|
Post by longsuffering on Jun 28, 2022 17:26:13 GMT -5
TPTB in Georgia miscalculated which party's faithful would jump through more hoops to vote and ended up with two Senators, a President and Vice President they didn't count on. The outrage expressed over the new restrictions was loud but fell short of generating Congressional hearings over a violent attempted overthrow of the Georgia Capitol.
It struck me that devaluing all alternate voting methods except showing up in person on election day and waiting in line put older right leaning voters in a vulnerable position regarding weather, illness, fear of Covid infection or just aches and pains from standing in line. But I didn't see any reporting or speculating on that.
I assumed Republican voters were older on average than Democrats and wondered why Republican State Legislators would limit alternate voting methods.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jun 28, 2022 17:28:59 GMT -5
How do Georgia’s voting rules and procedures compare to those of other states? The point was often made that Delaware had the same or more restrictive rules and I never saw it countered with a clip of #46 complaining about them when they were implemented.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Jun 28, 2022 17:43:01 GMT -5
How do Georgia’s voting rules and procedures compare to those of other states? I am no expert, but they got a lot worse recently with the recent republican "reforms" to prevent fraud.
Here in my state of Washington, all voting is done by mail, and it is great. Every registered voter automatically receives a ballot in the mail, along with an official voters pamphlet. No missed work or waiting in long lines for hours. There is time to study the voter pamphlet and even look up candidates or ballot measures for more info. No pressure and no stress. Ballots must be received or post marked before midnight on election day in order to be counted. Each paper ballot is checked by hand, the signature is checked with the one on file, and the voter roll is verified. The paper ballots are machine counted and can be hand verified and recounted if there is ever an issue. This system saves a lot of money, greatly improves convenience and is safe and secure. Both parties here support it. I think that voting should be this easy for everyone in the country. 50 different sets of rules for an election across the nation are just nuts. The list of restrictions put in place in Georgia were naked partisan moves that are insulting to voters there, and no one has ever explained how they do a thing to prevent any kind of fraud.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 28, 2022 18:08:45 GMT -5
Chu Chu—stepping away from Georgia as I have not studied the rules there (hence my question), are you opposed to requiring voters to produce proper identification in order to vote?
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jun 28, 2022 18:20:23 GMT -5
Chu Chu—stepping away from Georgia as I have not studied the rules there (hence my question), are you opposed to requiring voters to produce proper identification in order to vote? He mentioned "signature on file" which implied to me that registration is when identification is supplied. Of course no system is foolproof but checking signatures against the registered one on file is pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 28, 2022 18:31:56 GMT -5
My wife happens to have dual citizenship (gave it up to become a U.S. citizen as was required in those days but after hearing of others, decided to get back her Peruvian citizenship).
In Peru, everyone of voting age is REQUIRED to vote until a certain age (the age limit escapes me now- 60? 65? 70? but she's exempt, we think, if she doesn't want to vote) or face a stiff fine. When they vote, the officials take the fingerprint of the voter and check their picture ID (which also has their fingerprint). She had to go to Connecticut to vote - twice - for the first round and then the run-off. The lines in the first round were like what you saw on TV in some states here . . . . took hours.
So voter fraud probably close to impossible. Easy? Nope. In Peru, voting seems to be a civic obligation, not like here.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 28, 2022 18:47:04 GMT -5
There were some very complicated explanations as to why the Georgia voting reforms - accompanied by outraged shrieks of ‘voter suppression’, “racism”, and a MLB All-Star move - led to increased voting (and a decrease in minority vote rejections).
My favorite complicated explanation is that the Georgia reforms were so so so strongly voter suppressive that all voters of all stripes overcame them.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 28, 2022 18:56:55 GMT -5
Evidently the 2020 election in Ga. was honest. There was no need to change the rules. Was the change a solution looking for a problem? Multiple sources have flat-out stated that the 2020 election nationwide was the cleanest, most honest election on record. Judges across the nation have found little evidence of fraud. Fraudulent voting was minuscule and voter fraud had no effect on the outcomes as some largely discredited fringe groups had claimed. Some complain that in Ga. there were ulterior motives for the ruling Party to implement changes making it more difficult for some to vote. As ChuChu stated "correlation is not causation." Indeed, it took a Herculean effort to get out the vote. Does the current Ga. law forbid bringing water to folks waiting on line to vote? I honestly don't know if this regulation is in effect.Regs are not adopted in a vacuum. What was the purpose? Do other states do he same? Which ones? As someone posted: Voting should be easy and honest. Elections in 2022 & 2024 might prove to be very "interesting." Hope we don't tear ourselves apart. Peace.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Jun 28, 2022 21:10:01 GMT -5
Chu Chu—stepping away from Georgia as I have not studied the rules there (hence my question), are you opposed to requiring voters to produce proper identification in order to vote? Of course not.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 29, 2022 6:55:00 GMT -5
How do Georgia’s voting rules and procedures compare to those of other states? I am no expert, but they got a lot worse recently with the recent republican "reforms" to prevent fraud.
Here in my state of Washington, all voting is done by mail, and it is great. Every registered voter automatically receives a ballot in the mail, along with an official voters pamphlet. No missed work or waiting in long lines for hours. Wow. I am shocked to hear that. I have always assumed that in person voting was not only an option, but the most common method of voting everywhere. Amazing what you can learn on Crossports
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 29, 2022 6:59:14 GMT -5
How do Georgia’s voting rules and procedures compare to those of other states? In a semi ironic turn of events, I heard last summer that Georgia's voting rules were less onerous that Colorado (to where the All Star game was moved) with the exception that people who chose to use a method other than "in person" had to show an ID
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jun 29, 2022 7:15:35 GMT -5
Excerpts from a lengthy letter from Ginni Thomas' lawyer to the House Select Committee, which was sent yesterday, before the appearance of Cassidy Hutchinson before the Committee. thehill.com/homenews/house/3540815-ginni-thomas-lawyer-questions-need-for-her-to-testify-before-jan-6-panel/Basically the letter was 'show me your cards, and then I'll decide'. ______________________ Based on her appearance yesterday, I found Cassidy Hutchinson to be preternaturally bright, highly competent, disciplined and organized. The Washington Post described her rise as "meteoric". I'll say. From White House intern in 2018 to college graduate in 2019 to Special Assistant to the President with an office just steps away from the Oval Office by 2020. From WaPo
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 29, 2022 7:39:40 GMT -5
Chu Chu—stepping away from Georgia as I have not studied the rules there (hence my question), are you opposed to requiring voters to produce proper identification in order to vote? Of course not. Great. It’s hard to comprehend, but many people oppose the concept.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 29, 2022 7:44:15 GMT -5
Certainly, Hutchinson was a credible witness. Her demeanor and more important her presentation of facts were entirely believable. She clearly delineated what she actually saw and what she was told. And, let's face it, there were no true surprises. It was amazing that Hutchinson broke the administration's code of "omertà." Americans are entitled to the testimony under oath of others in the administration such as Meadows or those in private life who worked on behalf of this administration such as Roger Stone. How could these "Americans" plead the 5th? Why would they fear criminal prosecution? What are they hiding? They sound like a group of mob associates appearing before a congressional committee. Americans are entitled to know the truth about this administration's actions. Hopefully, the wall of silence is beginning to crumble. All we are asking for is the truth about the actions of the administration related to the violent attempted coup of 1/6.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 29, 2022 7:59:50 GMT -5
Amen! Also looking forward to finding out more about Speaker Pelosi’s decisions and actions regarding the matter
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 29, 2022 8:03:53 GMT -5
Certainly Pelosi should not take the 5th nor attempt to hide anything. Obviously some are pointing to the calling for more Capitol Police. It is my understanding that according to law the Speaker does not have oversight over the Capitol Police. Oversight rests with the Capitol Police Board. The Speaker does not appoint its members. The Board has the responsibility for security. It is tasked with the responsibility of calling on the National Guard for assistance. These & other matters including the role of the Speaker need to be aired under oath in a public forum. It would be interesting if the government could get the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys to flip and testify about their visit to the WH in the weeks before 1/6. We are entitled to a full honest disclosure. Let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jun 29, 2022 9:54:18 GMT -5
Ginni Thomas' lawyer wrote that Ginni had "expressed a willingness to try to come before the Committee as a means of clearing her name". An interview with the Committee staff would be under oath, and the individual may exercise Fifth Amendment rights in the course of such. So there is some potential legal peril if one has been fibbing in the course of explaining one's actions.
Putting that aside, on June 22, nearly a week before Ginni Thomas' lawyer sent the letter excerpted above, the FBI seized the cellphone of John Eastman as he left a restaurant in New Mexico. This was done under a search warrant executed in furtherance of a criminal investigation. Eastman, a former clerk to Justice Thomas, has been friends with Clarence and Ginni for years. I can understand why Ginni's lawyer might now be skittish about her voluntarily appearing before the Committee.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jun 29, 2022 11:48:19 GMT -5
Well, it appears (starting with the selection of members) that this committee is designed for political purposes and "fairness" is not a purpose on that list. Might that make one think twice about voluntarily appearing there?
|
|
|
Post by HC13 on Jun 29, 2022 12:52:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jun 29, 2022 12:52:13 GMT -5
Well, it appears (starting with the selection of members) that this committee is designed for political purposes and "fairness" is not a purpose on that list. Might that make one think twice about voluntarily appearing there? It is 'political' because the creation of a bi-partisan, independent commission (five Democrats and five Republicans) failed in the Senate as there was insufficient Republican support to overcome a Republican filibuster. Needed 60 votes, only received 54. The Republican opposition was led by McConnell. Pelosi then sought to establish a House committee with five Republican members. McCarthy proposed five names, one of whom was Jim Jordan, and Pelosi rejected him and another Republican member. After the rejection, McCarthy withdrew the other three. Pelosi then added two Republicans, one of which was Liz Cheney. (There are several former U.S. Attorneys who are leading the investigation. One is John Wood, who clerked for Thomas and long associated with Cheney, and another is Thomas Heaphy, who was the University Counsel for the University of Virginia.) IMO, and it is not a singular view, the de facto chair of the Committee and 'chief prosecutor', is Liz Cheney. It is her committee and the other members are role players, at least up to this point. 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'.
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Jun 29, 2022 12:54:26 GMT -5
Well, it appears (starting with the selection of members) that this committee is designed for political purposes and "fairness" is not a purpose on that list. Might that make one think twice about voluntarily appearing there? The vast majority of witnesses are Republicans and I can't recall anyone stating they were treated unfairly. Maybe, Flynn, who felt it was unfair that he was forced to take the "Fifth" so many times.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Jun 29, 2022 14:12:16 GMT -5
Well, it appears (starting with the selection of members) that this committee is designed for political purposes and "fairness" is not a purpose on that list. Might that make one think twice about voluntarily appearing there? It is 'political' because the creation of a bi-partisan, independent commission (five Democrats and five Republicans) failed in the Senate as there was insufficient Republican support to overcome a Republican filibuster. Needed 60 votes, only received 54. The Republican opposition was led by McConnell. Pelosi then sought to establish a House committee with five Republican members. McCarthy proposed five names, one of whom was Jim Jordan, and Pelosi rejected him and another Republican member. After the rejection, McCarthy withdrew the other three. Pelosi then added two Republicans, one of which was Liz Cheney. (There are several former U.S. Attorneys who are leading the investigation. One is John Wood, who clerked for Thomas and long associated with Cheney, and another is Thomas Heaphy, who was the University Counsel for the University of Virginia.) IMO, and it is not a singular view, the de facto chair of the Committee and 'chief prosecutor', is Liz Cheney. It is her committee and the other members are role players, at least up to this point. 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'. The two republicans who were not accepted by Leader Pelosi were slavish in their support of trump and had both voted to not certify the election. They were rejected on the basis that it was improper to include them if they were possibly a part of the problem being investigated.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jun 29, 2022 14:17:11 GMT -5
Well, it appears (starting with the selection of members) that this committee is designed for political purposes and "fairness" is not a purpose on that list. Might that make one think twice about voluntarily appearing there? The vast majority of witnesses are Republicans and I can't recall anyone stating they were treated unfairly. Maybe, Flynn, who felt it was unfair that he was forced to take the "Fifth" so many times. He did look exhausted.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 29, 2022 14:39:39 GMT -5
Well, it appears (starting with the selection of members) that this committee is designed for political purposes and "fairness" is not a purpose on that list. Might that make one think twice about voluntarily appearing there? With the witnesses selected, deposed, presented, and questioned by Democrats (with no cross examination or even adversarial questions) it is no wonder this is generally considered to be a one-sided theatrical reprise of the second (third?) Trump impeachment procedure. Punctuated by outrage!, blockbuster!, etc. Adam Schiff, the Congressman formerly known as the Chief Trump Russia Collusion Hoaxster, is the perfect man for this performance.
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Jun 29, 2022 14:44:26 GMT -5
Well, it appears (starting with the selection of members) that this committee is designed for political purposes and "fairness" is not a purpose on that list. Might that make one think twice about voluntarily appearing there? With the witnesses selected, deposed, presented, and questioned by Democrats (with no cross examination or even adversarial questions) it is no wonder this is generally considered to be a one-sided theatrical reprise of the second (third?) Trump impeachment procedure. Punctuated by outrage!, blockbuster!, etc. Are you even watching? Cheney (who voted with Trump 97% of the time) is doing much of the questioning. To quote her: "why do you continue to defend the indefensible".
|
|