Voter Suppression and Why The Republicans Love It So Much?


The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Who does this disproportionately hurt vs help?

@Gameface this is the most thorough article that I’ve read on the new Georgia voting laws. Let me know if you can’t access it.
 


LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Would you prefer that no one bring a counter perspective on the topic?

I could respond "Very nice of you to spout the Lib talking points" after 90% of the comments on this thread.
Most people prefer that. Confirmation bias is human nature. We are comfortable when we don't have to challenge our opinions or perspectives. It takes a certain level of maturity to consider opposing viewpoints and lend them credibility. Most people are incapable of this, or just unwilling.
 

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
The notion that 'no one can offer basic comfort to a person who has been standing in line for 4 hours' is related to voter fraud in what way?

When was the last time you stood in line several hours to vote? Do that and then tell me it has no effect on your willingness to vote.
The longest I have stood in line to vote was in south ogden Utah and we were in line for nearly 2 hours. Definitely thought about waking away, considering Utah is largely a "wasted vote" kind of state.
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Most people prefer that. Confirmation bias is human nature. We are comfortable when we don't have to challenge our opinions or perspectives. It takes a certain level of maturity to consider opposing viewpoints and lend them credibility. Most people are incapable of this, or just unwilling.
I think you’re right in the confirmation basis, just not in the way you intended. Republicans are making **** up to explain away their boy’s loss and to justify minority rule in enacting voter suppression laws.

The counter to “all the lib points” is to admit The Big Lie. It is to admit that there was rampant voter fraud. Even Republican officials in Trump’s own administration found no impactful fraud (Bill Barr). State officials confirmed clean elections (GA Sec of State Brad Raffensberger).
Why is it to hard for Republicans to admit that their boy lost?
  • He lost the popular vote in 2016.
  • He did nothing over 4 years to win over liberal allies.
  • And in the last year of his presidency he was impeached twice and oversaw 400,000 Americans while downplaying the pandemic.
Maybe he lost in 2020 because he just wasn’t very popular and voters didn’t want 4 more years of his ****?

What evidence do Republicans have of voter fraud to justify these laws? If they don’t have evidence of fraud, why are these laws being enacted? Could they be lost in confirmation bias by just repeating Trump’s Big Lie?

Are they just unable or unwilling to admit that maybe they lost a clean election?
 
Last edited:

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Would you prefer that no one bring a counter perspective on the topic?

I could respond "Very nice of you to spout the Lib talking points" after 90% of the comments on this thread.
I see this claim a lot.

People aren’t attacking conservatives for their conservative talking points. People are attacking posters because they’re spouting off disproven talking points. Conservative talking points aren’t synonymous with lies. There’s a big difference.

We see this all the time with “cancel culture.” Trump wasn’t cancelled because of his conservative talking points. He was de-platformed because he was using social media to violate the terms of service; like fomenting insurrection. Honestly, he should’ve been de-platformed a long time ago with his incessant attacks on people.
 
Last edited:

AlaskanAssassin

Well-Known Member
I see this claim a lot.

People aren’t attacking conservatives for their conservative talking points. People are attacking posters because they’re spouting off disproven talking points. Conservative talking points aren’t synonymous with lies. There’s a big difference.
This simply demonstrates your inability to genuinely consider the other sides points. Just because someone on Twitter or CNN makes a good counter-argument, doesn't mean that any idea has been "disproven". There certainly were not any "lies" in the original person's post (albeit I'm not sure any good points were made). However, a lazy response attacking "GOP talking points" is lazy and a waste. If someone wants to make a point, make it. You're not going to change anyone's mind by attacking their party.
 

AlaskanAssassin

Well-Known Member
Voter suppression doesn’t impact election results??? Ummmm. What? Did you seriously post that with a straight face?

secondly, it’s not the same thing. Non-citizens and dead people aren’t voting while voter suppression actually does happen and it’s impact is significant. Just because conservative message boards are talking about liberals drinking the blood of children and dead people voting, doesn’t mean it’s true nor does it make it any less true that voter suppression impacts elections. And judging by the Qanon stuff, there’s a lot of ridiculous **** posted on conservative message boards these days.

Lastly, even if the impact wasn’t significant, isn’t it unbelievably immoral? Attempting to disenfranchise voters and/or prevent them from voting is an attack on the very soul of democracy.
Absolutely. I do not believe that voter suppression materially impacts election results. People that genuinely want to vote have a million ways to do so. I don't think Republicans can significantly change that fact (even though they probably want to). The comparison of these new laws to Jim Crow are ridiculous. None of the changes seem like they are truly going to turn a lot of voters away.

Passing out water or snacks should only be happening by poll workers. If random people wearing "I Love Trump" pins were passing out water and food at the polls, I guarantee Dems would be looking to enact laws to limit that. Would be nice if the law addressed this by requiring water and snacks to be available to those waiting.

Also, no one seems to point out some things in the new law that EXPAND the ability for people to vote, such as requiring that polling places have two Saturdays open for voting, with options for two Sundays as well. Saturdays were not previously required by law, and now they are. If the SOLE intent of the law was to limit voters, why was this included?

Yes, it is immoral to try and restrict eligible voters from participating in our democracy. If there was malicious intent, as the OP pointed out, it will only serve to fire up the Left's base.......the media will make sure of that.
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
This simply demonstrates your inability to genuinely consider the other sides points. Just because someone on Twitter or CNN makes a good counter-argument, doesn't mean that any idea has been "disproven". There certainly were not any "lies" in the original person's post (albeit I'm not sure any good points were made). However, a lazy response attacking "GOP talking points" is lazy and a waste. If someone wants to make a point, make it. You're not going to change anyone's mind by attacking their party.
Let's break this down honestly because I want to demonstrate good faith arguments and show that conservatives aren't being dismissed out of hand.

The post cited lamented businesses making decisions based on politics. Specifically, MLB moving the all-star game in response to the immoral voter suppression laws recently passed.

This is interesting because for most of my lifetime, Republicans have championed business rights. When liberals brought up the dangers of businesses having too much say in politics, Republicans dismissed them. In 2010, Republicans supported the "Citizens United" ruling known for equating money given by big donors as "free speech." In 2012, The Republican frontrunner called "corporations are people." Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell has a long history of championing businesses and the right to interfere in politics. In fact, even right now he's not exactly telling businesses to stay completely out of politics. Forbes article here.
  • So when did Republicans did Republicans suddenly turn on businesses interfering with politics and why?
  • For most of my life, Republicans in red states have bragged about how they could pick off businesses in blue states with tax cuts and fewer regulations. Will we see Republicans ending these practices?
  • Will we see Republicans continue these anti-business arguments, telling Exxonmobil to stay out of politics and the climate change debate?
  • Or are they just the current Republican talking points?
  • Do you find the GA laws immoral? What should businesses do when a state passes a law that disproportionately impacts a segment of our society?
I await your response.
 

AlaskanAssassin

Well-Known Member
When was the last time you stood in line several hours to vote? Do that and then tell me it has no effect on your willingness to vote.
I personally would never wait more than an hour. Waiting lines are way too long in some places to vote. Needs to be addressed. However I understand why random people shouldn't be passing out water and snacks. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to be passing out water and snacks telling people to vote for Jo Jorgensen. Wish it was required that polling stations have water and snacks available.
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Absolutely. I do not believe that voter suppression materially impacts election results. People that genuinely want to vote have a million ways to do so. I don't think Republicans can significantly change that fact (even though they probably want to). The comparison of these new laws to Jim Crow are ridiculous. None of the changes seem like they are truly going to turn a lot of voters away.
That's not what the data says and nor would Republicans be engaged in it if it wasn't impactful. Lastly, if you tried to kill me but failed, does it dismiss the point that you tried to kill me?
Why don't you find attempts to suppress votes to be immoral? Why not make it easier to vote?
Passing out water or snacks should only be happening by poll workers. If random people wearing "I Love Trump" pins were passing out water and food at the polls, I guarantee Dems would be looking to enact laws to limit that. Would be nice if the law addressed this by requiring water and snacks to be available to those waiting.
You think voters might change their votes because supporters of a candidate pass out food and water? Do you have any evidence of this occurring? Like are there states where this is happening? I’m genuinely curious.

Why not address the issue of voting lines? Why not allow mail-in voting and staff polling places to the point that there isn't a need to pass out food and water to accommodate those waiting in long lines?
Also, no one seems to point out some things in the new law that EXPAND the ability for people to vote, such as requiring that polling places have two Saturdays open for voting, with options for two Sundays as well. Saturdays were not previously required by law, and now they are. If the SOLE intent of the law was to limit voters, why was this included?
Which dispropately hurts working POC and helps rural voters. Here's what the NY Times says about that:
These new strict rules on early voting hours are likely to curtail voting access for Georgians who work daytime hours or have less flexible schedules and who may be unable to return an absentee ballot.

The provision requires counties to hold early voting during weekday working hours — 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. — and says it may be held for longer but may not take place before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. on those days. The early voting period will begin four weeks before an election. The previous iteration of the law called only for early voting during “normal business hours” and left it up to counties to determine those hours.

The provision also adds a second required Saturday of early voting (the previous law required only one), which will increase access to early voting in most of the state’s rural counties, where election administrators have often been short-staffed and have offered fewer hours of early voting. Most larger counties in the state already offered multiple weekend days of early voting.

The law doesn’t require the availability of early voting on Sundays, which means that counties can choose whether to open for early voting on up to two Sundays before an election.

Counties that choose not to open on Sundays would be limiting ballot access for parishioners at Black churches that have often organized parishioners to vote after Sunday services.

Yes, it is immoral to try and restrict eligible voters from participating in our democracy. If there was malicious intent, as the OP pointed out, it will only serve to fire up the Left's base.......the media will make sure of that.

But now you're asking "the left" to fire up its base to defeat obstacles that shouldn't even exist, right? Why aren't these attempts to make voting harder bothering you? Before you answer, I'd suggest you read this:
I want to make it clear that I'm arguing in good faith here and bringing the receipts.
 
Last edited:

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Lost in all of this is context. Republicans attempting to suppress the votes saw roots in Nixon's Southern Strategy. A recently decreased Republican strategist had files on how to gerrymander and use the census as a way to benefit Republicans. This was pretty big news a few years back for those who missed it:

Links here:

Specifically in Georgia: Kemp purged the voting rolls to win his election against Stacy Abrams. He stayed on as Secretary of State (who oversees elections) while campaigning for governor. He resisted calls to resign as SoS in a pretty unethical move.


Under Kemp, 1.6 million people were purged from the rolls. It's important to keep in mind that Abrams lost by fewer than 60,000 votes... So it's not like these GA laws come from a vacuum. There's a lot of necessary context here.

Lastly, what need is there for these additional laws? @AlaskanAssassin I thought conservatives were against unnecessary legislation?
 
Last edited:

AlaskanAssassin

Well-Known Member
Let's break this down honestly because I want to demonstrate good faith arguments and show that conservatives aren't being dismissed out of hand.

The post cited lamented businesses making decisions based on politics. Specifically, MLB moving the all-star game in response to the immoral voter suppression laws recently passed.

This is interesting because for most of my lifetime, Republicans have championed business rights. When liberals brought up the dangers of businesses having too much say in politics, Republicans dismissed them. In 2010, Republicans supported the "Citizens United" ruling known for equating money given by big donors as "free speech." In 2012, The Republican frontrunner called "corporations are people." Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell has a long history of championing businesses and the right to interfere in politics. In fact, even right now he's not exactly telling businesses to stay completely out of politics. Forbes article here.
  • So when did Republicans did Republicans suddenly turn on businesses interfering with politics and why?
  • For most of my life, Republicans in red states have bragged about how they could pick off businesses in blue states with tax cuts and fewer regulations. Will we see Republicans ending these practices?
  • Will we see Republicans continue these anti-business arguments, telling Exxonmobil to stay out of politics and the climate change debate?
  • Or are they just the current Republican talking points?
  • Do you find the GA laws immoral? What should businesses do when a state passes a law that disproportionately impacts a segment of our society?
I await your response.
Great points. Much better response than simply attacking a party. Genuinely appreciated.
Republicans love business rights until those rights have a negative impact on their party, or go against their messages. It's pretty sad. This Republican party doesn't really resemble what the party was 10-20 or more years ago. That said, parties change to attract voters or limit voter loss. It wasn't that long ago that Obama was championing stronger boarder controls, limiting illegal immigration, and was nicknamed "deporter-in-chief". Parties change, and the Republicans flip-flop almost daily.
As far as what businesses should do.......that's up to them. We all have free choice to patronize a business or not. The danger lies in alienating people because of your action or inaction. I do not believe businesses have a moral responsibility to be political.
 

Top