Hmmm, or some very surprising upsets when rural areas suddenly turn blue.
Is part of the reason for putting these prisons in rural areas actually to boost the population for enumeration, or is that just a minor side effect?
Personally, were I given dictatorial powers over voting and enfranchisement (yes, contradiction in terms, I know) I would do enumeration based on the number of people who vote, rather than the number of people who live in an area. Would get politicians to suddenly want people to vote, even if they weren’t going to vote for them.
A felon has shown hostility to the welfare of his victim, unless the felony was manslaughter, in which case he has shown a short temper or bad judgment. He may be just fine with the nation.
I don’t know why anyone would vote except out of civic obligation. Trying to subvert the country with one vote is such a long shot that it’s not worth the effort.
We are told, in tones of offended dignity, that of course those people on The List can vote! Just, you know, provisionally, while we confirm their legitimacy.
Georgia permits three days for the process. What steps have been taken to prepare for thousands of provisional voters to be investigated, all inside of three days?
Suppose they can’t be, what happens then? Mr Kemp, he decides? He could say, well, shucks, couldn’t git 'er done! Darn shame about that, law is the law, sucks to be you?
After all, Mr Kemp is duly elected, its his official function, he’s not the kind of man to shirk his duty by recusing himself like a coward! Suppose he wins by a few thousand votes, and there are yet thousands of provisional ballots, but the overworked bureaucracy can only plow through a few hundred in three days. He gets to say, OK, stop counting, take 'em out and burn 'em? I win, voice of the people, mandate!
'Course, Dems could sue over this flagrant theft, take it all the way to the Supreme…oh. Right.
And all they would need is “If an individual’s valid form of identification does not include the North Dakota residential address or date of birth, or the North Dakota residential address is not current, the individual may supplement the identification with a current utility bill; a current bank statement; a check or a document issued by a federal, state, local, or tribal government (including those issued by BIA for a tribe located in North Dakota, any other tribal agency or entity, or any other document that sets forth the tribal member’s name, date of birth, and current North Dakota residential address); or a paycheck.”
So you’re saying 18K people in ND don’t have at least ONE of these? They don’t get checks from any government including the tribe, don’t have a utility bill, don’t have a bank statement, don’t have a paycheck, or any other tribal document showing and address. That would also mean they don’t have a driver license.
Slavery has its roots in ancient civilization, as far back as we can uncover, and probably longer ago that that.
Therefore no form of slavery is ever based on racism.
That’s your logic, right there.
We are talking about the specific laws as they are. And those specific laws have their specific roots in disenfranchising the black vote. You can talk about historical examples of similar laws all day, and that will still have no bearing on these laws as the are written, why they were written, who they are written by, and how they were enforced.
Do you deny that felony disenfranchisement was used with the intent of weakening the black vote in the south(and not just the south)? If you do, well, there’s no help for that, you have chosen to pursue your preferred narrative of history, and nothing will disaude you of that. If you don’t, then name the exact year that that practice stopped.
Yes, I’m saying that if your ID doesn’t have a residential address because you don’t **have **a residential address, your supplemental forms of ID won’t have a residential address either.
Funny how that works.
But given that there’s a separate thread about the North Dakota disenfranchisement, let’s continue this discussion over there, 'kay?
And you are saying that Jim Crow era laws were not?
I suppose you are also saying that only blacks could be slaves, and that all blacks were slaves.
Yeah, and slavery was justified by the Bible.
Those laws were based on ancient laws, but they were intended to prevent blacks from voting.
How about the version of history where the people who made these laws explicitly said why they made them?
It’s like arguing that the civil war wasn’t about slavery, when there is written statement by the people who succeeded that say explicitly that slavery is the reason that they are succeeding. It’s just a sad attempt at re-writing history to get the narrative that supports you.
Let me see if this is clear. You are claiming that there was never any attempts at disenfranchising blacks in the south? That all laws passed, poll taxes, poll tests and the like, were simply derived from common-law, and were never independently intended to prevent blacks from voting?
If you are not making that claim, can you tell me the exact year in which southern states stopped making any attempts at suppressing the black vote?
Hey there, Shodan.
In the parallel Pit thread you expressed doubt about the veracity of the OP article.
I asked you to clarify what particular claims in the article you found doubtful, or what evidence you had uncovered to counter those claims.
When you didn’t respond I PM’ed you to invite you back to the discussion.
You indicated your preference to not return to the Pit thread and instead discuss it here.
Accordingly, I posted my questions to you here, but still haven’t heard your response.
So, to keep it simple:
Did you actually read the article?
What particular claims of the article do you dispute?
[Note to mods: these excerpts here are just a small part of a much larger piece.]
I’m not sure if anyone’s already brought this up in the thread, but:
And:
And:
And:
In short, Kemp deserves absolutely no benefit of the doubt for what he’s doing now. He’s got a long track record of hostility towards minority voting, and has used his office in a way that embodies that hostility.
No one had their voting rights taken away, and the process whereby people are notified has been discussed rather extensively.
Also -
To which an appropriate response has already been posted.
With which I agree.
It is pretty much as I said - leftwing fruitcake posts a leftwing fruitcake article about a leftwing fruitcake lawsuit on a leftwing fruitcake website, and the SDMB falls for it, hook, line and sinker. So my question about what really happened has been asked and answered.
On behalf of left-wing fruitcakes everywhere, we thank you for your respectful tone and civil discourse. However, we are currently being slandered as violent mobs of raving and dangerous lefties, and you may wish to update your stereotypewriter.
But giant pandas are bears. The two kinds of “panda” aren’t particularly related to each other (well, beyond the fact that bears and raccoons aren’t all that far-separated).
