It's a state law, so highly unlikely GA flips blue enough to repeal it. It can be superceded by a federal law mandating requirements over what the state law requires, and that's kind of what Biden is pushing. But I would bet that other states looking at how purple they were in the last election are looking at similar laws. The bottom line is the GOP is statistically a minority, and making voting easier diminishes their chances: they need fewer voters to level the playing field and placing restrictions on voting seems to meet that need.
I'm a registered republican. I didn't vote for a republican president the last two elections. There's a ton of democrat policy issues I can get behind and go along with. I'm socially liberal, but very, very fiscally conservative. Both parties need a course change to the center, because the answers and future of this country lies somewhere in the middle, not at the extreme end of either side.
So long as the "center" means the actual center and not just "the point perfectly in between" one party that's liberal and another that's gone off the DEEP fucking end into cosplay fascism.
yup that’s me. So far I’m happy with Biden being center of left. I’m just as content with a truly moderate Democrat as I am with a truly moderate Republican, though I don’t think the latter exists anymore (or at least is electable by the party at large, would totally vote for Kasich)
Yes, actual center. Are we defining that, right here, right now? What does that look like to you? Because I can say the same thing about the outliers on the left. I want every 'citizen' to vote. I want everyone to earn what they have. I want people to stop telling me I don't need a particular type of gun. I don't 'need' this phone I'm typing on. I don't 'need' the extra bedroom in the house. I don't 'need' a riding lawn mower. There's a lot of things I have that I don't need, leave every last one of them alone. I want people to stop crossing the creek down there. I got my passport, visas if needed and followed the rules when I traveled to other countries, paid entry fees and for cruising permits. I want our laws respected in the same way. I want cops to stop killing people, too. Healthcare, I'm not the best person to answer that question. The wife earned that for our family when she lost part of her leg in the military and left her disfigured for life. She continues to earn it with the pain she lives with, when she rolls around in her wheelchair or pushes her walker where needs to go. I don't know how you give it to everyone, put people in front of people like her that actually sacrificed for it. But I'm open to some type of reform. I want people to marry who they want to marry. I want women to be able to do whatever they want with their reproductive right.
I would vote for you. Though I do think that to an extent, some people do need assistance getting out of poverty and the like. "Earn what you have" would be ideal, until systemic oppression and human biases keep people below a certain rung. That being said, you have to balance it against the sobering fact that we do need factory workers. We do need people to work fast food, and agriculture. In order for society to function, we need people to fill certain lower wage jobs. Everyone living the "American Dream" is only feasible if those other jobs went away, or were automated. I also think that every person should be allowed to vote, but I have to balance that against an incredible frustration with people who only watch things like tucker carlson who's own defense lawyers said the "general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary." Should my vote count the same as theirs? It's frustrating that it does, and I'm inclined to believe that it shouldn't. If you have to pass a citizenship test that includes knowledge of US history in order to become a legal resident, I believe our own elected representatives should have to pass that same test in order to serve in Congress, the Senate, or any elected position. Also some of the kindest, most hard working and polite people I know are not necessarily here legally. Some of the smartest, most genuine people I have met and am friends with have also served in prison and had their rights stripped of them. Should they not be allowed to vote and operate as full members of society, given that they inarguably contribute more to the world than many other fully legal members/those with all their rights, including guns and voting?
Yeah, I did some reading on it this morning. I don’t understand what all the butt-hurt is about. Lobby groups like the NRA can’t show up and offer snacks, you have to provide and ID number for mail-in voting like the one they would already have to provide in person, and mail-in ballots are due a week earlier. It’s hardly Jim Crow 2.0. As for the legislature and elections, what part allows them to actually decide the election? As far as I can tell, it allows them to fire and replace local electoral administrators, but that’s about it.
i think that last part is what people have issue with. If you can fire and replace an electoral administrator for, in theory, allowing a result you don’t like, and then replace them with someone who might change that election. I think it has to do with a general, and justified, distrust of the gop when it comes to how they want to run elections right now
I think the whole “fiscal conservative, but socially liberal” position is interesting. Because a lot of what it would take to implement socially liberal policies cost money and being a fiscal conservative generally means keeping as little money from the government in the form of taxes as possible. People who are stuck in the cycle of poverty for example need a little more help to get out of it. For instance, more accessible and affordable 2 and 4 year degrees. They should be able to go to college without getting overburdened with debt. That requires the tax payers footing more of the bill for school while also reforming how much school costs. It’s one thing to be in favor of it, but a totally different thing to actually pay for it. Other social liberal ideas like being in favor of gay and trans rights are more about just letting people live however they want and that’s almost more libertarian than anything else. I guess the point I’m making is that is not so easy to separate policy ideals from fiscal principles in ways that truly matter.
That's the part that legalizes what Trump asked them to do with this election... overturn the results they didn't like. I'd have a problem with that, for sure.
A lot of money is wasted under the guise of helping poor people, and it just gets wasted on programs that don’t work or things that are only tangentially related. A lot of money is also wasted funding a military that exists to provide a security blanket for the allies of WWII so they can spend their money on their own social programs and not a meaningful national defense. I want all of that to change. So I’m fine providing services to people that actually need them, but a lot financial changes need to occur for that to be efficiently executed. I still don’t see how it translates to throwing out votes and overturning an election. That connection has not been made clear. Is there a specific provision allowing this to occur? With the House Democrats currently considering doing that very thing for an Iowa election, I find it hard to buy their concerns whatsoever.
I'm ok with paying taxes, but I'm getting real tired of debt-financing everything and training Boomers to think that a world of super high services and super low taxes is sustainable. They piss and moan every time you float a tax increase, and they piss and moan every time you float a decrease in SS or Medicare. These old fucks are sucking us dry.
I fully agree with you on the military thing. It’s so fucking bloated and if a politician even tangentially suggests cutting back or moving money to other places, they get painted as an unamerican piece of shit. They could cut our military budget in half and we would still spend the most.
A friend of mine works in procurement for the government and deals with military subcontractors all the time. The cost of social programs is a drop in the bucket compared to what we (the taxpayers) blow on the stupidest shit.
I read a detailed legal analysis of it somewhere and I can't find it... but basically it puts the control of the election votes, more importantly the ability to discount areas with challenges, from the count. This, combined with the new "unlimited" allowed challenges, can be used to overturn via exclusion. In the end they are rigging the election in their favour... making it harder for the people who don't vote for them to vote at all. It's complete bullshit, regardless of how they justify it. "Well, we don't want a lobby group to sway those in line... but let's ensure that there are HUGE lines in the first place by reducing voting locations and making them harder to get to and able to process fewer votes." If anyone tries to tell me that the shit they are doing is actually good for your elections, I'll laugh and feel sorry for them. Your country is in a "win at all costs" war between the Left and Right, and the Right are playing dirty. Really dirty. Gerrymandering, these laws, etc. Even the majority of Georgians are against the law, but that didn't stop them... because they've got to stay in power wherever they can. Your politics will be the death of you guys.
If they keep doing shit like this everywhere, they will piss people off to the point where George Floyd riots were a mere warm-up pitch. The entire world can see this incredible dysfunction— the obvious denial and lies told by these sociopathic cash whores. We WANT you guys to get better, you are our friends and always have been for 209 years or so. But your public servants need to get their proverbial balls crushed in an iron fist by youse guys because it’s getting worse by the minute.