Gee, you sound really concerned.
Or who treated a postcard soliciting confirmation that they haven’t left the state as though it were unimportant junk mail (if anyone could locate, and post an image of the postcards sent out, it would be helpful).
QFT
God (and the FSM and the IPU) willing, not past next January.
Oh, and Bob.
I’m kinda partisan, so before I decide, is this slithering scum of an idea Republican or Democratic? Disturbed minds want to know.
First, “staulky” isn’t a word. Second, pointing ànd laughing at you when you display such total lack of self-awareness isn’t stalking. I don’t even do it every time you say something stupid. That would be a full-time job.
Czar posted in this thread before you, and replied to your post to ask a question.
Scum just popped in to attempt a non-thread related swipe at Czar.
You really should be able to see a difference there.
Just a reminder from your friendly neighborhood Try2B that Jim Crow was also entirely legal.
Predictable thread is predictable:
-
They should go to jail!!!11! This is illegal!!!11!!!
-
Actually, it is legal, see Supreme Court case.
-
But Jim Crow was also legal!
Lather rinse repeat.
The idea is: if it’s legal, you can’t send people to jail for doing it, unless we live in Democrat Party Nirvana, where jail sentences are handed down based on the unwritten rules of Leftists Must Triumph.
As opposed to Fuck Ethics and Morality! I’ve got the Law on my side!
Good point. The slow destruction of Democracy and the transformation of the United States into a de facto single party state (A party that isn’t even all that popular) is being accomplished by entirely legal means. Makes me feel right patriotic it does.
I doubt anyone has committed a crime, but your certainty that they haven’t is misplaced. In the “Democrat Party’s” America, cases are decided based on facts. One of the most important facts in the voting rights context is intent. You can take an identical action with different intent and transform it from legal to illegal, constitutional to unconstitutional, perfectly hunky dory to criminal conspiracy.
What is being alleged here is that Kemp is using the powers of his office to directly benefit his own election, and is doing so by targeting the black and brown voters he expects to vote for his opponent. Is that true? I dunno. But neither do you. It is certainly worthy of investigation.
The people who don’t believe in due process are the people who want to declare that everything is perfectly legal and fine before they know the facts.
And the ones who do believe in due process declare the end of democracy in Georgia, presumably.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re conflating whether this is bad for democracy with whether a crime has been committed.
It is clearly bad for democracy. We don’t know if it is criminal.
-
I’ve read the thread twice looking for the place where someone said this was illegal. As best as I can tell, you’re the first person who’s made any reference either way about its possible illegality.
-
I know it must upset you that people often believe the real crime is what’s legal.
-
Predictable Bricker is predictable: turning everyone’s remarks into a discussion of the law.
-
Get a dictionary, dude. Merriam-Webster has this to say about ‘deserve’: “deserve is used when a person should rightly receive something good or bad because of his or her actions or character.” Sounds like the OP was using the word correctly. And you are twisting it around.
-
This habit of yours is getting boring as shit.
So you think Kemp should go to jail even if he has not broken the law. Thus we will save democracy in Georgia. Hmm.
Regards,
Shodan
Thinking that he should go to jail is not the same as thinking he deserves to go to jail.
Got news for you: Whoever you hired to translate the posts on this message board from English to Idiot has really been messing with you.
Bricker, let me burn that predictable strawman of yours right to the fucking ground. When I said “he should go to jail,” I was, not, in fact, making a legal argument. I was expressing emotional outrage at actions that, to be, seem flatly and unabashedly anti-Democratic. Since, if there’s one thing I can take national pride in it’s our Democracy, you might understand why one might get upset when the government disenfranchises voters in such a direct way.
So, again, in case it was confusing to you let me rephrase the OP more directly:
-
Democracy is the foundation of our nation.
-
Intentionally preventing people from participating in said Democracy by removing them from the rolls based on arbitrary criteria is morally repugnant, anti-American, and IMHO should be criminal.
-
Pre-emptive: no, I do not think this means the State has a duty to, like, drive every person to the polls in a limo. There is obviously a set of appropriate actions and responsibilities of the government. It is my opinion that the actions reported in the OP are outside of that set.
-
A politician who purges the rolls in such a way, even if it was unpartisan in nature, undermines the authority of the government in dangerous ways. If I am prevented from voting by the government itself, why should I feel obligated to subject myself to its authority? One person here or there, and this is maybe not a concerning question. Thousands in a state, and it is.
“Democrat Party Nirvana”. Oh please. “Lock her up Lock her up” is the republican party’s mating call.
Crazy semantic argument gets even crazier.
Y’know… hyperbole’s the real problem in this thread. It’s the worst thing ever!!
Rhetoric is dead on the SDMB. Thanks, Eonwe.