“You come across a tortoise in the desert, who’s Kurt Knoblick, and he’s lying on his back in the sun and also on fire. You could help him but you don’t, why is that?”
“Well, I pretty much hate his guts. That’s a lot of it, right there. And if peeing on him will help, yeah, I probably would. I’d get around to it. Sometimes zippers are hard to operate when you are chuckling.”
Over half a million purged from the rolls.
Sorry, that runs counter to the ideals of democracy. I pushed like the info, but who knows if it’ll do a damn bit of good.
Question for Bricker:
Many many thousands of valid voters have been purged from the rolls this way. The algorithms and procedures are set up deliberately to discriminate specifically against likely Democratic voters. These are facts demonstrated by scholars. What do you think about this?
(a) The allegations in the question are unproven; decisions are up to the democratically-instituted government of Georgia. I’d be happy to have the Gorsuch-Kavanaugh Court rule on the matter. “Cackle, cackle; we win!”
(b) I am proud that my precious Republicans are smart enough to manipulate the legal system to their advantage like this.
(c) Blacks unwilling or unable to afford a lawyer to straighten out their registration mess don’t deserve a vote.
(d) What I think about this hijacking of democracy is irrelevant. My function here is to prattle hateful and despicable things about Americans striving to end Trumpist rule. I do this by finding commas misplaced by libtards, and by exercising my constipated colon pretending that exaggerations are to be taken literally.
(e) All of the above.
I think Czarcasm had auto-complete turned on, and it over-completed here. Didn’t you intend to write just
“Do you have any reason [del]to doubt the story[/del] ?”
That’s nice. It’s good to have an inquiring mind.
I too wonder what really happened.
Where half a million Georgian citizens actually removed from the voting rolls?
Why were they removed?
Where they notified?
Who orchestrated the voter purge, and why?
Who, if anyone, does it benefit politically?
Where any particular groups of people targeted?
Where the criteria for voter removal applied consistently regardless of party affiliations, race, religion, etc?
What is the justification in regard to protecting/facilitating the democratic process?
Is it actually legal? And if it is technically legal, is it ethical?
Are there grounds for legal action if citizens feel their constitutional rights have been infringed by this purge?
Perhaps you’ve been wondering about some of these things. Some of them, at least, are addressed in the article linked to in the OP.
If, like me, you really are interested to learn the truth of the matter, then let’s follow the story together and see what comes of it.
Or maybe we could both dig up something to shed more light on this strange story.
Join me?
To start our journey of discovery, what did you think of the article Eonwe linked to?
I found it quite alarming, if opinionated, and I really hope they do get Kemp to disclose the full details of the removal process.
Some particular points of interest:
1)The suggestion that Kemp tried to keep the list of citizens who were removed from the rolls hidden until there was almost no time left for those affected to re-register
2) The observation by Dr. Steel that this voter purge is an insult to the many people who have died to protect the rights of citizens to vote
And you?
Obviously you’re the expert on legal issues, and if it’s perfectly legal to purge half a million citizens from the rolls in this way, well, I would find that troubling and would question the process by which such action became legally justifiable.
But aside from what is or isn’t technically subject to legal restraints and repercussions, as a person with moral values, ideals, ethical standards and feelings, what do you think of this voter purge thing?
And what do you see as the potential repercussions on the integrity of the democratic process and the sanctity of citizens’ constitutional rights within that process?
How do you feel this weighs against the issue of voter fraud ーan issue made much of by Republicansー in terms of real threat to the democratic process and effect on the public’s faith therein?
When the urging of citizens to participate in the great Democratic Experiment has to go from
“Go out and vote!”
to “Make sure you’re registered to vote!”
to “Double check that you haven’t been discretely removed from the voting registry!”
it really does seem like someone’s been fucking with the experiment’s parameters.
On a trivial side note:
(My bolding)
I get that you’re doing a bit here, but are you also doing the thing?
Y’know, with calling it the “Democrat Party” even though that’s not the actual name of the party, because “Democ-RAT”?
No?
I’ve heard some people like to do that.
For whatever reason.
I thought this was the Republican party’s mating call.
Oh fuck off. I expect this bullshit from Bricker, not from you. You know better.
Let’s make it more clear. “Kim Jong Un deserves to die in prison”. Note that KJI has not broken any laws. He’s just a shitty person who has caused untold suffering, and if the system was just, he would have broken some law and ended up in prison. Makes more sense? You daft motherfucker?
Ha ha he thinks Republicans can be good people. That’s cute.
Didn’t you learn anything from your interactions with Humpy? Like, don’t get me wrong, great post, but… Man. Pearls before swine.
Blimey. Them’s harsh words.
I thought John’s quip was funny.
I like him as a poster, so I’m always willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The man doesn’t need me to speak for him, but I’d assume he’s pointing out the absurdity of playing (and losing) the semantics game with two grown men who know exactly what the OP meant.
That’s not cute; that’s decent.
I don’t consider Bricker to be anywhere near as bad as old Clothy. Although the rate at which he’s falling in my esteem is approaching terminal velocity.
I’m offering him the chance to show that he’s capable of hanging his partisan hat on the hook and engaging in some sweet, sweet honest, intimate debate.
(Puts on Barry White LP.)
Shodan is mostly harmless.
Like that one cigarette a day.
Or that one shot of whisky.
Or that one hammer to the forehead.
I forgot who said it, but he was right when he said that states have become laboratories for authoritarianism. Republicans are anti-democratic. They do not believe in democracy. They believe in having just enough of the “right” people voting so that they can justify their inequality and kleptocratic rule. The sooner people understand that, the sooner this country can turn into a better version of itself.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Neither of them have indicated that purging suspected liberals from the voting rolls is wrong.
Seriously, they support the Republican Party, so they either think it’s fine to disenfranchise people who support Democrats, or they’ll play lip service to the idea that its wrong, but won’t support actually doing anything to prevent it, because it might let a Democrat win an election, and that’s worse than anything else imaginable.
Kim Jong-Un is the sort of person who wants to imprison those who’ve committed no crime. If you think the law is wrong work to change the law, don’t act like your personal morality is the only thing that determines right and wrong and advocate punishing people based only on that.
You’re forgetting that **John **is as dedicated an above-it-all bothsidesist as you’ll find anywhere. It is fundamental to his worldview that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, so he doesn’t have to accept responsibility for any of it, and can keep his trademark contemptuous snark coming. He can’t function otherwise.
But that’s still not as bad as Bricker, who just keeps sinking into the muck out of his absolute organizational loyalty, or Shodan, who really is incapable of knowing better.
[del]Don’t act like[/del] you think ethics and morality should have no place in our society.
Of course they have a place. They should be the bedrock of laws and general behaviour. But one basic, ethical tenet is do your absolute fucking best not to lock up those who’ve not broken any laws.
If you consider a law that allows the removal from voting rolls of people who’ve expressed no interest in staying on them to be unethical, there are remedies - namely, changing the law. Personally, I feel that people who are so uninterested in politics that they’ve not voted for years, nor replied when asked if they wish to remain on the rolls, add nothing to democracy by voting, as they are at best uninterested and at worst wholly ignorant. You presumably disagree - but there is clearly room for a reasonable debate about which position is better. In short, is a smaller but more engaged and knowlegable electorate likely to provide a better result than a larger but less interested or informed one? And also, is a better result more important than ensuring that some people keep a right that they have shown no interest in exercising?
These are not trivial questions with simple answers, but “lock up the opponents whether or not they’ve commited a crime” is not the answer. Indeed, one of the biggest and most justified criticisms of Trump is his calls for that.
if that is your point then you have either not read this thread, or you are posting in the wrong thread.
I have found my life greatly improved by not having to read what this lying fascist psychopath posts, and would appreciate it if you stopped quoting him so that I can maintain my little bubble of blissful ignorance where I only have to read noxious opinions in the 98th percentile instead of the 99th. 
If you read my entire post, you will see that I made several points - only one of which you managed to notice. And, of course, it is a relevant point, as the OP and many subsequent posts clearly say Kemp should be locked up.
Well, quite.
There is no reasonable debate when you are arguing to put roadblocks in front of American citizens who wish to vote. Unless they are barred from voting, or are otherwise precluded from voting in that district, taking away their registration to vote is simply beyond the pale. Only an enemy of democracy could argue in favor of taking away the ability to vote from someone who is a legal voter.
One thing I know for absolute sure (and you do too) if the Republican who purged the rolls thought that it would impact Republican voters more than Democrats, he wouldn’t do it.
I’ll ask again, for those of you who believe that the Second Amendment is intended to allow armed citizens to resist tyranny, do you believe that it is reasonable for Georgians to use violence to secure their rights since they are being denied access to the ballot box? If not, why not?