Too soon to start thinking about 2024?

[Blackhawk]

3. Concerned citizen stops naturalized citizen from going in and says "You're not allowed to vote .It says so in the law".

More likely it would be some overweight guy in a red hat (who has no idea what a 'naturalized citizen' even is) saying, " "You're not allowed to vote. It says so in the law, and if you don't leave, you'll be arrested and deported."

At which point the naturalized citizen not only leaves, he warns his friends and family.

And again, they don't have to get them all to stop voting, only some of them. These kinds of moves add up.

[hepcat]

Every person sponsoring the wording change is a Republican, if you needed any proof as to the agenda. Trust me, this is 100% about suppressing votes under the guise of "clarification and reducing confusion." Republicans are really good at hiding malicious agendas behind "common sense" solutions.

Oh, I fully get that and understand it, my brain just can't wrap around how this plan could work to do it.

Allow me, as a naturalized citizen

For the umpteenth time: "The Republic of Sexystan" is NOT a real country.

[raydude]

Every person sponsoring the wording change is a Republican, if you needed any proof as to the agenda. Trust me, this is 100% about suppressing votes under the guise of "clarification and reducing confusion." Republicans are really good at hiding malicious agendas behind "common sense" solutions.

Oh, I fully get that and understand it, my brain just can't wrap around how this plan could work to do it.

Allow me, as a naturalized citizen

For the umpteenth time: "The Republic of Sexystan" is NOT a real country.

Oh great leader, I thought YOU were the ruler of Sexystan?

[Punisher]

Every person sponsoring the wording change is a Republican, if you needed any proof as to the agenda. Trust me, this is 100% about suppressing votes under the guise of "clarification and reducing confusion." Republicans are really good at hiding malicious agendas behind "common sense" solutions.

Oh, I fully get that and understand it, my brain just can't wrap around how this plan could work to do it.

Allow me, as a naturalized citizen, to posit the long-game scenario where this would suppress the vote:

1. Bill passes and the word "naturalized" is removed from the law
2. For the next election the Governor encourages citizens to be on the lookout for polling fraud, to the point where citizen militia are outside polling places.
3. Concerned citizen stops naturalized citizen from going in and says "You're not allowed to vote .It says so in the law".
4. Naturalized citizen goes "oh shit, look at that. I guess you're right." Percentage chance of this happening goes up if naturalized citizen is 1st generation and/or doesn't speak/understand english well.

Now me, I gained a superpower to go into a Hulk rage when reading about someone trying to take away my rights as a naturalized citizen. That's why I can never forgive nor forget Trump's "hey, woudn't it be great if we could take away the citizenship of kids born to 1st gen immigrants?" Implied there is that it is irregardless of whether or not the 1st gen citizens were already naturalized. So this kind of scenario would never work on me. However, not every naturalized citizen has that superpower.

So this kind of sort of helps but not completely.
Whats to stop them from doing that now and lying just like they'd be doing in your scenario? If we're assuming these same immigrants won't actually check the law it could happen either way.
If the immigrants DO check the law it says point blank you have to be a US Citizen. They can then say, see I'm a US Citizen.

Plus having armed civilians stopping people in general will be seen as election fraud. Not sure how fast they would be stopped but I'm sure the story would spread fast and hopefully the FBI would react fast as well.

To be VERY clear if my previous posts weren't clear enough I am NOT a MAGAt. I am just trying to understand this. It may be a lost cause though as I don't want to get anyone upset on my account.

[YellowKing]

It lays the groundwork for future conservative courts to interpret the law in a different way. This wording is not for the average voter, who's obviously not going to check the law at the polling place. It's for later down the road, maybe years down the road, when a suit is brought up because a voter was disenfranchised. And instead of the law being crystal clear, it's now vague enough that a conservative judge can rule in favor of disenfranchising that voter.

[Punisher]

It lays the groundwork for future conservative courts to interpret the law in a different way. This wording is not for the average voter, who's obviously not going to check the law at the polling place. It's for later down the road, maybe years down the road, when a suit is brought up because a voter was disenfranchised. And instead of the law being crystal clear, it's now vague enough that a conservative judge can rule in favor of disenfranchising that voter.

That's the thing. I just don't see how it's vague.
Yes, the new law is redundant and not needed but US Citizen seems very clear to me. Yes, they don't specifically say naturalized is allowed but they also don't say it's not allowed.
Yes there have been some crazy law decisions recently but I honestly can't see how this can be misinterpreted.
But again it might just be me.

Let's call this one. As I said I'm not trying to upset anyone and would rather cal this before it gets that far.

[Unagi]

Every person sponsoring the wording change is a Republican, if you needed any proof as to the agenda. Trust me, this is 100% about suppressing votes under the guise of "clarification and reducing confusion." Republicans are really good at hiding malicious agendas behind "common sense" solutions.

Oh, I fully get that and understand it, my brain just can't wrap around how this plan could work to do it.

Allow me, as a naturalized citizen, to posit the long-game scenario where this would suppress the vote:

1. Bill passes and the word "naturalized" is removed from the law
2. For the next election the Governor encourages citizens to be on the lookout for polling fraud, to the point where citizen militia are outside polling places.
3. Concerned citizen stops naturalized citizen from going in and says "You're not allowed to vote .It says so in the law".
4. Naturalized citizen goes "oh shit, look at that. I guess you're right." Percentage chance of this happening goes up if naturalized citizen is 1st generation and/or doesn't speak/understand english well.

Now me, I gained a superpower to go into a Hulk rage when reading about someone trying to take away my rights as a naturalized citizen. That's why I can never forgive nor forget Trump's "hey, woudn't it be great if we could take away the citizenship of kids born to 1st gen immigrants?" Implied there is that it is irregardless of whether or not the 1st gen citizens were already naturalized. So this kind of scenario would never work on me. However, not every naturalized citizen has that superpower.

So this kind of sort of helps but not completely.
Whats to stop them from doing that now and lying just like they'd be doing in your scenario? If we're assuming these same immigrants won't actually check the law it could happen either way.
If the immigrants DO check the law it says point blank you have to be a US Citizen. They can then say, see I'm a US Citizen.

Plus having armed civilians stopping people in general will be seen as election fraud. Not sure how fast they would be stopped but I'm sure the story would spread fast and hopefully the FBI would react fast as well.

To be VERY clear if my previous posts weren't clear enough I am NOT a MAGAt. I am just trying to understand this. It may be a lost cause though as I don't want to get anyone upset on my account.

What if the camp's pool used to have a sign that said:

Open to All Campers - Day Campers and Campers

and the regular 2-week "campers" made a push to have the sign changed to read: "Open to Campers Only"



The problem is in that we even have a qualifier in front of the word Camper? but.... Makes you wonder if at one point in time if Campers tried to keep Day Campers out of the pool... And the change should make you wonder if maybe they want to go back to that.

[Punisher]

Ok. Correct me if I'm wrong but if you remove a modifier isn't automatically assumed that anyone that covered at all by the nonmodified subject is included?

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself properly. I can see this somewhat clearly in my head but not sure I'm typing it correctly. I really feel like I should take an ESL class.

[Unagi]

Ok. Correct me if I'm wrong but if you remove a modifier isn't automatically assumed that anyone that covered at all by the nonmodified subject is included?

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself properly. I can see this somewhat clearly in my head but not sure I'm typing it correctly. I really feel like I should take an ESL class.

Not when one group has always just used the unmodified term.

It becomes ambiguous at best.
And it may just be some day-campers know they can swim in the pool, but don't feel like getting into fights with Campers that don't.

and keep in mind, they just need to keep a few day campers out of the pool really.

[Blackhawk]

It's about leaving room for interpretation. In tabletop games, some rules are spelled out in detail. If there's any room to judge what was intended, then some people will manipulate them to their advantage.

This gives that wiggle room.

[gilraen]

Quite a few states have passed this type of amendment in the last few years - even a blue state like Colorado. And I can see where the majority of people that vote for it just shrug and say, this is already law, why not "clean up" the language or whatever.

NC isn't the only state this election cycle that has this amendment on the ballot. I'm sure part of it is to sow confusion by removing the word "naturalized" from existing law. My other guess would be that they want to ensure that no municipality can ever allow noncitizens to vote in certain local elections - like city council or school board (it's only allowed a handful of places in the US, like San Fran or D.C.)

[Punisher]

1. I wasn't aware that anyplace allowed non-citizens to vote and I'm pretty sure that I'm against that happing. Non citizen shouldn't be able to vote. Period. If your not a citizen you shouldn't be able to influence anything in the country.

2. I do understand where you guts are coming from and are worried about the possibility of interpretation issues but as gilraen mentioned ot is happing elsewhere even in blue states. So maybe, just maybe, it's intended to make it clearer. Citizen. Period. No modifiers. Let's bring citizens and naturalized citizen together because ultimately we are all citizens.
Maybe it's the optometrist in me that's thinks that not everything the Republicans do has an evil motive. Sure a lit may be but maybe not evetytjing.

[Alefroth]

Why do you think they would be making this change now, then?

[Holman]

Plus having armed civilians stopping people in general will be seen as election fraud. Not sure how fast they would be stopped but I'm sure the story would spread fast and hopefully the FBI would react fast as well.

Stopping people from voting on Election Day only requires intimidating them and keeping them away from the polls for a few hours.

By the time lawyers and the ACLU and maybe even the FBI have weighed in, the intimidated have missed their opportunity to vote.

[Jaymann]

While the right leaning polls are showing the election to be a "dead heat," the raw data from early voting is showing big leads in Michigan and Pennsylvania by registered Democrats and women voters. Encouraging news.

[YellowKing]

The right-leaning polls are also ramping up to try to outnumber the left-leaning and non-partisan polls. For poll aggregators like RealClearPolitics who include every garbage poll available, it serves to show Trump with a modest lead in almost every swing state. Which we know is bullshit.

[Isgrimnur]

If they want to lull swing-state right-wingers into a false sense of security, let 'em.

[Kraken]

If they want to lull swing-state right-wingers into a false sense of security, let 'em.

At the cost of fueling stolen election beliefs. How could he lose if so many polls say he's winning?

[raydude]

1. I wasn't aware that anyplace allowed non-citizens to vote and I'm pretty sure that I'm against that happing. Non citizen shouldn't be able to vote. Period. If your not a citizen you shouldn't be able to influence anything in the country.

2. I do understand where you guts are coming from and are worried about the possibility of interpretation issues but as gilraen mentioned ot is happing elsewhere even in blue states. So maybe, just maybe, it's intended to make it clearer. Citizen. Period. No modifiers. Let's bring citizens and naturalized citizen together because ultimately we are all citizens.
Maybe it's the optometrist in me that's thinks that not everything the Republicans do has an evil motive. Sure a lit may be but maybe not evetytjing.

Perhaps instead of speculating why don't we go to the news and see what the language actually does state, where this is happening, and why now?

No state constitution in the U.S. allows noncitizens to vote. And while certain cities and municipalities in three states, as well as Washington, D.C., have allowed noncitizens to vote in some local elections, none are located in the eight states with these ballot measures.

So there is already no question that non-citizens don't have a right to vite other than 3 states and Washington D.C. for some local elections.

But why?

“These proposed constitutional amendments are aimed really at two things: preventing local governments in those states from allowing non-U.S. citizens to vote in local elections, and advancing this false narrative that non-U.S. citizens are somehow participating in U.S. elections in large numbers, which is totally unsupported by any evidence or facts,” said Jonathan Diaz, the director of voting advocacy at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

Now, the knee-jerk reaction would be "but why would you let non-US citizens vote in any local election? School board, or local rep or otherwise? What would be the point of that?

Here's one use case:
District 9 is populated by mostly immigrants from Sexystan. They don't speak English very well, and horror of horrors, they don't look white at all. Bob Asshat (R) is running for the school board representing District 9. Mr. Asshat doesn't care for the Sexystan immigrants so he's not going to advocate for them at all. He's got a pretty safe bet at winning, because the US citizens that live in District 9 are the shopkeepers and business people that prey on the Sexystan living situation and they all lean Republican. So Mr. Asshat wins, doesn't do jack for the schools in District 9, and people there are pretty miserable about it, but what can you do? It's not like the Sexystanians can move elsewhere.

Anyway, moving on:
The article mentions that the lawmakers pushing the bill merely clarify that only citizens can vote, even though existing language already states that, and they acknowledge that "It’s not like it’s happening everywhere and it must be stopped immediately. But preemption is not a bad thing.”

But the message that these bills send is this:

“They play on peoples’ fears and misconceptions about the electoral process and who is participating in elections to stoke this kind of anxiety about whether our elections can be trusted,” said Diaz. “When the average person sees something like this on their ballot, I think it would be a reasonable reaction to think, ‘Oh, my God, they were allowed to vote before? Have we been allowing non-U.S. citizens to vote all this time?’ And of course we haven’t — it is already illegal.”

In other words they merely serve to stoke the fears of the Joe and Jill Billy Bob who may think (wrongly) that somehow illegals were allowed to vote in the election. Thereby making it easier to enable future virtue signaling (see previous use case where Jill Billy Bob intimidates Sexystan immigrant, now naturalized US Citizen).

Not to mention, the timing of it is such that the GOP, fearing that Trump may in fact lose, is setting up the conditions for a Hail Mary endgame in case of a loss:

“Whether or not it’s true, which it isn’t,” Diaz said of widespread noncitizen voting, the presence of these ballot measures risks “creating doubt in the mind of the public and undermines the electoral system and possibly makes it easier for the public to swallow attempts to overturn the results if [Trump] loses.”

Which is a use case I admit I didn't think of, but is genius. So two things going for it: 1. It opens the door for voter intimidation in the future and 2. It opens the door for a "legitimate uprising" and calls of "immigrants stole the vote!" if Trump loses.

[Holman]

Why would anyone leave Sexystan??

[Carpet_pissr]

Why would anyone leave Sexystan??

Damn, that was my first thought as well. Sounds amazing.

I can totally see someone emigrating from Sexystan to wannabe Gilead doing the Gob “I’ve made a huge mistake”.

[Blackhawk]

If you're Stan.

[Max Peck]

[Blackhawk]

[Smoove_B]

New polls are out!

[Isgrimnur]

Their website looks like it should be offering me coverage against robots stealing my prescriptions. And their screengrabs feature such top-tier networks as Fox News, NewsMax, and NewsNation :

Fortune stated that NewsNation's coverage was "normalizing UAPs by going where no network has gone before" in "sharp contrast" to traditional media's skeptical coverage towards UFO claims.

[Smoove_B]

I mean, even Nate Silver is now saying it's 50/50 and we all know he doesn't have an agenda, so I guess that's it. Though at least his graphics only add up to 100%.

[LordMortis]

I mean, even Nate Silver is now saying it's 50/50 and we all know he doesn't have an agenda, so I guess that's it.

Didn't he give up on claiming his non partisanship? I swear I saw that not too long ago, that he was openly shilling as a GOP advocate on poker circuit now. No idea where I read that but it seemed credible at the time. Maybe I'm just hallucinating because gooogle says no.

[YellowKing]

Georgia broke records for early voting today. That is tremendously good news for Harris. This election will be won on turnout. And turnout is the one thing that polls have a REALLY hard time guessing.

[Holman]

Georgia broke records for early voting today. That is tremendously good news for Harris. This election will be won on turnout. And turnout is the one thing that polls have a REALLY hard time guessing.

Yep. Today was the first day of early voting in Georgia.

In 2020, when Biden won the state, first-day voting was 136,000 people. Today it topped 200,000 before even 5 p.m.

It's possible that the polls are absolutely missing what this election is going to be like.

[Scraper]

Georgia broke records for early voting today. That is tremendously good news for Harris. This election will be won on turnout. And turnout is the one thing that polls have a REALLY hard time guessing.

Fyi the Ohio GOP is actively pushing early voting this year so Im betting the early vote turnout is going to be a lot higher than it has in past years. Especially if the GOP is doing that every where (despite the orange toddler's demonization of warly voting).

[LordMortis]

The Michigan GOP both objects to it having fought against absentee (early) voting in court for a very long time and encourages their voters to use it, sending me tons my junk mail. Naturally, the constituency both loudly attack the SOS for rolling it out, saying its rigged with bad ballots and they also seem to be at the drop boxes in large numbers if my being by the local drop box (which I have been several times) is any indicator.

As much as I'd like to think large early turnout favors the Dems, I'm not thinking it's as big of a favoring as I'd hope for. I really don't have lot of faith this state won't both go to TFG and seat Rogers in the Senate. That's fucked up. The Rogers message should have been clearer for longer and I can't believe us and TFG. Shameful. The local UAW are knocking down their own Harris lawn signs. I'd say we get what we deserve but I can't come to grips with deserving this when I'm already in the middle of such objectively horrible people taking over this little corner of the city.

But Tliab will have her say against Biden's reaction to Palestine, right? She gets to break bread with all those who have been voting against her by working against Harris, right? I'm sure TFG will show his appreciation to her loyalty to him and for my having voted for her in the past. She gotta loving all those Make Liberals Cry Again signs.

[Unagi]

It's possible that the polls are absolutely missing what this election is going to be like.

Stop flirting with me.

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, I really haven't been following the nitty-gritty details of what's been going on in too many states, but I would love to wake up the day after the election and be utterly and completely stunned at the overwhelming voter turnout everywhere for Harris/Walz.

But that requires me to put hope in my fellow humans and I'm still not over these last 4+ years; not sure I ever will be.

[Unagi]

Yeah, I really haven't been following the nitty-gritty details of what's been going on in too many states, but I would love to wake up the day after the election and be utterly and completely stunned at the overwhelming voter turnout everywhere for Harris/Walz.

But that requires me to put hope in my fellow humans and I'm still not over these last 4+ years; not sure I ever will be.

like: 4+ 10

[Holman]

Most of us have PTSD from the 2016 election. The only cure is pushing turnout.

[Blackhawk]

I keep thinking that I should just go to bed early on election night, then wake up when it's all over.

Then I realize that unless Trump wins, it won't be over until Inauguration Day. And even then it will linger for years.

[raydude]

I keep thinking that I should just go to bed early on election night, then wake up when it's all over.

Then I realize that unless Trump wins, it won't be over until Inauguration Day. And even then it will linger for years.

Even so, I'd rather have Trump whining about his loss than Trump crowing about his win.

[Smoove_B]

Most of us have PTSD from the 2016 election. The only cure is pushing turnout.

Which I think might have been slightly ameliorated during the 2020 election. Yes, it was a nail biter and yes far too many deplorable people voted for him (again), but the trajectory was changed.

However, my feelings towards my fellow citizen completely imploded over the pandemic and when I thought I couldn't possibly feel any worse, the Biden administration declared "mission accomplished" in September of 2022.

To bring this back, I feel like...we've reached a fever pitch again for TFG. Maybe my memory is cloudy, but I don't remember October of 2020 feeling as heavy as it does now; somehow these stakes feel much, much higher. I mean, when I try to look back I know it was high stress and I know it was a mess, but somehow this feels objectively worse in 2024. Probably because 1/6 wasn't really resolved and now the Nazis and Deplorables seem even more emboldened.

Anyway, I know I'm rambling but I think my take home message here is that given what's at stake, I guess I kinda figured we'd be looking at something better than a coin toss. And maybe we are and that's just horse-race media doing what they do best. But it *feels like* horse race - which flies in the face of everything that's happened in the last ~2 weeks, particularly with TFG and JD Vance.

I truly want to believe it's going to be an absolute blow-out. I truly want to believe Gen Z is going to show up. I want to believe the Millennials are going to drown out all the deplorable GenXers. But man...it's hard.

[Kraken]

I keep thinking that I should just go to bed early on election night, then wake up when it's all over.

Then I realize that unless Trump wins, it won't be over until Inauguration Day. And even then it will linger for years.

Even so, I'd rather have Trump whining about his loss than Trump crowing about his win.

He's going to crow about his win before the polls even close and regardless of actual results.