GEORGIA on my mind (but not like an old, sweet song).

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Milo
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: GEORGIA on my mind (but not like an old, sweet song).

Post by Milo » Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:47 am

Doc wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:07 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... urs-early/
Washington Post: Biden falsely claims the new Georgia law ‘ends voting hours early’
But it does. It’s left to the discretion of the individual offices to go later.

Jim the Moron
Posts: 2208
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: GEORGIA on my mind (but not like an old, sweet song).

Post by Jim the Moron » Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:24 am

Doc wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:07 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... urs-early/
Washington Post: Biden falsely claims the new Georgia law ‘ends voting hours early’

Perhaps there are folks out there wishing to dispute the WP narrative?

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 5280
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: GEORGIA on my mind (but not like an old, sweet song).

Post by Doc » Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:39 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:24 am
Doc wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:07 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... urs-early/
Washington Post: Biden falsely claims the new Georgia law ‘ends voting hours early’

Perhaps there are folks out there wishing to dispute the WP narrative?
I am waiting to see what they have to say about kids sleeping under bridges in the dirt at the direction of the Biden Administration.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: GEORGIA on my mind (but not like an old, sweet song).

Post by neverfail » Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:05 pm

Doc wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:07 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... urs-early/
Washington Post: Biden falsely claims the new Georgia law ‘ends voting hours early’
Well, the New York Times does not back up the Post's accusation against Biden and I get the impression that the Times is a more authoritative journal than the Post:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/p ... icans.html

Georgia G.O.P. Passes Major Law to Limit Voting Amid Nationwide Push

The law, which has been denounced by Democrats and voting rights groups, comes as Republican-controlled legislatures across the country mount the most extensive contraction of ballot access in generations.

Georgia Republicans on Thursday passed a sweeping law to restrict voting access in the state, introducing more rigid voter identification requirements for absentee balloting, limiting drop boxes and expanding the Legislature’s power over elections. The new measures make Georgia the first major battleground to overhaul its election system since the turmoil of last year’s presidential contest.

The legislation, which followed Democratic victories that flipped the state at the presidential and Senate levels, comes amid a national movement among Republican-controlled state legislatures to mount the most extensive contraction of voting access in generations. Seeking to appease a conservative base that remains incensed about the results of the 2020 election, Republicans have already passed a similar law in Iowa, and are moving forward with efforts to restrict voting in states including Arizona, Florida and Texas.
This rush by states controlled by the Republicans led by Georgia to overhaul their electoral laws has only come about in the wake of the election of two additional Democrats senators in a "run off" election (whatever that means. We don't seem to have - or to need - these in my country) held on January 6th. It is only happening in states with Republican state governments - not in any state with Democrats administrations - which speaks for itself.

Well, I say that if there was no need before the Jan. 6th Georgia runoff for such a sweeping revision of voting rights then there should be no need for any such revision now. Rather, as a matter of fairness, of convenience to voters, any such revision of voting rules should probably move in the opposite direction.

This move has GERRYMANDER written all over it.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 5280
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: GEORGIA on my mind (but not like an old, sweet song).

Post by Doc » Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:15 am

neverfail wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:05 pm
Doc wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:07 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... urs-early/
Washington Post: Biden falsely claims the new Georgia law ‘ends voting hours early’
Well, the New York Times does not back up the Post's accusation against Biden and I get the impression that the Times is a more authoritative journal than the Post:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/p ... icans.html

Georgia G.O.P. Passes Major Law to Limit Voting Amid Nationwide Push

The law, which has been denounced by Democrats and voting rights groups, comes as Republican-controlled legislatures across the country mount the most extensive contraction of ballot access in generations.

Georgia Republicans on Thursday passed a sweeping law to restrict voting access in the state, introducing more rigid voter identification requirements for absentee balloting, limiting drop boxes and expanding the Legislature’s power over elections. The new measures make Georgia the first major battleground to overhaul its election system since the turmoil of last year’s presidential contest.

The legislation, which followed Democratic victories that flipped the state at the presidential and Senate levels, comes amid a national movement among Republican-controlled state legislatures to mount the most extensive contraction of voting access in generations. Seeking to appease a conservative base that remains incensed about the results of the 2020 election, Republicans have already passed a similar law in Iowa, and are moving forward with efforts to restrict voting in states including Arizona, Florida and Texas.
This rush by states controlled by the Republicans led by Georgia to overhaul their electoral laws has only come about in the wake of the election of two additional Democrats senators in a "run off" election (whatever that means. We don't seem to have - or to need - these in my country) held on January 6th. It is only happening in states with Republican state governments - not in any state with Democrats administrations - which speaks for itself.

Well, I say that if there was no need before the Jan. 6th Georgia runoff for such a sweeping revision of voting rights then there should be no need for any such revision now. Rather, as a matter of fairness, of convenience to voters, any such revision of voting rules should probably move in the opposite direction.

This move has GERRYMANDER written all over it.
Georgia is one of the few states that have run offs. They happen when there is more than two candidates running for an office and none get the majority of the votes.


The election laws that the GA Republicans "overhauled" were the special rules put in because of the COVID virus. Rules that were only in effect for the 2020 election. This is what is behind the new voting laws in numerous states. The GA law is in fact a compromise between the old law and the special covid rules.

To say they are bringing back "Jim Crow" is a big lie. GA elections are now much more open than pre-COVID rules. With the exception that voter ID is required. Claiming that Black voters are incapable of getting IDs and using smart phones is racist

“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Jim the Moron
Posts: 2208
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: GEORGIA on my mind (but not like an old, sweet song).

Post by Jim the Moron » Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:34 am

https://babylonbee.com/news/all-star-ga ... -camp-yard

Fake news re China - Denver gets the game - the Mayor there is quoted as saying "Hell, if Georgia doesn't want the 200 million bucks the game will bring in, then we'll gladly accept it.

neverfail
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: GEORGIA on my mind (but not like an old, sweet song).

Post by neverfail » Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:45 am

Doc wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:15 am

Georgia is one of the few states that have run offs. They happen when there is more than two candidates running for an office and none get the majority of the votes.
Doc, in states where they do not have legislation permitting run-offs in place, how do they settle who the winner is?

Secondly, the run off was over the election of two members of your Federal (not Georgia state) upper house. Should not Federal elections be held under a seperate body of Federal law and conducted by a federal statutary body protected from political inteference by special legislation?

What do federal elections have to do with your state anyhow?

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 5280
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: GEORGIA on my mind (but not like an old, sweet song).

Post by Doc » Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:34 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:45 am
Doc wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:15 am

Georgia is one of the few states that have run offs. They happen when there is more than two candidates running for an office and none get the majority of the votes.
Doc, in states where they do not have legislation permitting run-offs in place, how do they settle who the winner is?
The one with the most votes wins. Most of the time it doesn't make any difference because generally there are only two candidates. This has the effect of making candidates compromise. Which is good so long as it does not mean they compromise to corruption.

Secondly, the run off was over the election of two members of your Federal (not Georgia state) upper house. Should not Federal elections be held under a seperate body of Federal law and conducted by a federal statutary body protected from political inteference by special legislation?

What do federal elections have to do with your state anyhow?
The State Legislatures generally get to determine the election rules. Though not always. Under the constitution states are sovereign. States even have their own militaries. Rights not given to the Federal government belong to the states. Or otherwise those not spelled out in the constitution are reserved for the people. Washington state years ago limited how long their representatives could serve in congress. Federal courts ruled that state could not set term limits on Federal candidates. The then speaker of the house had sued in the case. He won the case but was voted out of office the next election.

Originally the States appointed their representatives in the Senate. They were literally the representatives of the state's governments.That was true until Around 1918 when the constitution was amended. The stated reason was that the states legislatures had become corrupted by the Robber Barrons.

Anyway the system has worked out for over 200 years.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: GEORGIA on my mind (but not like an old, sweet song).

Post by neverfail » Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:06 pm

Doc wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:34 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:45 am


What do federal elections have to do with your state anyhow?
The State Legislatures generally get to determine the election rules. Though not always. Under the constitution states are sovereign. States even have their own militaries. Rights not given to the Federal government belong to the states. Or otherwise those not spelled out in the constitution are reserved for the people. Washington state years ago limited how long their representatives could serve in congress. Federal courts ruled that state could not set term limits on Federal candidates. The then speaker of the house had sued in the case. He won the case but was voted out of office the next election.

Originally the States appointed their representatives in the Senate. They were literally the representatives of the state's governments.That was true until Around 1918 when the constitution was amended. The stated reason was that the states legislatures had become corrupted by the Robber Barrons.

Anyway the system has worked out for over 200 years.
Thank you Doc for that very interesting info.

So the states are soverign in their own right? That suggests to me that the USA is more like a voluntary confederacy of 50 soverign states rather than a unitary republic.

It also helps me to understand how back in 1861 an entire bloc of states covering the southeastern corner of the US were bold enough to succeed from the American union. If soverignty lies with them then they had every right to exercise their soverignties in this manner.
.................................................................................................................................

Doc; have you noticed that in the cases of America's kindred federations, respectively Canada and Australia, the issue of who holds soverignty, the states (provinces in Canada) or federal level of government never seems to come up?

The reason (I only just now realised this after reading your above post - some things you just take for granted and never really contemploate their significence) is that in both cases soverignty is vested in neither. Both dominions maintain the legal fiction that soverignty is vested in the person of the reigning monarch - currently Queen Elizabeth the Second.

In my younger, more rebellious days I was a republican who viewed this as a relic left over from the days of Empire that should be done away with. But I have changed my mind since. I can now see its practical value in averting conflict between our frederal and state entities over issues of soverign rights.

You might notice that neither dominion has had an event in our respective historical experiences equivalent to your tragic American civil war conflict? Monarchy seems to have been the linchpin that kept that from happening.

Well, it works for us! :D

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 5280
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: GEORGIA on my mind (but not like an old, sweet song).

Post by Doc » Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:16 pm

neverfail wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:06 pm
Doc wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:34 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:45 am


What do federal elections have to do with your state anyhow?
The State Legislatures generally get to determine the election rules. Though not always. Under the constitution states are sovereign. States even have their own militaries. Rights not given to the Federal government belong to the states. Or otherwise those not spelled out in the constitution are reserved for the people. Washington state years ago limited how long their representatives could serve in congress. Federal courts ruled that state could not set term limits on Federal candidates. The then speaker of the house had sued in the case. He won the case but was voted out of office the next election.

Originally the States appointed their representatives in the Senate. They were literally the representatives of the state's governments.That was true until Around 1918 when the constitution was amended. The stated reason was that the states legislatures had become corrupted by the Robber Barrons.

Anyway the system has worked out for over 200 years.
Thank you Doc for that very interesting info.

So the states are soverign in their own right? That suggests to me that the USA is more like a voluntary confederacy of 50 soverign states rather than a unitary republic.

It also helps me to understand how back in 1861 an entire bloc of states covering the southeastern corner of the US were bold enough to succeed from the American union. If soverignty lies with them then they had every right to exercise their soverignties in this manner.

That was the idea. At the time of the signing of the US constitution I doubt it would have passed if it stipulated that States could not withdraw from the United States. The end of the civil war abused everyone of that idea.
.................................................................................................................................

Doc; have you noticed that in the cases of America's kindred federations, respectively Canada and Australia, the issue of who holds soverignty, the states (provinces in Canada) or federal level of government never seems to come up?

The reason (I only just now realised this after reading your above post - some things you just take for granted and never really contemploate their significence) is that in both cases soverignty is vested in neither. Both dominions maintain the legal fiction that soverignty is vested in the person of the reigning monarch - currently Queen Elizabeth the Second.

In my younger, more rebellious days I was a republican who viewed this as a relic left over from the days of Empire that should be done away with. But I have changed my mind since. I can now see its practical value in averting conflict between our frederal and state entities over issues of soverign rights.

You might notice that neither dominion has had an event in our respective historical experiences equivalent to your tragic American civil war conflict? Monarchy seems to have been the linchpin that kept that from happening.

Well, it works for us! :D
Milo could probably tell you a lot more about "province rights" in Canada. My understanding is that provincial governors have a great deal of power in Canada. In fact succession must be spelled out in their constitution as it seems like French Canadians demand a vote on that every so often. Though I suspect they(French Canadians) really don't want it.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Post Reply