Voter Restrictions? I don't think so!

Reviews, Comments and Information on new Science Fiction, Fantasy or other interesting TV shows, Films, Books, Radio Pays, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
bernomatic
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue, 29 Mar 16, 03:55 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

#1 Voter Restrictions? I don't think so!

Post by bernomatic »

One of the ways the Progressive Left and the current Mainstream Media try to manipulate us is through language. Not just by creating new terms that become common usage through the years, but by also phrasing or rephrasing things certain ways.
One example is the suffix "gate" which when appended to any noun implies government or other malfeasance and is meant to harken back to the Republican Nixon troubles with Watergate. So not only by using certain terms do we influence how we see things today, but for older people it is meant to bring us back to a time when Nixon was in power and it was "cool" to be against him and his "evil" workings. Just as an aside, and in my opinion, what the D.C. swamp did to then President-elect Trump, far exceeded anything Nixon did.
Another form of manipulation is with the trend to downplay the illegal entry into the United States. Long gone is the term "illegal alien", even though it is the legally defined term for those entering the border without documentation. It has morphed through the years from that harsh phrase to the more friendly "immigrant", setting aside any connotation of wrongdoing. Long gone are any suggestions of any wrongdoing (and thus any reason that the "innocent" children being thrown over border fences be labeled unjustly. Just remember, that child or their family paid good money for them to be thrown over that fence. Well I suppose except for those kidnapped and told who to claim as their "family" under threat of death.)
Here is the most current iteration, the reason I take pen (or to be precise, keyboard) in hand today is shown in this article from Reuters, "Business coalitions urge Texas lawmakers to reject voting restrictions". Everyone should agree that "voting restrictions" are a bad thing. What if those "restrictions" however are meant to keep the vote true? Let's be honest, if the National Organization of Woman (NOW) held a vote to determine who their leadership and what their goals should be, would it be fair for them to "restrict" their voting to members and not allow the local misogynist’s society members to vote?
"Two coalitions of business leaders on Tuesday urged Texas state lawmakers to reject any laws that would limit voters’ access to ballots, adding corporate America’s voice to a statewide debate over proposed voting restrictions." I commend the companies from trying to persuade America's lawmakers to not allow unjust voter restrictions, but have they truly even read the bills the states have written? What if we "immigrated" into these companies’ stockholders’ meetings under the tenuous reasoning that we should be allowed to vote for the company’s board members on the sole reason that we have used or purchased their companies’ products? I bet they would have a little bit of a different feeling about those "voting restrictions". Well, in would coincide with their statement, “When more people participate in our democratic process, we will all prosper.”
The proposed legislation, per the article, “would limit early voting, change polling locations, restrict how voters can apply for mail-in ballots and give partisan poll watchers more power.” I see nothing in this statement that would restrict any person from voting. Restrictions on when, where, and how you vote are noted, but not who votes. In fact, SB7, Section 1.03 (5) states,
“the reforms to the election laws of this state made by this Act are not intended to impair the right of free suffrage guaranteed to the people of Texas by the United States and Texas Constitutions, but are enacted solely to prevent fraud in the electoral process.”
In fact, my quick scan of the bill did not turn up anything limiting a bona fide voter from casting a vote. Don’t take my word for it, here is the link to the bill I read. Texas Senate Bill SB7. Of course, the House Bill may be different, I didn’t bother to scan more than a page, but here is the link to that. [ur=https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB6/id/2386221l]Texas House Bill 6[/url]. I will note that Nowhere in the original article from Reuters was any mention made of the either bill’s number, let alone a link to a place where you could read them for yourselves. With full sarcasm in place, but why would we? The reporter has obviously read them.
Please feel free to correct me with citations to the relevant areas of the bills if you think they limit a citizen’s right to vote.
As any good writer can tell you, words not only mean something, but they can affect how you feel about that something. They evoke emotions that can pull at your heartstrings or raise your ire to a five alarm fire level. It is hard not to be manipulated by them at times, however just recognizing the attempt can make you feel like Dorothy or one of her friends when the Great Wizard of Oz was revealed.
:arrow: Reuters article on Business coalitions urge Texas lawmakers to reject voting restrictions
Chief Cook -n- bottle washer
User avatar
luke strawwalker
Space Admiral
Space Admiral
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

#2 Re: Voter Restrictions? I don't think so!

Post by luke strawwalker »

Voting is a damn joke anyway anymore... this recent escapade just proves it. Total and complete waste of time. Later! OL J R :)
My MUNIFICENCE is BOUNDLESS, Mr. Bond...
Post Reply