Re: Glenn V. *Still* Won't Answer

On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 9:52:05 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
> On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 1:10:17 AM UTC+1, BT George wrote: 
> > On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 11:09:59 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote: 
> > > On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 6:33:39 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: 
> > > > On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 5:26:16 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > On 21 Mar 2021 02:03:44 -0000, BT George <[email protected]> 
> > > > wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > >> >> 
> > > > >> >> I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia 
> > > > >> >> to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling 
> > > > >> >> stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and 
> > > > >> >> registered voters? 
> > > > >> >> 
> > > > >> >> Do you understand that those are important questions? 
> > > > >> >> 
> > > > >> > 
> > > > >> >John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the 
> > > > >> >details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding 
> > > > >> >voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the 
> > > > >> >very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to 
> > > > >> >identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much 
> > > > >> >legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts. 
> > > > >> Do you even know that is true? 
> > > > >> 
> > > > > 
> > > > >No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely, 
> > > > >largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy 
> > > > >it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are 
> > > > >not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown 
> > > > >every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in 
> > > > >certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing 
> > > > >the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to 
> > > > >validate his claim.) 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming* 
> > > > that what was asserted it true 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >> And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low 
> > > > >> in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after 
> > > > >> the number is reduced? 
> > > > >> >So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head 
> > > > >> >on your take of the motivation behind this. 
> > > > >> Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know 
> > > > >> what the motivation is, if it is true. 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump 
> > > > >> called white supremacists "good people." 
> > > > >> 
> > > > > 
> > > > >Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well 
> > > > >enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts 
> > > > >right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing 
> > > > >media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I 
> > > > >feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate* 
> > > > >about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes 
> > > > >and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think 
> > > > >since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this 
> > > > >should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied. 
> > > > 
> > > > That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that 
> > > > *assumes* something that might be untrue. 
> > > > 
> > > Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could 
> > > look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you 
> > > will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for 
> > > you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my 
> > > further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am 
> > > simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I 
> > > consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why 
> > > you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought 
> > > up or hinted at in this long exchange: 
> > > 
> > > https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor 
> > > > Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer? 
> > > > 
> > > Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good 
> > > person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You 
> > > still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right 
> > > to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But 
> > > since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to 
> > > proceed is yours, not mine. My stance is clear: 
> > > 
> > > 1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine. 
> > > 
> > > 2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all 
> > > parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for 
> > > persons legitimately unable to vote in person. 
> > > 
> > > 3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards 
> > > erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents. 
> > > 
> > > 4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for 
> > > manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout. 
> > > Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be 
> > > reasonably made. 
> > > > He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed 
> > > > polling places" claim about Georgia. 
> > > > 
> > > > Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump. 
> > > > 
> > > > If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting 
> > > > places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll 
> > > > respond. 
> > > > 
> > > > He has made the charge, let him support it. 
> > > > 
> > > Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and 
> > > mischaracterization. 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >> And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official. 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being 
> > > > >> bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher. 
> > > > >> >If you answer that, then he will 
> > > > >> >be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump 
> > > > >> >and other Conservatives. 
> > > > >> > 
> > > > >> Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim 
> > > > >> is true. 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned. 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Why do you think he won't answer? 
> > > > >> 
> > > > > 
> > > > >I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions. 
> > > > >Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that 
> > > > >kind of censorship. 
> > > > 
> > > > Then why won't he answer? 
> > > > 
> > > > He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored. 
> > > > 
> > > I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous 
> > > convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I 
> > > want to see. 
> > > > >His point seems to be he is still awaiting your 
> > > > >answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is 
> > > > >accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he 
> > > > >wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid 
> > > > >question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to 
> > > > >remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being 
> > > > >only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why 
> > > > >the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said, 
> > > > >feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be 
> > > > >done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me 
> > > > >much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point 
> > > > >out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort. 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Let him produce evidence. 
> > > > 
> > > > But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST 
> > > > admitted the following: 
> > > > 
> > > > <Quote on> 
> > > > 
> > > > But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she 
> > > > doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the 
> > > > same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national 
> > > > significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate. 
> > > > 
> > > > “We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers 
> > > > due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded 
> > > > in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members 
> > > > who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. … 
> > > > We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just 
> > > > unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.” 
> > > > 
> > > > In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees 
> > > > hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them 
> > > > were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three 
> > > > weeks.” 
> > > > 
> > > > Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in 
> > > > the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly. 
> > > > She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff 
> > > > ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service 
> > > > Commission. 
> > > > 
> > > > Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected. 
> > > > She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of 
> > > > the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be 
> > > > inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for 
> > > > voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on 
> > > > Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open. 
> > > > 
> > > > <end quote> 
> > > > 
> > > > So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed. 
> > > > 
> > > > Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other 
> > > > side of the story. 
> > > > 
> > > Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested 
> > > enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would 
> > > never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at 
> > > voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope 
> > > Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or 
> > > admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot 
> > > say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here. 
> > > But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere 
> > > *inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the 
> > > other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic 
> > > voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should 
> > > disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party. 
> > > 
> > > > .John 
> > > > ------------------------------- 
> > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm 
> > Hi Glenn, 
> > 
> > I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to 
> > "play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with 
> > transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a 
> > formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your 
> > right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be 
> > easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the 
> > discussion. 
> > 
> > Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely 
> > at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter 
> > suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede 
> > that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly 
> > exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things 
> > in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or 
> > unreasonable requirements? 
> > 
> > Brock
> Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest 
> way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using 
> whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock, 
> certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very 
> busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should 
> have eased up a bit.

You could have responded yes or no in a lot less time than it took you to 
type out that paragraph.