All_Pro_Bills

If you've examined the specific details of the audits I'll take you word for it. But to my knowledge all they did was count the votes and verify the counts with a re-count. Not confirm or validate all the ballots cast were valid. Not cross reference the votes cast to voting records. If you think that's sufficient then okay but I don't. All it proves is they are proficient at counting.

You're arguing back and forth about an unknown. You personally can vouch that there was absolutely no vote fraud in the 2020 general election? Because you personally inspected ballots and observed the voting processes and protocols, for mail in and on site voting? Really? You can no more state that as a known fact than I or anyone else can say there were irregularities or that all went as required. Truth is none of us here know for sure and its just a case of believing what you want to believe absent that. It boils down to opinion and drawing a conclusion based on limited and filtered information. So why do you believe all was on the up and up? Either you're satisfied with the results and don't see any need to question it or you trust the people doing the counting. Me, I just don't trust politicians and their foot soldiers of any party and I trust the one's claiming to be out to "help" other people even less. My hypothesis is they stuffed the mail in boxes with a bunch of fake votes and stopped the vote counts election night in several key districts per the '60's Cook County politician machine playbook. To let all the other votes come in from all the other precincts in the State so they knew how many votes they needed to manufacture in order to win the State. This happened election night in State like GA, PA, and MI. All states that swung one particular way late and suddenly. Coincidence? I think not. Can I prove any of it? No. But you can't prove anything either. And the people that do know for sure are in absolutely no hurry to share the truth about anything with any of us. So rather than bickering back and forth with each other we should all be on their asses to shed some light on their game.

From the perspective of politicians and their parties the applicable motto here is... "if you can't beat 'em then cheat 'em".

They have been known to chop up a lot of birds too!

That's an interesting question. Personally, I have no way of validating whether or not fraud exists as I have no access to voter registration records and other data needed to perform a proper analysis. And truthfully I don't trust the people who can perform this analysis. Because I believe they don't care about integrity of elections. Their primary focus is about "winning". So a fundamental problem I see is the people that do have the ability to perform checks have no motivation or desire to look. So the core issue of contention to me isn't that you and I or others might disagree about the extent or existence of fraud. The issue is you seem trust officials and I do not. That's really the disagreement and debate we are all having here. My conclusions is public officials are less than honest, care about themselves and their power first and foremost, and don't care about much else beyond that. Its the result of winning that only matters and all else is not important.

Your argument brings up a good insight. Somebody in charge of figuring this all out with problem solving skills would look at the voting process in the two places and identify the traits and characteristics that are similar and those that are different. And determine through some basic analysis which specifics could be the cause of the disparity. And then put a plan in place to "fix" those issues and then test their changes to see if the results improve the process in the non-performing location vs. the well run voting jurisdiction. Taking it further you might want to do some analysis of the effectiveness of all towns and counties across the state and identify "good" practices" and "bad practices" and apply the good examples to all under-performing locations. Your conclusion the people in charge of the poorly run township are incompetent or not trained or properly equipped to do the job in an effective manner could be correct. Or it could be something else. People automatically assuming "racism" may turn out to be correct too but unless some inspection and problem identification is performed all they really have is some wild ass guess.

Powered by wind turbines!

Chef, Its simple . But you know that too. Invoking racism is a tactic effectively used to shut down debate without having to present any facts or evidence to support an argument. Its all about using the word to control the narrative. The term is way over-used (like using the "f" word in a lot of action movies) and when there is some genuine abuse or bias it gets lost in all the noise. Like chicken little always proclaiming the sky is falling. At the moment its behind every tree and under every rock. Its "systemic", although what makes it systemic is never explained nor is some measurable, defined level, or order of magnitude metric produced. So how does anyone know its systemic? That's all BS too. I'll wager its been used more in the past 2 years than it was from 1980 to 2019. Like it disappeared for 40 years and then came back into fashion. The funny thing is the word is invoked by more white liberals than it is by the people that actually might be impacted by the practice. While they claim to care I suspect they have other more selfish motives. There's no sense arguing about it because the people pushing the narrative don't have any idea what they're talking about as their conclusions are based on fantasies like white supremacy conjured up by unskilled and unemployable gender and race study academics and intellectuals.

We can debate this until the end of time but at this point the legislation is water under the bridge. If there's a gripe about the Georgia election law then those objections need to be taken to the courts. File the challenges, make the argument, present the facts, and let the judicial provide a ruling.

You should give your Grandfather more credit. I suspect he didn't "jump ahead" of anyone. Rather, he just plain outworked everybody to get ahead. Not just African-Americans but people off all races and backgrounds. Life is a competition in many respects. And while our system isn't perfect I challenge anyone to identify a better one. I don't see 100's of thousands of immigrants seeking opportunity or lining up to get into a lot of other countries. They don't see a "systemically racist" country but rather a country where the opportunity to improve your life is available to all. Maybe there's a lesson in there for all of us? The sad thing is these foreigners hold our country in a much higher regard than a lot of our fellow citizens that perpetually cast themselves as "victims" and others as "oppressors". Many feel entitled to endless handouts paid by the sweat and labor of others. How fair is that? While a lot depends on your starting point in life its a general fact that people that work hard, get an education, keep out of trouble, and have a supportive family tend to be more successful. That's most likely the kind of background you came from and it is for me as well. I work within a very diverse organization and many of my co-workers are African-American. While they are self-aware of social issues they do not consider themselves as "victims". They are people that got to where they are through hard work. The same as the rest of the organization. In that respect everyone is the same. The manager that hired me is an African-American women who left the firm to take a promotion elsewhere. Recently, she was voted onto the Board of Directors of a Fortune 500 company. Quite an accomplishment. The inspiration I get from her is work hard and you'll do a lot better than if you don't.

The filibuster is very democratic. It provides the minority a voice in all matters. It encourages consensus and cooperation. The alternative is a winner take all approach to government. It should remain in place no matter which party controls the Senate. A condition where 51% of the "majority" can dictate anything and everything to the 49% "minority" is not a "democracy". You might think the idea of eliminating it is great right now because it suits your positions but if the tables turn then surely your perspective will too. As the saying goes "where you stand depends on where you sit". The filibuster has worked in the Senate for over 200 years and now that its inconvenient to the majority we need to eliminate it? Yet Democrats used the process about 300 times last year. But I suspect in 2020 the "minority" didn't think it was anti-democratic. But now in 2021 with a 50-50 split in the Senate and the VP casting the tiebreaker its inconvenient. I'm going to bookmark this topic and re-visit it in 2022 when the Dems lose that tiebreaker majority in the Senate and see how you feel about it about 21 months from now.

The GA Secretary of State says that 97% of registered Georgia voters have a divers license associated with their voter registration. So the quantified "problem" is 3% of registered voters will need to be assisted by the State in acquiring or utilizing another form of identification. If you have any problem solving skills you'll recognize that one of the first steps in trying to solve a problem is understanding its magnitude and impact. Determine how big it is with objective metrics and measures. Understand the impact, the root cause, and then develop a plan to fix it. He also stated, "What is most incredible about what has happened over the past week in Georgia is the speed with which liberal politicians and their allies went from condemning election disinformation to wholeheartedly spreading it. If we were not so used to the hypocrisy, it might have given us whiplash".

Having some "standard" might be useful but election law gives the States latitude to set their own specifics. De-politicizing the election and registration process might be something to consider too. And the process shouldn't place an undo burden on any specific demographic or locality. I agree with all that. What astonishes me with Georgia is why all the fuss now? For example, in another thread here I mentioned Georgia was debating voter registration legislation about a week or so before it was signed and I don't recall anyone responding or caring about it. Only after it passed. And any and every political interest knew this legislation was being promulgated and discussed in the state legislature. There was ample time for objection along with public comment. But there wasn't any public outrage or objections until after the bill was signed into law. And a lot of the objections and virtue signalling coming from parties that had opportunity and ability to chime in with objections and and propose modification. Like private concerns like MLB, Coke, and Delta. They were okay with it until they heard objections to the bill from others then virtue signaled the change in their position when they perceived their financial interests were at stake. That just comes off as patronizing behavior rather than genuine concern. For me, this is just one of many examples of intellectual dishonesty that infects social and political debate in America. From all points in the political spectrum. I just don't see much hope in society as a whole to bridge any gaps in issues and policies unless everyone is dealing with everyone else from a position of honesty and integrity. To me that's the systemic problem we face. And we've got a long way to go before we get there.

The basic premise of voter ID laws are consistent. Citizens should provide proof of eligibility to vote in the specific district. A majority of Americans, Rep, Dem, Ind agree. The debate is over what forms of ID are acceptable. Do you agree?

Counties and municipalities already impose a wealth tax. Its called property taxes. The amount of tax is based on the "value" of your property as determined by local assessment of market value. As your primary residence generates no income or revenue the tax must be funded out of salary/wages and other sources of income like investments or interest income. In the 100 acre example above the owner already pays a wealth tax to the county/municipality. As do all homeowners and landowners. Warren's idea is to extend this tax to the Federal level. The problem with property taxes is that after the initial purchase transaction there is a growing disconnect between the value of homes, which tend to rise faster than your ability to fund the tax which is based on your income that generally rises much slower.

https://apnorc.org/projects/public-supportive-of-many-voting-reforms/

Yes, China and Cuba. Two countries on planet Earth where voters have no rights of any kind where MLB does business. I get you're evasive and refuse to admit or acknowledge any liberal hypocrisy. But perhaps rather than dodge my questions you could once in a while answer or rebut them? Say I'm wrong, call me out, or provide some insightful counterpoint. That would be appreciated.

Its been pointed out elsewhere that MLB has no issue with voting rights in places like China and Cuba as they are more interested in loot than votes in those places. What do my liberal friends here have to say about that inconsistency? Or is your outrage confined to the domestic front? Recent polls show 72% of American voters agree that identification should be required to vote much like to board a plane or in my state to buy cough medicine at the grocery store. A majority of voters considering themselves to be Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all polled a majority for each group. So shouldn't democracy prevail? I've also seen comparisons of the Georgia law to other states where 19 other states are more restrictive including the Presidents home state of Delaware. You'd expect he would want to get on that immediately to eliminate his place of residence from his "Jim Crow" list. But not a peep as outrage is conditional. Conditions being what we do is okay and what others do is not. As for baseball the only use I have for it is to turn on a game in order to put me to sleep when I need a nap.

As Chef suggests I expect a guilty verdict the manslaughter charge. Whether its voluntary or involuntary remains to be seen. Not so sure about conviction on the other charges. 29 cites cause and effect. For me the prevailing piece of evidence is the "choke hold" and subsequent death. While the defense can argue the hold is legal and included in the training officers receive the key factor is not the hold itself but the duration of the hold. The video clearly supports this position. I expect the prosecution will show that by any reasonable measure the 9 minute duration of the hold was excessive and much longer than necessary to subdue a suspect and also much longer than the referenced training would allow. And by maintaining the hold for 9 minutes the officer failed to "protect" a suspect taken into his custody.

The problem with the state's case is their strategy conflicts with the findings of their own medical examiner. The ME concluded asphyxiation was not the cause of death. This is an unusual approach. The defense is not claiming drug use contributed to the cause death. They are expressing the opinion of the ME. Typically the defense might dispute the ME's finding, but the State? This might create a quandary for the jury to resolve and might also lead them to not convict on the most serious charges and point to a manslaughter conviction as most likely.

The Dems were able to slide in all kinds of rules changes in 2020 in key States so they should be resourceful enough to find a remedy for any of these issues before 2024.

As always with these social justice issues there's a lot of drama but not a lot of specifics. Every idiot is tweeted (I always wonder why they didn't call it Twitting?) mostly nonsense. We need some common definition here. I would define "restricting" to mean insuring all legal citizens can all vote in the distinct or jurisdiction where they reside and people not meeting that criteria cannot vote in that district or jurisdiction. Is there any problem with that for starters?

These numbers are troubling but these shootings are not motivated by political dogmas, bias, or mental health issues. But nobody seems to be in any hurry to address the issue of gun violence here other than placing blame with out-of-state gun purchases or lax laws in other states where weapons are sourced and purchased. One other key factor is almost all these shootings are young black men killing or wounding other young black men. Unlike the mass shootings angle this doesn't provide any race baiting and gun control exposure. And the added dramatic attention getter that "it could be you next". With these inner city killings it most definitely will not be you in the case of most Americans whatever their political or social views. So these shootings don't generate a lot of political capital and the core social issues here are an area where politicians fear to tread. What it comes down to is a lot of young men without any social or male parental guidance caught in an endless cycle of violence, lack of education, poor job prospects, and poverty locked into an environment of lifetime social welfare dependency. Who could be expected to grow and prosper in such an environment? To solve the problem requires a complete and honest examination of social and economic factors. And a redefinition of assistance programs targeting a goal of personal independence rather than dependence. Something the liberal establishment running failed policies refuses to address or consider. Although its obvious these social programs are dysfunctional and fail to meet any goal of improving the lives of the target audience the strategy of "do more of what's not working until it works" continues to be employed. If they worked you'd expect to see some substantial results after 50 or so years. So I suggest the shootings will continue until people actually "on the ground" in these communities have more say and input. In this situation dropping the political rhetoric and just getting down to solving the problem is needed. But when will that happen?

What I think or feel is not relevant. Only the facts are. And the facts are CRT advocates judge people by their skin color. Its all written down in their theory. Its no secret and it requires no interpretation. Once again its not my opinion or view its a fact. Just read the stuff. And probability suggests that almost 100% of the advocates are members or supporters of Democratic candidates and the party. This will likely be my last response here.

While I generally disagree with your conclusions its clear you're very well informed of events so I am 100% certain you are aware of critical race theory. And you are feigning ignorance of the subject because my argument has you boxed into a corner and unwilling to admit the truth. The truth being CRT believers judge people by their skin color and CRT believers and advocates are Democrats. I'll wager a year's pay there is no school board, academic organization, or other organization either public or private that is pushing CRT that is not controlled or significantly influenced or pressured by members of the Democratic party. An FYI to wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory