And that so called “music”! Nothing but a bunch of anti-social noise pollution, you ask me!
What if they played their music to loud? Can we kill them then?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is a subtle difference between self defence and lynching. Maybe you’ll figure it out one day.
No you’re not suggesting something legal. You are suggesting what is effectively a lynching of someone who’s broken no laws. The idea that a politician working to uphold the system is a traitor is utterly absurd, they are the literal opposite of that. You are the one who wants to change things, you are the one advocating violence to do it, and you are the one trying to prevent free and fair elections by trying to prevent the electoral roll being kept up to date.
There is plenty of room to discuss what the best way to keep it up to date is, but on the surface there’s nothing wrong with removing people who haven’t voted for years and fail to respond when asked if they still live at the address they’re registered at - but there are obvious problems with the timing of it. You’re clearly not interested in fixing things, though, you just want your side to win no matter what they have to do to get there, no matter what norms or laws they have to break to do it. Look in a mirror and you’ll see Trump.
The sooner people realise that radical centrism is an option the better.
Whether or not you can kill someone has nothing to do with how loud their music is. How they react when you tell them to turn it down, however…
Filthy capitalist shill.
Definitely. Why can’t the kids listen to Napalm Death or Agoraphobic Nosebleed, like I did when I was young?
Even more comedy! Shooting at a car full of kids driving away is “self-defence” now, according to Steophan, and the convicted murderer who shot at those kids is “the sort of people normal people want around them”. Another joke, please! Keep 'em coming!
You are tedious, and an obvious liar. I repeatedly said, in the original thread and others, that I believe that his shooting at the fleeing car was attempted murder. You know this, you’ve responded to me saying it several times, and yet you are now lying about it. Why? You’ve often said how wrong you think lying about what people say is - surely you’re not a hypocrite?
True, you can only kill them if they refuse to turn it down, and use the magic words* “I thought I saw a gun”.
- Disclaimer: Effectiveness of magic words not guaranteed. Consumers with high melanin content may suffer distressing side effects. Please consult a brown paper bag before use.
More like, forcing the apparatus of the state to remove burdensome obstacles that disproportionately affect the other side and prevent them from voting. I said in my hypothetical that one party has maintained solid control for thirty years despite a majority preferring the other party to be in power. The party in power has maintained that power via dirty tricks, such as voter suppression and gerrymandering.
I quoted your post. If you’re now saying that your post was wrong and you regret it, this will be the first time you’ve done so that I’ve seen, and you’ve had many, many opportunities. But I quoted your words – you praised convicted murderer Michael Dunn, who shot at fleeing kids, as someone “normal people want around them”.
So sorry if pointing out your own words is painful to you, but they’re there for all to see. You can take them back, of course. You can say that it was an incredibly stupid thing you did, praising a convicted murderer who shot at a car full of kids as “the sort of people normal people want around them”, and I’ll never point and laugh at that post again.
So me quoting and citing your post and pointing and laughing is entirely different from you making an uncited claim about me, and refusing to find a supporting cite or back down when challenged. The first is entirely honest criticism and mockery; the second is extremely lazy dishonesty.
Sure. And how would they do that exactly? Make the state legislature pass laws at gun point?
That surface is the veneer of respectability that Republicans install on their antidemocratic laws.
The real question is why do you need to remove people who haven’t voted recently? What, exactly, is made better by this action? What pernicious evil is prevented by purging the rolls a few weeks before an election?
As E-DUB mentioned above, the predictable effect is the intended effect. It is wholly predictable that some people haven’t voted recently, hope to vote this time, and didn’t respond to a postcard. Those people will have a devil of a time voting, and that’s what is intended to happen.
Edited to add:
There are no “problems” with the timing of it, the timing is exactly what was intended.
Shodan, my fellow quester for truth! You’re back!
How did your search go?
You seem a little less uncertain about “what really happened” than you were a few hours ago.
I mean, if you’ve found out the truth of the matter, that’s terrific!
Could you point me to where you discovered this information?
Also, how do you think the wiping of Georgia’s election records in 2017 factors into the “fruitcake” narrative?
For my part, I haven’t found a whole lot corroborating said fruitcake’s claims, but it does seem that Kemp has faced accusations of voter disenfranchisement before.
And he has made discredited claims about election interference by the Left, and has a history of reluctance to provide relevant information when requested.
But just in case you missed it, this post was just for you!
I’d still like to know your thoughts on the various allegations presented in the Truthout article.
And just in case you haven’t read it yet,here it is again, to save you the trouble of going all the way back to page 1.
If you mean, do they literally have a gun pointed to their head as they are casting the vote? I don’t see that happening precisely. But maybe there’s a great deal of civil unrest and violence on the street over this issue. The legislators get tired of walking around with armed guards and living in undisclosed locations for their own security, and are finally willing to cede power to prevent further bloodshed.
Ok, I can see how that would be possible. My guess is the National Guard would be called up before that though.
From my reading of the article, this purge happened in 2017, not a few weeks before an election.
I found an example of the type of registration verification "postcard"that was sent out.
I wouldn’t say it looks like junk mail (at least, not what I’m used to in a totally different part of the world, so, I dunno).
It does say “BOARD OF REGISTRARS” and “IMPORTANT INFORMATION” in big, bold letters, so there’s that, I guess.
It also *doesn’t *say “VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATION!” in big, bold letters, so there’s also that.
I think people’s opinions on whether this constituted fair notification will depend on where their political interests lie.
Correction noted. Thanks.
In NY the general rule is one is purged from the voter roles after missing two complete presidential year cycles. So the period might be as short as 8 years without voting up to 11 years.
My youngest daughter went to college in 2006, but voted in NY for the 2008 presidential election. After that she switched her registration to another state. So she missed 2012 and 2016 and everything in between after November 2008. She should have been off the roles in 2017, but was not. Last year she got a card from the board of elections and I replied to them stating she had moved out of state and her name was finally off the roles this year. So I guess not answering the card or, as in our case, answering in the negative, is the final step in the removal process. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
I think three years is too short a time. Many people only vote in presidential years.
You were young? Or did you simply arrive at old and bitter sooner than most?
If any of you feel less informed than you might wish, Talking Points Memo has an excellent and concise breakdown of How The Fuck We Got Into This Mess.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/abrams-kemp-bring-long-running-war-over-voting-rights-to-georgia-governors-race