Re: Marjorie Taylor Greene "likes" the Mossad-did-it Theory

On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 10:16:58 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 9:12:20 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: 
> 
> > These laws don't prevent anyone from voting. They are reasonable measures 
> > to ensure that the people who are voting are entitled to do so.
> Does cutting back on the hours that the polls are open - closing earlier - 
> facilitate voting security? No! It'll cause less people to vote. 
> 
> Does limiting the number of days that early voting occurs facilitate 
> voting security? No! It'll cause less people to vote. 
> 

There is plenty of time for people to vote. Anyone who can't get their 
lazy ass to the polls has no one to blame but themselves. For most of my 
life, there was no early voting period. This never seemed like a hardship 
to me. Why is it now? This past election was the first time I ever chose 
to vote early and it was because of Covid-19 concerns. One other time in 
my life I was going to be out of town on election day so I voted absentee. 
Very easy to do.

> Does not having the polls open on Sunday - when, historically, many black 
> voters head to polls after church - facilitate voting security? No! It'll 
> cause less people to vote. 

Early voting periods are a fairly recent development so how historic can 
it be? Are black people the only ones who go to church? Do they not have 
ample other times they can vote? If they want to vote, they have plenty of 
opportunities. If they choose not to, that's one them.

> 
> Does removing or limiting the number of ballot drop boxes facilitate 
> voting security? No! It'll cause less people to vote. 

Another recent development. I'd never heard of ballot drop boxes until 
this past election. I suppose this is an inconvenience to the ballot 
harvesters.

> 
> Does prohibiting the mailing of unsolicited absentee ballots facilitate 
> voting security? 

Yes.

> No! It'll cause less people to be to vote. 

People have lots of opportunities to vote. Far more than we have had in 
the past. About the only way we could make it easier for people to vote is 
if we provided limousine service to the polls. That will probably be next 
on the Democrat agenda.

> 
> You are probably just focusing on the ID requirements and ignoring all 
> these other restrictions. 
> 

There isn't one thing you have pointed to that is even remotely 
"Draconian".

> Instead of celebrating record turnout in a nation that typically has 
> dismal turnouts, the Republicans realize their only hopes of winning are 
> to reduce the number of people who vote and to make it particularly more 
> challenging for people of color.

I've never thought high voter turnout was a good thing. I would rather see 
our election decided by voters who are engaged in the process enough to 
become educated about the issues and committed enough to get to the polls.

> 
> Here is a statistical analogy that is driving the Republican effort. 
> 
> Let's say I had a special coin that when I flip it, instead of a 50/50 
> chance of it landing heads or tails, it has a 60% chance of being a heads 
> and a 40% chance of being a tails. Let's say you can only win if it's a 
> tails. You're at a distinct disadvantage. Given that disadvantage, which 
> method would you prefer in determining a winner: 1) the best of 100 flips 
> or 2) the best of ONE flip? Statistically, the odds are the same. But, 
> which would you prefer? 
> 
> You would take method #2, of course! The greater the number of flips, the 
> more likely the statistically advantage of 60% will solidify whereas a 
> single flip, although statistically the same, will tend to be a more 
> random event because there isn't enough data for the 60% advantage to real 
> manifest itself. 
> 
> Further, let's say we didn't know that the coin was biased 60/40. Let's 
> say we just assume that it's a 50/50 coin. Whatever result we get with one 
> flip will always seem fair. But, with 100 flips, it will readily become 
> apparent that there is something "wrong" with that coin. 
> 

Elections aren't coin flips. They aren't subject to random chance. 

> The Republicans realize they can only win with quirks in the electoral 
> system. 

Quirks? You mean requiring people to make at least a minimal effort to 
register and get to the polls to vote?

> They are relying on those quirks. That's why they want the coin 
> flipped as few times as possible because they KNOW that the coin is biased 
> against them. In other words, they know there are more Democratic voters 
> than Republican voters. They also have a good idea of the some of the key 
> Democratic demographics that can be particularly targeted. 
> 

You claimed the new voting regulations in Georgia were Draconian. You have 
failed to identify even one provision which could accurately be described 
as Draconian.