Forensic Audit in Maricopa County, AZ

In all seriousness here's where Politifact jumps the shark.

"Holmes is correct that poll workers can set up self-serve water stations. However, during the show he misled when he said the law doesn’t criminalize giving away water."

The self-service water put out by the state implies that any unsolicited water given is fine. If we used Politifact's and the lawyers they interviewed interpretations that should be illegal too.
 
Last edited:
mb227 said:
You and your ilk just continue to make excuses for why the nation should NOT be taking steps to ensure as secure an election as possible.
Click to expand...

Riddle me this...how does reducing the early voting period relate to more secure elections?

mb227 said:
Quite honestly, the ONLY person getting an automatic payment has been Dion. And it isn't from my bank account.
Click to expand...

So, is Dion's automatic payment unsolicited? That was the point of the analogy.

mb227 said:
Good luck matching my digital signature with my actual signature. It ain't happening...never has and never will.
Click to expand...

The actual ballot signature is compared with the actual voter registration signature, typically the driver's license signature. Not sure what "digital signature" you're talking about. You might want to be careful throwing around the ignorance accusations.

mb227 said:
And yet I had no line whilst voting in Travis County even in the elections where I waited until the day of to vote...or is Austin not large enough and densely packed enough for you? I mean it IS only the Capital of the damned State and all...
Click to expand...

Travis County clearly runs elections better than most major metropolises. Or it could be that Texas' voter participation rate ranked 47th this last election cycle. Since I'm not in Travis County I have no experience with why they don't have lines whereas Houston (to a minor degree) and other major cities did have lines. King County (Seattle) achieved an 87% voter turnout in 2020 General Election where as Travis County managed to hit 70.55%, a 30 year high for them. You could make an argument that VBM contributed to voting accessibility but there are likely a myriad of reasons impacting voter turnout.
 
OUBubba said:
Turns out that if I were to give AC, Seattle, etc. a bottle of water at the poll I would be in violation. Anyone OTHER than a poll worker. You're being loose with the term idiot methinks.

Fact check: PolitiFact - The facts about Georgia’s ban on food, water giveaways to voters
--------------------------
Keith Williams, general counsel to Republican House Speaker David Ralston, told PolitiFact: "Any individual other than a worker at a polling place is prohibited from handing out water, etc., within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of the line."

Election law experts reached similar conclusions.

"I read the solicitation provision and the prohibition on food and water at the polls to be separate prohibitions in the law," said Richard Hasen, a University of California Irvine election law professor. "It is not limited to those who are soliciting votes."

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Marymount University law school professor, told PolitiFact: "I read, and I believe courts would read, SB 202 to prohibit anyone from giving food or water to any voter in line."

A spokesperson with Georgia's secretary of state noted that voters are welcome to bring their own food and refreshments with them to stand in line. He said the purpose of the provision is to avoid having situations such as candidates handing out water or food wrapped in campaign materials.

Cracking down on food and water giveaways to voters in Georgia is not new. A state law already banned giving gifts "for the purpose of registering as a voter, voting, or voting for a particular candidate." That provision doesn’t mention food or water directly, but Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had previously interpreted it to include food or water.

Our ruling
Holmes said a Georgia law has not "criminalized giving people bottles of water." It pertains to political organizations.

SB 202 makes it a crime for people — and not just people from political organizations — to hand out food or bottles of water within 150 feet of a polling place or 25 feet of any voter standing in line.
Click to expand...
First, people that go to vote are usually not concerned with food and water. They aren't going out to eat.
Second, many states have the same law.
 
Garmel said:
Yeah, Polifact is where I go to get the truth.
Archived fact-check: Tucker Carlson guest airs debunked conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was created in a lab | PolitiFact
Click to expand...
Bruh, I get that you don't like politifact. And, there are times when they more aggressively chase right wing miss-truths. However, I guess you missed the quotes. I left the main one from the REPUBLICAN Speaker's GENERAL COUNSEL: "Any individual other than a worker at a polling place is prohibited from handing out water, etc., within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of the line." Translation: I'm not running for office or working for a campaign and I would be violating the law giving you water if I were just a noble Sooner worried about your hydration.

Also, this was unnecessary as a state law already banned giving gifts "for the purpose of registering as a voter, voting, or voting for a particular candidate." That provision doesn’t mention food or water directly, but Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had previously interpreted it to include food or water.
 
Bubba, it would help if you actually READ the law. It is available for all to see. Instead you choose to listen to some filtered nonsense that tells you what to believe.

From the relevant portion of Section 33 of GA SB202...

This Code section shall not be construed to prohibit a poll officer from distributing1884materials, as required by law, which are necessary for the purpose of instructing electors1885or from distributing materials prepared by the Secretary of State which are designed solely1886for the purpose of encouraging voter participation in the election being conducted or from1887making available self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in1888line to vote."
Click to expand...

But again, it also comes back to the fact that someone who expects to stand in line but is too stupid to bring a beverage or foot is also apt to be what some would call a low information voter. They don't know the candidates and are only voting a letter...
 
"No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector"

Pretty easy to figure out the gifts, water, etc. all fall under the heading of soliciting. If not there would be a period within the paragraph.

With no intent to solicit, water would be okay to share.

To me, it's obvious that this is geared toward election officials and not people in line.

Sorry, Bubba but Politifact has a nasty way of making up/altering republican quotes.
 
Last edited:
mb227 said:
Bubba, it would help if you actually READ the law. It is available for all to see. Instead you choose to listen to some filtered nonsense that tells you what to believe.

From the relevant portion of Section 33 of GA SB202...



But again, it also comes back to the fact that someone who expects to stand in line but is too stupid to bring a beverage or foot is also apt to be what some would call a low information voter. They don't know the candidates and are only voting a letter...
Click to expand...
The law says EXACTLY what I said that the General Counsel for the GOP Speaker said it said. POLL WORKERS only. No good Samaritans. That's the point.
 
Garmel said:
"No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector"

Pretty easy to figure out the gifts, water, etc. all fall under the heading of soliciting. If not there would be a period within the paragraph.

With no intent to solicit, water would be okay to share.

To me, it's obvious that this is geared toward election officials and not people in line.

Sorry, Bubba but Politifact has a nasty way of making up/altering republican quotes.
Click to expand...
So does the GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE GOP SPEAKER. JFC.
 
OUBubba said:
So does the GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE GOP SPEAKER. JFC.
Click to expand...

Yes, according to Politifact. JFC. You believe every lying sack of **** outlet there as fact. Even if it is true that is his interpretation, which I haven't heard from one other high ranking official. Georgia's SoS has always pointed it toward elected officials/advocacy groups.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
Yes, according to Politifact. JFC. You believe every lying sack of **** outlet there as fact. Even if it is true that is his interpretation, which I haven't heard from one other high ranking official. Georgia's SoS has always pointed it toward elected officials/advocacy groups.
Click to expand...
It is illegal in every link I find. It SPECIFIES that poll workers can hand out water. That's it. You are a special kind of stuff. The Georgia SOS already classified water and food given out by campaigns in this manner as ILLEGAL.
 
OUBubba said:
It is illegal in every link I find. It SPECIFIES that poll workers can hand out water. That's it. You are a special kind of stuff. The Georgia SOS already classified water and food given out by campaigns in this manner as ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...
No they did not. If a husband and wife are in line, NOTHING stops them from going to the aforementioned (you know, quoted directly FROM the goddamned statute) water station and bringing water back to the spouse.
 
mb227 said:
No they did not. If a husband and wife are in line, NOTHING stops them from going to the aforementioned (you know, quoted directly FROM the goddamned statute) water station and bringing water back to the spouse.
Click to expand...
If there is no water put out at the water station I can not give you water. How is that hard to understand? It’s a petty difference on a very petty law that specifies something above and beyond in an effort to stop something that was already considered illegal.
 
OUBubba said:
If there is no water put out at the water station I can not give you water. How is that hard to understand? It’s a petty difference on a very petty law that specifies something above and beyond in an effort to stop something that was already considered illegal.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, this law is intended to make the election more secure. That's what we've been told these 55 separate bills introduced across Red states are intended to do. Yes, there may be some changes that will make it more secure but overall they are clearly intended to make voting less accessible and convenient. It's voter suppression because the one thing this last election showed is that more legal voters participating in Red States = worse Republicans performance. It's a power move to try and keep power no different than gerrymandering. Since they own these state legislatures they'll be successful temporarily. Given terrible performance by these State legislatures I support an national voting standards act that will make voting more uniform.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Here are laws that have been implemented:

GA SB202:
- Restricted availability and hours of drop boxes
- Barred election individuals from affirmatively sending out ballot applications
- Criminalizes giving water/snacks to voters standing in line
- Requires State ID # or photo ID to be submitted with absentee ballot

IA SF413
- Automatically moves voter to "inactive" status if they do not vote in a POTUS election
- Limited early voting period to 9 days
- Polls must close 1 hour earlier than prior elections
Click to expand...

I'll delve into the Iowa law changes:
First, you state that early voting is limited to 9 days. That is incorrect. It is twenty days, which is more than 20+ other states.

Second, you state voters are automatically moved to inactive status if they don't vote in a POTUS election. This is also false. If the voter does not vote in an election and does not register to vote, the registrar sends notice to the previously registered voter, with a card (postage included) that the previously registered voter can send back stating they are still a resident. If they do not register to vote, or send the card back stating they are still a resident, they will be allowed to vote with ID. If they do not vote in the two elections subsequent to receiving notice, the are removed from the eligible voter data base.

Third, you state Polls must close one hour earlier than prior elections. This is true, and it is true because the legislation changes the right for a voter to leave work an hour earlier to vote.

Obviously, you are wrong on every count. I'm guessing that you are also wrong about every other law or potential law you mentioned.

So, I have proved you wrong about "artificial barriers", and I have proved you wrong about Vote By Mail by showing the indictments from the Texas AG.
 
mb227 said:
No they did not. If a husband and wife are in line, NOTHING stops them from going to the aforementioned (you know, quoted directly FROM the goddamned statute) water station and bringing water back to the spouse.
Click to expand...

Arguing against people who buy into MSM disinformation is useless.
 
iatrogenic said:
I'll delve into the Iowa law changes:
First, you state that early voting is limited to 9 days. That is incorrect. It is twenty days, which is more than 20+ other states.
Click to expand...

Early voting was moved from 29 days to 20 days. I mistated that they limited to 9 days rather than they removed 9 days. What other states do has no bearing on any of what happens in Iowa. Does this make their elections safer? If so, how?

iatrogenic said:
Second, you state voters are automatically moved to inactive status if they don't vote in a POTUS election. This is also false. If the voter does not vote in an election and does not register to vote, the registrar sends notice to the previously registered voter, with a card (postage included) that the previously registered voter can send back stating they are still a resident. If they do not register to vote, or send the card back stating they are still a resident, they will be allowed to vote with ID. If they do not vote in the two elections subsequent to receiving notice, the are removed from the eligible voter data base.
Click to expand...

Thank you for laying out the list of barriers that a voter who chooses to forgo a single POTUS election cycle must navigate to remain an eligible voter. One could argue that you outlined some "artificial barriers".

You even stated they need to respond or "register to vote" again. They are moved to "inactive status" pending the responses you mentioned. If they don't navigate those gates they are moved to an "inactive" voter roll which starts their clock to be booted, laying on additional voting requirements (ID) and booted completely if they miss the next 2 years of non-POTUS election cycles. What this completely removes is the voter that like to only vote in the POTUS election. Miss one and you're gone if you didn't answer the post card.

iatrogenic said:
Third, you state Polls must close one hour earlier than prior elections. This is true, and it is true because the legislation changes the right for a voter to leave work an hour earlier to vote.
Click to expand...

They are closing an hour early. You've given the justification for the change but still, the polls are open for 1 hour less. They are open 1 less hour than they were previously.

iatrogenic said:
Obviously, you are wrong on every count. I'm guessing that you are also wrong about every other law or potential law you mentioned.
Click to expand...

First: Got me on a technicality but reinforced my original argument that the voting is less accessible. I'll give you I mistated the point but you clearly knew my intention. You clearly knew they trimmed 9 days off the calendar and used some otherism to deflect. You gonna tell me how this fell into an argument to make the election more secure?

Second: I couldn't have made the argument of "artificial barriers" any better than you did counselor. Thank you.

Third: You literally confirmed that they removed an hour of voting time but then offered the justification. Again, how does this make voting more secure and not less accessible?


So, I have proved you wrong about "artificial barriers", and I have proved you wrong about Vote By Mail by showing the indictments from the Texas AG.
Click to expand...

You're too smart to take pigeon-argument approach. Be better.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Early voting was moved from 29 days to 20 days. I mistated that they limited to 9 days rather than they removed 9 days. What other states do has no bearing on any of what happens in Iowa. Does this make their elections safer? If so, how?
Click to expand...
You brought this change up, not me. I just pointed out you were wrong. I'm not sure why they reduced the early voting from 29 to 20 days, but a state with a population less than Houston, yet having a longer early voting period than the Sate of Texas seems more than sufficient. You can try and minimize your lie with "it was a technicality", but the truth is it was a lie and/or you have no idea what you are talking about.
Seattle Husker said:
Thank you for laying out the list of barriers that a voter who chooses to forgo a single POTUS election cycle must navigate to remain an eligible voter. One could argue that you outlined some "artificial barriers".

You even stated they need to respond or "register to vote" again. They are moved to "inactive status" pending the responses you mentioned. If they don't navigate those gates they are moved to an "inactive" voter roll which starts their clock to be booted, laying on additional voting requirements (ID) and booted completely if they miss the next 2 years of non-POTUS election cycles. What this completely removes is the voter that like to only vote in the POTUS election. Miss one and you're gone if you didn't answer the post card.
Click to expand...
You were wrong the first time about this change, and you are wrong now. You failed to mention you made another mistake. Regardless, there are no "additional" barriers. If they don't vote in 3 consecutive general elections, they are removed from the eligible voting roll. Even then, anyone can still register to vote on election day if they show up with an ID and proof of residency. They can even vote if an eligible voter vouches for them if they don't have an ID and proof of residency. An ID and proof of residency are a hurdle every voter must meet, and rightly so. Otherwise, people from other States could vote in Iowa.
Seattle Husker said:
Third: You literally confirmed that they removed an hour of voting time but then offered the justification. Again, how does this make voting more secure and not less accessible?
Click to expand...
Again, I never said this makes an election more secure, so your argument is a strawman. Polls are open late to accommodate workers. Giving workers the right to leave work an hour earlier does justify closing the polls an hour earlier. I am happy you understand that the change is justified.

In summary, you posted falsehoods about a law in Iowa that you claim makes voting more difficult without knowing anything about the law. The truth is that having to prove that you actually live in a State in which you vote prevents Democrats from committing fraud, and Democrats hate that requirement because they want to commit fraud, so any bar is too high. Just look at the Texas AG indictments for over 100 examples.
 
Last edited:
If I go house to house in a neighborhood and buy a few hundred signed, blank mail in ballots for $100 each, and then fill them out with my preferred candidate's names and mail them in, how will election officials catch the fraud?
 
OUBubba said:
It is illegal in every link I find. It SPECIFIES that poll workers can hand out water. That's it. You are a special kind of stuff. The Georgia SOS already classified water and food given out by campaigns in this manner as ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...

I didn't know it was a poll watcher's job to hand out water. Aren't they there to do a job unrelated to being a sidewalk server?

Seriously, everyone can bring their own water. No one is stopping them.
 
That is a lot of hours. Questionable. Only thing I notice is didn’t say that was the conclusion to study, ie, didn’t say that was all they found just that’s how many address incorrectly entered. But it could be all they found for all I know. Hard to buy that many hours though.
 
Seattle Husker said:
16 people need to be held accountable and we must make our elections more secure by limiting access to voting. ;)
Click to expand...
I'd related this story before but this is the kind of voter fraud we have to address. A little old church lady voted twice (absentee and in the election) a few years ago when marijuana was on the ballot. She felt very strongly about it. The election was on Tuesday. Wednesday morning the District Attorney visited her home personally. He explained that she had committed a felony and if she did it again he would prosecute her. He gave her the "benefit of the doubt" that she had forgotten about the absentee ballot. My point is that safeguards are already in place.
 
Seattle Husker said:
16 people need to be held accountable and we must make our elections more secure by limiting access to voting. ;)
Click to expand...
Except that access to voting is NOT limited in the Texas proposal nor even by the Georgia Bill that was enacted.

NOBODY who is legally eligible to cast a ballot is being denied a right to cast a ballot.
 
mb227 said:
NOBODY who is legally eligible to cast a ballot is being denied a right to cast a ballot.
Click to expand...
Exactly, mb227. And that's the key point of fair elections - "All those legally entitled to vote, and only those legally entitled to vote, should have the opportunity to vote."
 
OUBubba said:
I'd related this story before but this is the kind of voter fraud we have to address. A little old church lady voted twice (absentee and in the election) a few years ago when marijuana was on the ballot. She felt very strongly about it. The election was on Tuesday. Wednesday morning the District Attorney visited her home personally. He explained that she had committed a felony and if she did it again he would prosecute her. He gave her the "benefit of the doubt" that she had forgotten about the absentee ballot. My point is that safeguards are already in place.
Click to expand...
Texas Social Worker Charged With 134 Counts Involving Election Fraud – CBS Dallas / Fort Worth (cbslocal.com)
Texas woman arrested on voter fraud charges (msn.com)
Election Fraud: No One Knows How Bad It Really Is | NewsRadio 740 KTRH (iheart.com)
$2 million spent investigating Texas election fraud with little result - Dallas Voice
Texas election fraud prosecutions at “all-time high” | Sharyl Attkisson

I just linked a magnitude of fraud large enough to overturn the Bush v Gore election.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top