Glenn V. *Still* Won't Answer

[John McAdams]

It's a simple question.

A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice.

Do you approve of Facebook and Twitter banning Donald Trump?

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[[e-mail]]

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.

Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.

If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.

He has made the charge, let him support it.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?

He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.

But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
admitted the following:

<Quote on>

But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.

“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”

In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”

Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.

Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.

<end quote>

So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.

Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[BT George]

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
up or hinted at in this long exchange:

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
proceed is yours, not mine. My stance is clear:

1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.

2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.

3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.

4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[BT George]

Post by BT George

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.
2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.
3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.
4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi Glenn,

I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to
"play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with
transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a
formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your
right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be
easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the
discussion.

Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely
at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter
suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede
that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly
exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things
in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or
unreasonable requirements?

Brock

[Glenn V.]

Post by BT George

Post by BT George

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.
2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.
3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.
4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi Glenn,
I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to
"play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with
transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a
formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your
right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be
easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the
discussion.
Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely
at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter
suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede
that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly
exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things
in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or
unreasonable requirements?
Brock

Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest
way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using
whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock,
certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very
busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should
have eased up a bit.

[BT George]

Post by Glenn V.

Post by BT George

Post by BT George

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.
2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.
3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.
4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi Glenn,
I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to
"play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with
transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a
formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your
right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be
easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the
discussion.
Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely
at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter
suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede
that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly
exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things
in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or
unreasonable requirements?
Brock

Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest
way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using
whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock,
certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very
busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should
have eased up a bit.

NP. I have a demanding work schedule these days so I completely
understand. Last year I had to back out of a whole series of things I had
going on because I simply didn't have enough time or bandwidth to keep
tackling them.

[John Corbett]

Post by Glenn V.

Post by BT George

Post by BT George

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.
2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.
3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.
4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi Glenn,
I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to
"play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with
transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a
formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your
right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be
easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the
discussion.
Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely
at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter
suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede
that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly
exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things
in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or
unreasonable requirements?
Brock

Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest
way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using
whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock,
certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very
busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should
have eased up a bit.

You could have responded yes or no in a lot less time than it took you to
type out that paragraph.

[BT George]

Post by John Corbett

Post by Glenn V.

Post by BT George

Post by BT George

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.
2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.
3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.
4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi Glenn,
I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to
"play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with
transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a
formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your
right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be
easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the
discussion.
Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely
at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter
suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede
that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly
exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things
in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or
unreasonable requirements?
Brock

Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest
way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using
whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock,
certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very
busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should
have eased up a bit.

You could have responded yes or no in a lot less time than it took you to
type out that paragraph.

Only if he plans a yes or no answer. Some questions require more.
(E.g., "Did you stop beating your wife senselessly lately?" But yes or no
don't work when you haven't been beating her at all.) In this case
Glenn's position is he was avoiding a simple answer because he didn't
believe he had received one to one or more of his questions. If he never
comes back and dodges eternally, then no skin off anyone's back but mine
for defending him.

[John Corbett]

Post by John Corbett

Post by Glenn V.

Post by BT George

Post by BT George

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.
2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.
3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.
4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi Glenn,
I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to
"play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with
transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a
formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your
right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be
easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the
discussion.
Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely
at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter
suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede
that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly
exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things
in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or
unreasonable requirements?
Brock

Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest
way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using
whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock,
certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very
busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should
have eased up a bit.

You could have responded yes or no in a lot less time than it took you to
type out that paragraph.

Only if he plans a yes or no answer. Some questions require more.
(E.g., "Did you stop beating your wife senselessly lately?" But yes or no
don't work when you haven't been beating her at all.) In this case
Glenn's position is he was avoiding a simple answer because he didn't
believe he had received one to one or more of his questions. If he never
comes back and dodges eternally, then no skin off anyone's back but mine
for defending him.

John's question certainly wasn't a loaded question. It was straight
forward and it's a binary choice. Either Glenn approves of the social
media companies banning Trump or he doesn't.

[BT George]

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by Glenn V.

Post by BT George

Post by BT George

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.
2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.
3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.
4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi Glenn,
I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to
"play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with
transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a
formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your
right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be
easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the
discussion.
Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely
at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter
suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede
that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly
exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things
in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or
unreasonable requirements?
Brock

Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest
way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using
whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock,
certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very
busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should
have eased up a bit.

You could have responded yes or no in a lot less time than it took you to
type out that paragraph.

Only if he plans a yes or no answer. Some questions require more.
(E.g., "Did you stop beating your wife senselessly lately?" But yes or no
don't work when you haven't been beating her at all.) In this case
Glenn's position is he was avoiding a simple answer because he didn't
believe he had received one to one or more of his questions. If he never
comes back and dodges eternally, then no skin off anyone's back but mine
for defending him.

John's question certainly wasn't a loaded question. It was straight
forward and it's a binary choice. Either Glenn approves of the social
media companies banning Trump or he doesn't.

Agreed. And if Glenn had told me he didn't answer yet because it was
loaded, I would have told him he was full of it. Rather, he was saying he
felt he could withhold his answer till John answered something he asked to
his satisfaction. Since then John has provided some additional posts and
commentary, so I am giving taking Glenn at his word and letting him come
back and address the question as well as point out where he feels he is
still being evaded as it sounds like he wants to post carefully and cannot
with divided attention. (I do know he recently got involved as an elected
official locally in Sweden, so any politician who actually wants to handle
his elected job first before continuing to post endlessly on the Net has
my applause!)

BTW, though I *blanket* disapprove of any politically-oriented media bans,
I can imaging a classic Liberal (as I peg Glenn to be as opposed to an
aggressive Progressive Left activist) taking a somewhat more nuanced
approach. E.g., perhaps still thinking a "time out" for Trump in the
midst of a *perceived* armed rebellion could be tolerable, as long as not
permitted to go on indefinitely. Though even *if* I could excuse the
latter, I would *still* think that crisis time had now passed and would be
calling on the Left Coast "Net Police" to drop the bans and restore him
and others with an opinion they don't like immediately.

[John McAdams]

Post by BT George

Post by John Corbett
John's question certainly wasn't a loaded question. It was straight
forward and it's a binary choice. Either Glenn approves of the social
media companies banning Trump or he doesn't.

Agreed. And if Glenn had told me he didn't answer yet because it was
loaded, I would have told him he was full of it. Rather, he was saying he
felt he could withhold his answer till John answered something he asked to
his satisfaction. Since then John has provided some additional posts and
commentary, so I am giving taking Glenn at his word and letting him come
back and address the question as well as point out where he feels he is
still being evaded as it sounds like he wants to post carefully and cannot
with divided attention.

No, it sounds like he want's Trump censored, but doesn't want to admit
to being an authoritarian.

Post by BT George
(I do know he recently got involved as an elected
official locally in Sweden, so any politician who actually wants to handle
his elected job first before continuing to post endlessly on the Net has
my applause!)
BTW, though I *blanket* disapprove of any politically-oriented media bans,
I can imaging a classic Liberal (as I peg Glenn to be as opposed to an
aggressive Progressive Left activist)

If he were a classic liberal, he would oppose censoring Trump.

Post by BT George
taking a somewhat more nuanced
approach. E.g., perhaps still thinking a "time out" for Trump in the
midst of a *perceived* armed rebellion could be tolerable, as long as not
permitted to go on indefinitely.

Nonsense. The Tech Giants have no right to decide who needs a "time
out."

They fact that they "perceived" an armed rebellion allows a massive
loophole in any notion of free speech.

Post by BT George
Though even *if* I could excuse the
latter, I would *still* think that crisis time had now passed and would be
calling on the Left Coast "Net Police" to drop the bans and restore him
and others with an opinion they don't like immediately.

Glenn could answer.

He refuses to.

He is happy Trump has been censored, because he hates Trump.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[BT George]

Post by John McAdams

Post by John Corbett
John's question certainly wasn't a loaded question. It was straight
forward and it's a binary choice. Either Glenn approves of the social
media companies banning Trump or he doesn't.

Agreed. And if Glenn had told me he didn't answer yet because it was
loaded, I would have told him he was full of it. Rather, he was saying he
felt he could withhold his answer till John answered something he asked to
his satisfaction. Since then John has provided some additional posts and
commentary, so I am giving taking Glenn at his word and letting him come
back and address the question as well as point out where he feels he is
still being evaded as it sounds like he wants to post carefully and cannot
with divided attention.

No, it sounds like he want's Trump censored, but doesn't want to admit
to being an authoritarian.

(I do know he recently got involved as an elected
official locally in Sweden, so any politician who actually wants to handle
his elected job first before continuing to post endlessly on the Net has
my applause!)
BTW, though I *blanket* disapprove of any politically-oriented media bans,
I can imaging a classic Liberal (as I peg Glenn to be as opposed to an
aggressive Progressive Left activist)

If he were a classic liberal, he would oppose censoring Trump.

taking a somewhat more nuanced
approach. E.g., perhaps still thinking a "time out" for Trump in the
midst of a *perceived* armed rebellion could be tolerable, as long as not
permitted to go on indefinitely.

Nonsense. The Tech Giants have no right to decide who needs a "time
out."

Agreed. But I can see a Liberal thinking it was serious attempt at
rebellion (as I posit *we* would probably do if Antifa had done the same
thing in a Trump won election) justifying that *in their minds* in the
name of national security. But it's Glenn's answer he needs to give and I
am certainly hoping he will follow through.

Post by John McAdams
They fact that they "perceived" an armed rebellion allows a massive
loophole in any notion of free speech.

Though even *if* I could excuse the
latter, I would *still* think that crisis time had now passed and would be
calling on the Left Coast "Net Police" to drop the bans and restore him
and others with an opinion they don't like immediately.

Glenn could answer.
He refuses to.
He is happy Trump has been censored, because he hates Trump.

Oh he does hate Trump. Never denied that. (Heck, Trump's not real high
on my list and I *agreed* with the vast majority of his policies.) But
only Glenn can refute that he, therefore, supports Trump's censorship.
If he disagrees, I am still calling on him to say so as his ultimate
silence can only be perceived as support.

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Corbett]

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by Glenn V.

Post by BT George

Post by BT George

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.
2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.
3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.
4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi Glenn,
I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to
"play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with
transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a
formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your
right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be
easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the
discussion.
Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely
at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter
suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede
that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly
exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things
in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or
unreasonable requirements?
Brock

Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest
way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using
whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock,
certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very
busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should
have eased up a bit.

You could have responded yes or no in a lot less time than it took you to
type out that paragraph.

Only if he plans a yes or no answer. Some questions require more.
(E.g., "Did you stop beating your wife senselessly lately?" But yes or no
don't work when you haven't been beating her at all.) In this case
Glenn's position is he was avoiding a simple answer because he didn't
believe he had received one to one or more of his questions. If he never
comes back and dodges eternally, then no skin off anyone's back but mine
for defending him.

John's question certainly wasn't a loaded question. It was straight
forward and it's a binary choice. Either Glenn approves of the social
media companies banning Trump or he doesn't.

Agreed. And if Glenn had told me he didn't answer yet because it was
loaded, I would have told him he was full of it. Rather, he was saying he
felt he could withhold his answer till John answered something he asked to
his satisfaction. Since then John has provided some additional posts and
commentary, so I am giving taking Glenn at his word and letting him come
back and address the question as well as point out where he feels he is
still being evaded as it sounds like he wants to post carefully and cannot
with divided attention. (I do know he recently got involved as an elected
official locally in Sweden, so any politician who actually wants to handle
his elected job first before continuing to post endlessly on the Net has
my applause!)
BTW, though I *blanket* disapprove of any politically-oriented media bans,
I can imaging a classic Liberal (as I peg Glenn to be as opposed to an
aggressive Progressive Left activist) taking a somewhat more nuanced
approach. E.g., perhaps still thinking a "time out" for Trump in the
midst of a *perceived* armed rebellion could be tolerable, as long as not
permitted to go on indefinitely. Though even *if* I could excuse the
latter, I would *still* think that crisis time had now passed and would be
calling on the Left Coast "Net Police" to drop the bans and restore him
and others with an opinion they don't like immediately.

The social media companies have been granted immunity from libel on the
basis that they are a pass through platform and not responsible for the
content that gets passed through. However, once they start making
decisions about what they will and will not allow, they cease to be a pass
through platform. They have taken on the responsibility of editing their
content and should lose the liability protection they had been granted. I
believe they have every right to decide what what permit on their platform
just as every newspaper publisher can decide what appears on their pages.
However, they shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. Either they
should allow unfettered access or they should be held legally liable for
what appears on their platform.

[Bud]

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by Glenn V.

Post by BT George

Post by BT George

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.
2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.
3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.
4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi Glenn,
I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to
"play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with
transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a
formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your
right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be
easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the
discussion.
Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely
at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter
suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede
that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly
exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things
in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or
unreasonable requirements?
Brock

Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest
way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using
whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock,
certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very
busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should
have eased up a bit.

You could have responded yes or no in a lot less time than it took you to
type out that paragraph.

Only if he plans a yes or no answer. Some questions require more.
(E.g., "Did you stop beating your wife senselessly lately?" But yes or no
don't work when you haven't been beating her at all.) In this case
Glenn's position is he was avoiding a simple answer because he didn't
believe he had received one to one or more of his questions. If he never
comes back and dodges eternally, then no skin off anyone's back but mine
for defending him.

John's question certainly wasn't a loaded question. It was straight
forward and it's a binary choice. Either Glenn approves of the social
media companies banning Trump or he doesn't.

Agreed. And if Glenn had told me he didn't answer yet because it was
loaded, I would have told him he was full of it. Rather, he was saying he
felt he could withhold his answer till John answered something he asked to
his satisfaction. Since then John has provided some additional posts and
commentary, so I am giving taking Glenn at his word and letting him come
back and address the question as well as point out where he feels he is
still being evaded as it sounds like he wants to post carefully and cannot
with divided attention. (I do know he recently got involved as an elected
official locally in Sweden, so any politician who actually wants to handle
his elected job first before continuing to post endlessly on the Net has
my applause!)
BTW, though I *blanket* disapprove of any politically-oriented media bans,
I can imaging a classic Liberal (as I peg Glenn to be as opposed to an
aggressive Progressive Left activist) taking a somewhat more nuanced
approach. E.g., perhaps still thinking a "time out" for Trump in the
midst of a *perceived* armed rebellion could be tolerable, as long as not
permitted to go on indefinitely. Though even *if* I could excuse the
latter, I would *still* think that crisis time had now passed and would be
calling on the Left Coast "Net Police" to drop the bans and restore him
and others with an opinion they don't like immediately.

The social media companies have been granted immunity from libel on the
basis that they are a pass through platform and not responsible for the
content that gets passed through. However, once they start making
decisions about what they will and will not allow, they cease to be a pass
through platform. They have taken on the responsibility of editing their
content and should lose the liability protection they had been granted. I
believe they have every right to decide what what permit on their platform
just as every newspaper publisher can decide what appears on their pages.
However, they shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. Either they
should allow unfettered access or they should be held legally liable for
what appears on their platform.

Yes, they shouldn`t have it both ways, when you control the content you
should be responsible for it.

It is getting so blatant on youtube. First you weren`t allowed to
question the official doctrine on COVID-19. Then you weren`t allowed to
question the election results. Now Steven Crowder sent an investigative
team to Nevada to look into voting irregularities. The video was pulled
and he has been banned on youtube for a week for this...

The powers that be are doing everything they can to stop people from
doing an "end around" that bypasses their narratives.

[Bud]

Post by Bud

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by Glenn V.

Post by BT George

Post by BT George

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.
2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.
3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.
4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi Glenn,
I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to
"play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with
transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a
formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your
right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be
easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the
discussion.
Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely
at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter
suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede
that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly
exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things
in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or
unreasonable requirements?
Brock

Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest
way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using
whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock,
certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very
busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should
have eased up a bit.

You could have responded yes or no in a lot less time than it took you to
type out that paragraph.

Only if he plans a yes or no answer. Some questions require more.
(E.g., "Did you stop beating your wife senselessly lately?" But yes or no
don't work when you haven't been beating her at all.) In this case
Glenn's position is he was avoiding a simple answer because he didn't
believe he had received one to one or more of his questions. If he never
comes back and dodges eternally, then no skin off anyone's back but mine
for defending him.

John's question certainly wasn't a loaded question. It was straight
forward and it's a binary choice. Either Glenn approves of the social
media companies banning Trump or he doesn't.

Agreed. And if Glenn had told me he didn't answer yet because it was
loaded, I would have told him he was full of it. Rather, he was saying he
felt he could withhold his answer till John answered something he asked to
his satisfaction. Since then John has provided some additional posts and
commentary, so I am giving taking Glenn at his word and letting him come
back and address the question as well as point out where he feels he is
still being evaded as it sounds like he wants to post carefully and cannot
with divided attention. (I do know he recently got involved as an elected
official locally in Sweden, so any politician who actually wants to handle
his elected job first before continuing to post endlessly on the Net has
my applause!)
BTW, though I *blanket* disapprove of any politically-oriented media bans,
I can imaging a classic Liberal (as I peg Glenn to be as opposed to an
aggressive Progressive Left activist) taking a somewhat more nuanced
approach. E.g., perhaps still thinking a "time out" for Trump in the
midst of a *perceived* armed rebellion could be tolerable, as long as not
permitted to go on indefinitely. Though even *if* I could excuse the
latter, I would *still* think that crisis time had now passed and would be
calling on the Left Coast "Net Police" to drop the bans and restore him
and others with an opinion they don't like immediately.

The social media companies have been granted immunity from libel on the
basis that they are a pass through platform and not responsible for the
content that gets passed through. However, once they start making
decisions about what they will and will not allow, they cease to be a pass
through platform. They have taken on the responsibility of editing their
content and should lose the liability protection they had been granted. I
believe they have every right to decide what what permit on their platform
just as every newspaper publisher can decide what appears on their pages.
However, they shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. Either they
should allow unfettered access or they should be held legally liable for
what appears on their platform.

Yes, they shouldn`t have it both ways, when you control the content you
should be responsible for it.
It is getting so blatant on youtube. First you weren`t allowed to
question the official doctrine on COVID-19. Then you weren`t allowed to
question the election results. Now Steven Crowder sent an investigative
team to Nevada to look into voting irregularities. The video was pulled
and he has been banned on youtube for a week for this...
http://youtu.be/MGcEf3vikCE

Apparently youtube has shut down his secondary account on youtube
"Crowder Bits".

The video that I linked to that youtube removed can be seen here...

https://www.mediamatters.org/steven-crowder/after-being-suspended-youtube-steven-crowder-announces-his-plan-evade-it-his-other

Post by Bud
The powers that be are doing everything they can to stop people from
doing an "end around" that bypasses their narratives.

[Glenn V.]

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by Glenn V.

Post by BT George

Post by BT George

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.
2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.
3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.
4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi Glenn,
I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to
"play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with
transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a
formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your
right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be
easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the
discussion.
Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely
at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter
suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede
that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly
exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things
in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or
unreasonable requirements?
Brock

Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest
way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using
whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock,
certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very
busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should
have eased up a bit.

You could have responded yes or no in a lot less time than it took you to
type out that paragraph.

Only if he plans a yes or no answer. Some questions require more.
(E.g., "Did you stop beating your wife senselessly lately?" But yes or no
don't work when you haven't been beating her at all.) In this case
Glenn's position is he was avoiding a simple answer because he didn't
believe he had received one to one or more of his questions. If he never
comes back and dodges eternally, then no skin off anyone's back but mine
for defending him.

John's question certainly wasn't a loaded question. It was straight
forward and it's a binary choice. Either Glenn approves of the social
media companies banning Trump or he doesn't.

Agreed. And if Glenn had told me he didn't answer yet because it was
loaded, I would have told him he was full of it. Rather, he was saying he
felt he could withhold his answer till John answered something he asked to
his satisfaction. Since then John has provided some additional posts and
commentary, so I am giving taking Glenn at his word and letting him come
back and address the question as well as point out where he feels he is
still being evaded as it sounds like he wants to post carefully and cannot
with divided attention. (I do know he recently got involved as an elected
official locally in Sweden, so any politician who actually wants to handle
his elected job first before continuing to post endlessly on the Net has
my applause!)
BTW, though I *blanket* disapprove of any politically-oriented media bans,
I can imaging a classic Liberal (as I peg Glenn to be as opposed to an
aggressive Progressive Left activist) taking a somewhat more nuanced
approach. E.g., perhaps still thinking a "time out" for Trump in the
midst of a *perceived* armed rebellion could be tolerable, as long as not
permitted to go on indefinitely. Though even *if* I could excuse the
latter, I would *still* think that crisis time had now passed and would be
calling on the Left Coast "Net Police" to drop the bans and restore him
and others with an opinion they don't like immediately.

Brock,

Sorry i took some time to get back here.

So, the answer to John's ridiculous whataboutism question about banning
Trump, is of course no, it was not the right thing to do.

The reason may not be what John or the rest of these ultraconservative
dinosaurs like, of course. Few things would ever bother me less, frankly.

Because Big Tech are basically freed from any third party doings on their
platforms, as stated in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of
1996, which several Court decisions has established.

In plain terms. Big Tech has far too much power about far too many things
in society. They need to be regulated by Congress. In such a way that
competition, innovation and a whole range of other things, often very good
things, are not destroyed or tampered with.

However, they also need to be regulated so that they can be held
accountable for third party content on their platforms. Regulations that
states what is harmful to society, individuals or other corporations.
Their algorithms should of course be looked into very carefully. This
would eventually reach the Courts to get established what is acceptable
and what is not.

And Brock, this is the short answer.

[BT George]

Post by Glenn V.

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by Glenn V.

Post by BT George

Post by BT George

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?
Do you understand that those are important questions?

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.

Do you even know that is true?

No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely,
largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy
it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are
not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown
every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in
certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing
the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to
validate his claim.)

Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming*
that what was asserted it true

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.
Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well
enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts
right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing
media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I
feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate*
about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes
and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think
since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this
should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied.

That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that
*assumes* something that might be untrue.

Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could
look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you
will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for
you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my
further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am
simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I
consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why
you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor

Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer?

Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good
person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You
still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right
to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But
since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to
1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine.
2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all
parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for
persons legitimately unable to vote in person.
3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards
erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents.
4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for
manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout.
Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be
reasonably made.

He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed
polling places" claim about Georgia.
Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump.
If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting
places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll
respond.
He has made the charge, let him support it.

Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and
mischaracterization.

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.
And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.
But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.
Why do you think he won't answer?

I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions.
Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that
kind of censorship.

Then why won't he answer?
He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored.

I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous
convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I
want to see.

His point seems to be he is still awaiting your
answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is
accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he
wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid
question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to
remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being
only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why
the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said,
feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be
done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me
much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point
out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.

Let him produce evidence.
But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST
<Quote on>
But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she
doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the
same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national
significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers
due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded
in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members
who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. …
We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just
unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees
hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them
were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three
weeks.”
Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in
the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly.
She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff
ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service
Commission.
Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected.
She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of
the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be
inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for
voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on
Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open.
<end quote>
So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed.
Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other
side of the story.

Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested
enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would
never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at
voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope
Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or
admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot
say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here.
But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere
*inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the
other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic
voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should
disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi Glenn,
I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to
"play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with
transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a
formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your
right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be
easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the
discussion.
Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely
at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter
suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede
that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly
exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things
in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or
unreasonable requirements?
Brock

Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest
way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using
whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock,
certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very
busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should
have eased up a bit.

You could have responded yes or no in a lot less time than it took you to
type out that paragraph.

Only if he plans a yes or no answer. Some questions require more.
(E.g., "Did you stop beating your wife senselessly lately?" But yes or no
don't work when you haven't been beating her at all.) In this case
Glenn's position is he was avoiding a simple answer because he didn't
believe he had received one to one or more of his questions. If he never
comes back and dodges eternally, then no skin off anyone's back but mine
for defending him.

John's question certainly wasn't a loaded question. It was straight
forward and it's a binary choice. Either Glenn approves of the social
media companies banning Trump or he doesn't.

Agreed. And if Glenn had told me he didn't answer yet because it was
loaded, I would have told him he was full of it. Rather, he was saying he
felt he could withhold his answer till John answered something he asked to
his satisfaction. Since then John has provided some additional posts and
commentary, so I am giving taking Glenn at his word and letting him come
back and address the question as well as point out where he feels he is
still being evaded as it sounds like he wants to post carefully and cannot
with divided attention. (I do know he recently got involved as an elected
official locally in Sweden, so any politician who actually wants to handle
his elected job first before continuing to post endlessly on the Net has
my applause!)
BTW, though I *blanket* disapprove of any politically-oriented media bans,
I can imaging a classic Liberal (as I peg Glenn to be as opposed to an
aggressive Progressive Left activist) taking a somewhat more nuanced
approach. E.g., perhaps still thinking a "time out" for Trump in the
midst of a *perceived* armed rebellion could be tolerable, as long as not
permitted to go on indefinitely. Though even *if* I could excuse the
latter, I would *still* think that crisis time had now passed and would be
calling on the Left Coast "Net Police" to drop the bans and restore him
and others with an opinion they don't like immediately.

Brock,
Sorry i took some time to get back here.
So, the answer to John's ridiculous whataboutism question about banning
Trump, is of course no, it was not the right thing to do.
The reason may not be what John or the rest of these ultraconservative
dinosaurs like, of course. Few things would ever bother me less, frankly.
Because Big Tech are basically freed from any third party doings on their
platforms, as stated in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of
1996, which several Court decisions has established.
In plain terms. Big Tech has far too much power about far too many things
in society. They need to be regulated by Congress. In such a way that
competition, innovation and a whole range of other things, often very good
things, are not destroyed or tampered with.
However, they also need to be regulated so that they can be held
accountable for third party content on their platforms. Regulations that
states what is harmful to society, individuals or other corporations.
Their algorithms should of course be looked into very carefully. This
would eventually reach the Courts to get established what is acceptable
and what is not.
And Brock, this is the short answer.

Thanks Glenn. I agree. This is an area that ought to be more regulated
in much the same manner as the airwaves were regulated long ago.