All Things Politics Thread

[Sirhornsalot]

I quickly read through some of it and I didn’t see anything resembling voter suppression 

He obviously didn't read it. lol

 

[Rotty22]

I quickly read through some of it and I didn’t see anything resembling voter suppression 

You read through the bill or you read just the alert?

If the former then you saw that the bill eliminates drive-thru voting which was very successful in the Houston area.  If drive-thru voting is as secure or more secure than in-building voting then there is no issue with it.  So why eliminate it?  The answer to the question is obvious.  If it's less secure, first prove it, then add provisions to secure it and keep drive-thru voting.

The goal is to allow as many legal voters to cast their ballots, correct?

In either case, there was no widespread fraud.

 

[Rotty22]

He obviously didn't read it. lol

 

[Rotty22]

Now you're trying to demonize people he knows?

lol, you're quite the lil ball of hate. lol

LOL.  Just pointing out the character of the people that want to kiss the ring.

You're quite the big ball of cow dung LOL.

 

[Rotty22]

 

[TexCoyote]

 

[drgilbert]

You read through the bill or you read just the alert?

If the former then you saw that the bill eliminates drive-thru voting which was very successful in the Houston area.  If drive-thru voting is as secure or more secure than in-building voting then there is no issue with it.  So why eliminate it?  The answer to the question is obvious.  If it's less secure, first prove it, then add provisions to secure it and keep drive-thru voting.

The goal is to allow as many legal voters to cast their ballots, correct?

In either case, there was no widespread fraud.

I read through a few pages and didn’t see anything to suppress voting. Either I didn’t see the part of drive thru voting or it was further down the document. First question I have is how is taking away drive thru voting stopping people from voting?  Second question is what group said drive thru is as secure as walk in voting?

 

[drgilbert]

NY times is a joke and anyone who agrees with this is a freakin brainwashed idiot. 

 

[dillohorn]

4 hours ago, TexCoyote said:

Biteme is senile racist.

 

[drgilbert]

 

[drgilbert]

 

[drgilbert]

 

[Sirhornsalot]

LOL.  Just pointing out the character of the people that want to kiss the ring.

You're quite the big ball of cow dung LOL.

So you know NO ONE who has ever had any legal issues?

Why no, that's no true. And your point just blew up in your face.

 

[drgilbert]

 

[drgilbert]

Why are the Dems so scared of an audit

 

[drgilbert]

 

[drgilbert]

 

[Rotty22]

I read through a few pages and didn’t see anything to suppress voting. Either I didn’t see the part of drive thru voting or it was further down the document. First question I have is how is taking away drive thru voting stopping people from voting?  Second question is what group said drive thru is as secure as walk in voting?

Good questions.  Yeah, it's in there.

Suppressing doesn't exclusively mean stop.  It also means make more difficult.  It appears that you're using it interchangeably.

By eliminating drive thru voting, a popular source of voting for Houstonians, it makes it more difficult.  How?  Well, you've basically closed several convenient lanes of voting.

Regardless of which group says what about the security of drive thru voting, providing more convenient lanes to vote allows more voters.  My point is if there's a question about the security then address it.  No need to eliminate that method of voting.

The goal is to get as many legal voters to vote.  We all love convenience, don't we?

 

[Rotty22]

8 minutes ago, drgilbert said:

Why are the Dems so scared of an audit

The investigation doesn't have anything to do with the fraudit.

 

[drgilbert]

Good questions.  Yeah, it's in there.

Suppressing doesn't exclusively mean stop.  It also means make more difficult.  It appears that you're using it interchangeably.

By eliminating drive thru voting, a popular source of voting for Houstonians, it makes it more difficult.  How?  Well, you've basically closed several convenient lanes of voting.

Regardless of which group says what about the security of drive thru voting, providing more convenient lanes to vote allows more voters.  My point is if there's a question about the security then address it.  No need to eliminate that method of voting.

The goal is to get as many legal voters to vote.  We all love convenience, don't we?

Yes I like the idea of convenience as long as it is monitored and all votes are legal votes. I wish we had 100% participation. But if drive thru is made illegal it doesn’t take away their ability to vote it just may make it a little more inconvenient. Guess we will find out which voters really care.