MLB Moves All-Star Game to 80% WHITE city with voter ID laws

Damocles said:
I(In the past those folks were allowed in to make sure their bribes worked, or that their fear tactics worked...)
Click to expand...

Well, bribery and intimidation are already things for which there are laws against...so if you're saying that electioneering is a form of bribery or intimidation, then it shouldn't be allowed at all, much less allowed at a certain distance.

But these laws don't stop electioneering, bribery, or intimidation...they just set parameters within which those are acceptable, but those standards aren't based on any science or data...which makes them arbitrary.


Basically, it places a limit to where that kind of thing can happen to people. IMHO... 150 feet is actually too close. But I follow the rules and mark the 100 feet limit (even shorter here in CO) when I am an election judge
Click to expand...

100, 150, less than a hundred...it's all arbitrary. Nothing is based in fact or data. It's all feelings and emotions. That's no way to run our elections.

And also, CO is almost entirely vote by mail and has automatic voter registration, so I'm not sure why you and other crackpots are referring to it in this context.

They don't have long lines at polling stations in CO because most everyone there votes by mail anyway.

In the 2020 election, less than 80,000 people voted early in-person, which was 3% of all CO voters. CO had virtually no wait times in 2020, and 97% of the votes cast were cast by mail.
 
volsrock said:
According to a report, Major League Baseball (MLB) is expected to announce that they have decided to relocate the All-Star Game from Atlanta, Georgia, to Denver, Colorado.

A person familiar with the situation revealed the decision to the Associated Press Monday night.

MLB removed the All-Star Game from Atlanta after Georgia passed a series of voter reforms aimed at safeguarding the integrity of their elections. MLB and other corporations claimed that the new law acted as a “voter suppression” measure by shortening early voting periods and requiring ID.

Putting the falseness of those claims aside, for a moment, one would think that if MLB were so appalled by those measures, they would move their All-Star game to a place that fewer voting restrictions, not more.

However, that is not the case.

Not only does the state of Colorado require proof of identification when casting a ballot to vote, but it also has fewer early voting days than Georgia.

https://www.breitbart.com/sports/20...voter-id-and-fewer-early-voting-days-than-ga/

Colorado Has Voter ID, Fewer Early Voting Days than GA

Majority Black Atlanta Estimated to Lose Over $100 Million

Majority white Denver Estimated to Gain Over $100 Million
Click to expand...

Colorado is just about the easiest state in which to cast a vote in the entire country. You sign up for a ballot anytime before the election. It gets mailed to your house. You have weeks to research the issues and candidates and slowly vote. You put the ballot into any mailbox or ballot box. Done. The problem is not white people. The problem is white, racist Republicans.
 
LV426 said:
Only if you can provide an ID that isn't free when you register to vote.

You get a free state ID after showing at least 2 other forms of identification. Those other forms of identification are not free.
Click to expand...

A Birth Certificate SS Card or Utility Bill is not free?

Every American should have a BC or SS card
 
LV426 said:
Well, bribery and intimidation are already things for which there are laws against...so if you're saying that electioneering is a form of bribery or intimidation, then it shouldn't be allowed at all, much less allowed at a certain distance.

But these laws don't stop electioneering, bribery, or intimidation...they just set parameters within which those are acceptable, but those standards aren't based on any science or data...which makes them arbitrary.




100, 150, less than a hundred...it's all arbitrary. Nothing is based in fact or data. It's all feelings and emotions. That's no way to run our elections.

And also, CO is almost entirely vote by mail and has automatic voter registration, so I'm not sure why you and other crackpots are referring to it in this context.
Click to expand...

The only reason I see to oppose the safe distance rules is because you and folks like you want to impose your special intimidation on voters within the distance. I am glad that they exist because it protected poll workers (me), voters (also me), and pretty much stopped the rampant intimidation that was practiced in the past. (Shoot, union leaders used to literally watch how you voted so they could punish you if you did it "wrong").
 
volsrock said:
So take money away from black owned businesses and workers in Atlanta

And give it to white owned businesses and workers in Denver


That will show um..u care for black America
Click to expand...

Actually, the game is to deprive the GA economy of income. When voters realize how badly their elected officials have fucked them over, they'll replace them.
 
Damocles said:
It is electioneering at any feet. It does provide a safe distance that somebody can be within and not be intimidated, approached, prodded, polled, etc.
Click to expand...

But they are still intimidated, approached, prodded, and polled anyway before they get to within the approved distance.

Are you saying that once someone gets within 100 feet of the polling station, everything they just experienced is immediately forgotten? Do they use the mind erasers like in Men in Black? Come on.

And you can't call it a "safe" distance if you're not able to provide any sort of scientific analysis that reaches that conclusion.


That you don't get to stand there and intimidate folks and they can escape your nonsense is what the SCOTUS allowed and/or required (again to protect both groups rights, the electors and the electioneers).
Click to expand...

You do get to stand there and intimidate folks so long as you are 1 inch outside the arbitrary distance.

If you were seeking to stop electioneering, then you'd stop electioneering...but that's not what you're doing here, you're just changing the parameters around where that electioneering can happen, and those parameters are arbitrarily set.
 
Damocles said:
The same "science" they use to allow/impose a distance between protesters and abortion clinics. Amazingly, the distance appears to work.
Click to expand...

So no science, then.

It's just based on personal feelings.

That's no way to run an election.
 
LV426 said:
What do you mean, "appears to work"?

If it "appeared to work", then they wouldn't be changing it, would they?
Click to expand...

Well, women can access abortions without the uberreligious folks intimidating them, folks seem to be able to vote without LV426 trying to intimidate them into voting the way that LV426 wants them to vote. (this limit protects more than just polling places)
 
Damocles said:
The only reason I see to oppose the safe distance rules is because you and folks like you want to impose your special intimidation on voters within the distance.
Click to expand...

Intimidate them by...giving them water?

That's only intimidating if they're a cat.
 
Damocles said:
I am glad that they exist because it protected poll workers (me), voters (also me), and pretty much stopped the rampant intimidation that was practiced in the past.
Click to expand...

It didn't protect you because once you stepped outside of that arbitrary cone of protection, you're no longer protected.


(Shoot, union leaders used to literally watch how you voted so they could punish you if you did it "wrong").
Click to expand...

Union leaders would get into the voting booth with you? I'll need some verifiable proof of this, you'll understand...
 
LV426 said:
Intimidate them by...giving them water?

That's only intimidating if they're a cat.
Click to expand...
That and other gifts are not allowed because folks used to try to buy votes and then follow them in to ensure they stayed bought (intimidation). You can't cross the line and make sure your gift (any gift) bought my vote... And that is a good thing. Because I can't cross the line and make sure my gift bought a vote either... and you wouldn't want that. Though I am not the one pretending that these protections have no purpose.
 
Damocles said:
Well, women can access abortions without the uberreligious folks intimidating the
Click to expand...

But they are still intimidating them...they're just setting up shop 1 inch outside the parameter that has been arbitrarily set.

So do you think that a woman just magically forgets that "very fine people" yelled at her up until the moment she gets within the arbitrary distance of the clinic?

If you were trying to go somewhere and I was banned from screaming at you within 25 feet of the place you were going, I'm still screaming at you up until you are 25 feet and 1 inch from the place...so do you just magically forget about that screaming because of imaginary and arbitrary "zones"?


folks seem to be able to vote without LV426 trying to intimidate them into voting the way that LV426 wants them to vote.
Click to expand...

How is giving someone a bottle of water intimidating them into voting the way I want?

Be sure to be specific.
 
Damocles said:
That and other gifts are not allowed because folks used to try to buy votes and then follow them in to ensure they stayed bought (intimidation).
Click to expand...

But I can give it to them at 101 feet from the polling place and it's not considered a vote buy then?


You can't cross the line and make sure your gift (any gift) bought my vote
Click to expand...

You would need to prove that it bought your vote, which you cannot do.


Because I can't cross the line and make sure my gift bought a vote either... and you wouldn't want that. Though I am not the one pretending that these protections have no purpose.
Click to expand...

But you can still gift people in line, so long as they are outside the arbitrary boundary you set. So this accomplishes nothing.

And there already are laws against bribery and intimidation.
 
LV426 said:
It didn't protect you because once you stepped outside of that arbitrary cone of protection, you're no longer protected.




Union leaders would get into the voting booth with you? I'll need some verifiable proof of this, you'll understand...
Click to expand...

Shoot. Folks would even kidnap voters in the 19th century to get them to do what they want.

The "arbitrary" distance, not only protects voters from intimidation, it allows folks to enter and leave without somebody "verifying" how they voted.

https://theconversation.com/19th-ce...-regulating-behavior-at-polling-places-147238

Here are the limits that are in place for every state and the District of Columbia...

https://www.nass.org/sites/default/...ws-polling-place-electioneering-Oct-2020-.pdf

Note that the distance is still the same in Georgia as it was in 2020 when it wasn't somehow "bad"...

I get that you would need proof, the Union story was one my Grandfather told me, I believed him. However, I will look for other mentions of it in history, I'm sure it will be there considering far worse nonsense happened in elections of the past and are the reason for the laws about electioneering at a polling place.
 
Sounds like the changes are just fine=very reasonable....no one complaining truly cares about the voters....now there's the real problem....
PS: Give up your membership to Augusta, btw, Mr. MLB....you're probably not going to be too welcome....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top