The GQP Thread: I'm even sick of that fuck's number and, anyway, he's gone (for now)

[rufus]

Q losers now saying George Floyd didn’t exist, he’s nba player Steven Jackson lol

They all look alike, don'tcha know.

 

[Kepler]

Q losers now saying George Floyd didn’t exist, he’s nba player Steven Jackson lol

Remember they said Chauvin was played by some really bizarre actor like Pauli Shore?

People who sincerely believe in "crisis actors" are mentally ill. Flaggy was one of them.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Remember they said Chauvin was played by some really bizarre actor like Pauli Shore?

People who sincerely believe in "crisis actors" are mentally ill. Flaggy was one of them.

Well yeah, they're sociopaths. Anyone who genuinely believes the media conspired with Dems and gun control proponents to fake the Sandy Hook and Stoneman Douglas shootings by hiring actors to play distraught students and parents fits that definition to a tee.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Mike Pence is talking to Dump again. He doesn't believe that Dump wanted him killed. He is kissing the ring like Ted Cruz. If someone did that to me I would not be nice I can tell you that.

 

[Kepler]

Mike Pence is talking to Dump again. He doesn't believe that Dump wanted him killed. He is kissing the ring like Ted Cruz. If someone did that to me I would not be nice I can tell you that.

Conservatives have no morals, no pride, and no conscience.

 

[Kepler]

fits that definition to a tee.

Google dive.

The “T” in “to a T” was probably originally short for a word beginning with “T,” and the word considered most likely is “tittle,” meaning “a very small part of something” or “a very small amount.” One powerful argument for “tittle” being the source of our “T” is the fact that “to a tittle,” meaning exactly the same thing as “to a T,” was in common use almost a century before “to a T” appeared.

If “tittle” sounds familiar, it’s because the phrase “jot and tittle” (or “jot or tittle”), meaning “every little point” or “the tiniest amount,” is a slightly antiquated but still common English idiom (“[T]here’s a real insider dogfight going on over every jot and tittle of insurance company expenditures,” Dallas Morning News, 9/24/10).

“Tittle” is, etymologically, actually the same word as “title” (as of a book), but “tittle” developed the special sense early on of “a small stroke in print or writing,” such as the dot over an “i,” a cross mark on a “t” or an accent mark. From there “tittle” moved on to being used to mean anything very, very small. “Jot” also means “a tiny mark or amount,” and was also originally used to mean a small mark made with a pen. (That “small mark” sense lives on in our use of “jot” as a verb meaning “to write a brief note.”) The root of “jot,” interestingly, is the Greek word “iota,” which was the equivalent of our Arabic “I” and the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet. And because you can, evidently, never have enough words for “nearly nothing,” we still use the word “iota” to mean “a tiny amount” (“We will not part with one iota of our privileges,” 1863).

 

[SJHovey]

If it's so absurd, then disavow it. Disown it. Proclaim in no uncertain terms that the Texas GOP, among others, is shredding the very fabric of our democracy simply for the objective of staying in power.

Tell us that this disgusts you and has convinced you to vote straight-ticket D in 2022 and 2024.

Let's hear it.

Otherwise, you're in league with traitors.

Jeez, gone for two days and now I learn I have a Bat Phone. Honestly, I've always wanted one.

Getting back to this. I believe the Texas legislation is wrong. If a Texas legislator asked me if he/she should vote for it, I'd say "no." If the Texas governor asked me if he should sign it, I'd say "no."

Is that clear enough for you? Sorry I used the colloquialism "Not a big fan of" to describe something that I don't like. Sheesh.

As for voting straight ticket for D's in 2022 and 2024, I don't think I've ever voted straight ticket before so I see no reason to change now. I'll vote for the person I think will do the best job.

 

[Kepler]

Getting back to this. I believe the Texas legislation is wrong.

I'm sorry to belabor this, because you answered straight without a dodge, but I want to ask a follow up.

How is it wrong?

I can't understand why your Bat Phone hasn't arrived. Maybe it's on back order. My ComSymp Nano Invisible Earpiece arrived via Prime Next Day immediately after I ate my first baby and pledged my soul to the Horned God (PBUH).

You Nazis need better logistics.

 

[Kepler]

Conservatism summed up in one headline.

 

[French Rage]

Conservatism summed up in one headline.

Ooh I bet I know how he's voting in the recall.

 

[SJHovey]

I'm sorry to belabor this, because you answered straight without a dodge, but I want to ask a follow up.

How is it wrong?

I can't understand why your Bat Phone hasn't arrived. Maybe it's on back order. My ComSymp Nano Invisible Earpiece arrived via Prime Next Day immediately after I ate my first baby and pledged my soul to the Horned God (PBUH).

You Nazis need better logistics.

It probably got lost in the flood of Amazon boxes that arrive addressed to my wife each day.

With respect to the bill, a caveat. I have not read the actual bill, so I am basically going by what I have heard as the summary highlights on the news.

First, I believe they are trying to demand things like social security numbers and the like for ballots. I think that's wrong. I think it's ok to ask someone to state or declare where they reside, and even like we do in Minnesota, have them bring in a utility bill or something that shows they are getting mail there, or even someone who also resides in that voting area who will attest to it.

I have also heard they are trying to restrict voting hours. In my opinion I think that there should be some sort of designated voting period during a day, but I think it ought to be at least 12 hours long.

I think they are trying to limit things like drop boxes or drive through voting and other methods that were sort of implemented out of the blue due to the pandemic. I am less concerned about those limitations. We have drop boxes. They are called U.S. Mail boxes. Furthermore, last I checked, a U.S. mail representative actually comes to your house (although apparently without my bat phone).

I've heard they are trying to make it tougher to vote by absentee ballot. I am not in favor of that at all. I think so long as there are rules about where you get a ballot, how you get a ballot, and the time by when it has to be in to count, you ought to be able to vote by absentee ballot if you want, and you shouldn't need a note from your doctor to do so. But there should be specific rules about when, where and how to pick up the ballot (or have it mailed to you) and getting it back to them.

I think they had some crap in there about punishing poll watchers or election workers who look crosswise at one another, and frankly I couldn't get two shits about Texan on Texan violence.

Honestly, those are really the only things about the legislation that stuck in my mind, but I'm sure there are other things.

 

[French Rage]

I think they are trying to limit things like drop boxes or drive through voting and other methods that were sort of implemented out of the blue due to the pandemic. I am less concerned about those limitations. We have drop boxes. They are called U.S. Mail boxes. Furthermore, last I checked, a U.S. mail representative actually comes to your house (although apparently without my bat phone).

There is nothing wrong with seemingly redundant methods as long as they have the same level of security. Some people prefer to take it farther themselves; I sure did last year when the mail system had issues. There is no difference security-wise between placing it in your own mailbox or going to a drop box in the town square, or for that matter dropping it off in a drive-through box.

 

[Kepler]

Honestly, those are really the only things about the legislation that stuck in my mind, but I'm sure there are other things.

Do you agree that the purpose of all of these things is to rig the election for Republicans?

 

[rufus]

Conservatism summed up in one headline.

But you see, in his mind, him screwing 14 year olds doesn't make him a pedophile.

Its all them libbie commie socialists screwing 14 year olds who are pedophiles.

He's a real 'Murican. He's got a god-given right to screw 14 year olds.

 

[MichVandal]

I think they are trying to limit things like drop boxes or drive through voting and other methods that were sort of implemented out of the blue due to the pandemic. I am less concerned about those limitations. We have drop boxes. They are called U.S. Mail boxes. Furthermore, last I checked, a U.S. mail representative actually comes to your house.

The US mail can be manipulated- in terms of pick up and delivery. While it's not supposed to be a political arm, it became one thanks to mail in voting. That's why actual, secure, drop boxes are a great option.

 

[MichVandal]

Do you agree that the purpose of all of these things is to rig the election for Republicans?

I'm still wondering how it's a "natural reaction to what was going on" when NOTHING was going on- not one single allegation was proven to be accurate. It was just "feelings" because Racists were losing.

 

[rufus]

Do you agree that the purpose of all of these things is to rig the election for Republicans?

No no no. Its the fraud. The overwhelming amounts of fraud. Fraud like you've never seen before.

Its gotta be stopped.

 

[SJHovey]

Do you agree that the purpose of all of these things is to rig the election for Republicans?

I tend to be less accusatory than others on this site. So here is what I'll say.

Are there individuals in Texas who are behind or support this legislation because they believe it is politically expedient to do so, either because it might be politically popular with their constituents or because they think some people may not make the effort to vote if more requirements are in place, and those people probably won't vote for that politician? I'm sure there are. I would certainly bet on it.

Are there also individuals in Texas who legitimately believe these measures are important, who think that you should basically only be allowed to vote on election day, at an election precinct, during a certain window in time, and that you should have to prove who you are before you can vote, and that such requirements are fundamental to running clean and fair elections? I'm sure those people exist as well, and would be willing to bet on that, too.

Unlike a number of my fellow posters, I am incapable of reading minds, so I'll decline to name names with respect to who might fall into either category.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

I tend to be less accusatory than others on this site. So here is what I'll say.

Are there individuals in Texas who are behind or support this legislation because they believe it is politically expedient to do so, either because it might be politically popular with their constituents or because they think some people may not make the effort to vote if more requirements are in place, and those people probably won't vote for that politician? I'm sure there are. I would certainly bet on it.

Are there also individuals in Texas who legitimately believe these measures are important, who think that you should basically only be allowed to vote on election day, at an election precinct, during a certain window in time, and that you should have to prove who you are before you can vote, and that such requirements are fundamental to running clean and fair elections? I'm sure those people exist as well, and would be willing to bet on that, too.

Unlike a number of my fellow posters, I am incapable of reading minds, so I'll decline to name names with respect to who might fall into either category.

You better watch out. You might fall off of that fence you've been walking on. It could hurt.

By the way, the trendlines are obvious. Obvious is obvious. The fact that you want to stare into the abyss and pretend it isn't doesn't change anything.

 

[French Rage]

Are there also individuals in Texas who legitimately believe these measures are important, who think that you should basically only be allowed to vote on election day, at an election precinct, during a certain window in time, and that you should have to prove who you are before you can vote, and that such requirements are fundamental to running clean and fair elections? I'm sure those people exist as well, and would be willing to bet on that, too.

Do those people have any proof that those specific measures are the only way to ensure safe elections, and that other voting methods in any way made it unsafe? They can believe it earnestly all they want, it doesn't matter if they have no evidence and are straight-up incorrect. Someone can earnestly believe the earth is flat, that doesn't mean the correct answer is somewhere halfway between flat and round.