban areas

And people on Reddit are arguing that GA's rules aren't racially motivated.

 

[Danoff]

Apparently the voting whataboutism continues, especially pointing the finger at New York. McConnell cited a 100 year old law banning electioneering via refreshments, which was aimed at preventing voters from being enticed with chickens... a century ago, in New York, as being equivalent to enacting a ban offering refreshments to voters (not electioneering, just offering sustenance) today. Georgia is saying that want to do something similar but more restrictive to something New York has had lying around for 100 years, and this makes "the libs" (meaning big companies) hypocrites for not liking it.... but people don't like the NY law either so...

One way to ease the pain is to move to mail-in voting. Then you can have total bans on offering refreshments, and it impacts no one because there are no lines for the in-person voters. But something tells me the GOP would still see the bans on refreshments and say "it's the same" as that ban being in an area that creates hours long lines... on purpose.

The news seems to be covering these kinds of deliberately misleading statements, but I don't know how many right wingers will actually hear it. I can name a few family members off the top of my head that absolutely will not hear it, and will stay glued to their misleading sources.

 

[Jezza819]

Apparently the voting whataboutism continues, especially pointing the finger at New York. McConnell cited a 100 year old law banning electioneering via refreshments, which was aimed at preventing voters from being enticed with chickens... a century ago, in New York, as being equivalent to enacting a ban offering refreshments to voters (not electioneering, just offering sustenance) today. Georgia is saying that want to do something similar but more restrictive to something New York has had lying around for 100 years, and this makes "the libs" (meaning big companies) hypocrites for not liking it.... but people don't like the NY law either so...

One way to ease the pain is to move to mail-in voting. Then you can have total bans on offering refreshments, and it impacts no one because there are no lines for the in-person voters. But something tells me the GOP would still see the bans on refreshments and say "it's the same" as that ban being in an area that creates hours long lines... on purpose.

The news seems to be covering these kinds of deliberately misleading statements, but I don't know how many right wingers will actually hear it. I can name a few family members off the top of my head that absolutely will not hear it, and will stay glued to their misleading sources.

And when was the last time anyone in New York was actually arrested for violating that law? I really hope in 2022 that volunteers in Georgia are going challenge that stupid law and offer water to voters standing in line and let's see if Georgia republicans put their money where their mouths are and start arresting people.

 

[Danoff]

And when was the last time anyone in New York was actually arrested for violating that law? I really hope in 2022 that volunteers in Georgia are going challenge that stupid law and offer water to voters standing in line and let's see if Georgia republicans put their money where their mouths are and start arresting people.

They'll try to use that to invalidate the entire region's votes. Toss out 100,000 votes because someone offered water.

 

[Roo]

They'll try to use that to invalidate the entire region's votes. Toss out 100,000 votes because someone offered water.

Unless the region in question voted majority Republican, of course.

 

[Famine]

Unless the region in question voted majority Republican, of course.

And only the votes in the Presidential election on that ticket, not the Senate votes, which are also real if Republican.

 

[Touring Mars]

McConnell cited a 100 year old law banning electioneering via refreshments, which was aimed at preventing voters from being enticed with chickens...

And when was the last time anyone in New York was actually arrested for violating that law?

Not sure, but using one's cock to attract more voters still happens in modern times....

https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016...sults/2016/03/donald-trump-small-hands-220223