'Suppression': Critics charge Georgia GOP

But through a process that Kemp calls voter roll maintenance and his opponents call voter roll purges, Kemp's office has cancelled over 1.4 million voter registrations since 2012. Nearly 670,000 registrations were cancelled in 2017 alone.

According to records obtained from Kemp's office through a public records request, Appling-Nunez's application —like many of the 53,000 registrations on hold with Kemp's office — was flagged because it ran afoul of the state's "exact match" verification process.

Under the policy, information on voter applications must precisely match information on file with the Georgia Department of Driver Services or the Social Security Administration. Election officials can place non-matching applications on hold.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/suppression-critics-charge-georgia-gop-gov-candidate-purging-voters-election-n918761

basically if your drivers licence does not match your voter registration card you are wiped and likely not notified. Why does it seem its always the GOP that is trying to reduce the number of voters?

@tryit: "Why does it seem its always the GOP that is trying to reduce the number of voters?"

Because the GOP is doing whatever it takes to win. Just like they've been doing since they got power back in 2016, just like they did when they lost it in 2008. They are the party of the ends justifying the means, and the party of lie, cheat, and steal your way to victory. They don't bother with persuading the country, but they will absolutely take advantage of every trick in the book to get what they want and to hold on to power for as long as possible. Because who knows, they may not have public support right now, but if they can cheat their way to a win now they may get that support over the next few years.

So the Democrats do not lie, cheat or steal?

not as much, however I think the real take away is how the GOP is specifically interested in voter suppression while democrats never are.

why is that you think?

@n64dd: with regards to people voting, I only ever see examples of Democrats trying to get more people to vote. Now that's to their benefit just like less people voting is to the benefit of Republicans, but one of those two scenarios is far better than the other.

You can't see the forest from the trees.

@n64dd: Explain it to us.

I am asking you a specific question, your answer is not related to my specific question

why is it that the GOP is often interested in voter suppression but Democrats never are?

Reach into your church going morality and try to answer the direct question please

Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?

You can make up whatever question you want, baseless or not, it doesn't really add to the conversation.

Troll somewhere else.

the question is more directed to the subject at hand then any of your responses on this thread

but please....reach into your morality instead of the direction you typically travel in

Don't care about your circular questions. All you do is troll.

this thread is specifically about GOP voter suppression. Its not about general crime and dishonesty.

So my direct question to you is directly related to the specific topic at hand. I do wish you would pull into your morality to stop this nonsense of yours, there really is nothing to gain by it.

I'll end this shit thread real quick.

In the article you posted, it said the 53,000 people on hold, can vote still.

/thread.

There is no suppression if the people can still vote.

Read your own article.

thank you for addressing my question

are you suggesting that the GOP in fact does not try to suppress the vote? (generally speaking not this specific article)

It's a fairly direct question related to the topic you're posting in. There's nothing baseless or irrelevant about it.

His whole topic was defeated within the first source he listed.

The people being "opressed" can still vote. Any questions he has related are null and void since he's proposing a false narrative.

I know you might like to indulge in the stupidity, but it's worn out it's welcome.

Voter suppression doesn't necessarily have to fit the bill you just described. By your own description literacy tests wouldn't count as voter suppression.

Barriers to entry don't have to implement a full blanket effect in order to classify as voter suppression.

look instead of being evasive and frankly out right as rude as possible, when you see something you do not agree with do not hide, instead just address it. show how the claim is wrong.

My question on the OP is basically as follows (yes I know its not literally but come on, do yourself a favor and try to work with it): Why is it the GOP is often accused of voter suppression but the Dems are NEVER accused of it?

for once dont be evasive, dont attack personally just address the subject and try to contribute something useful

I read your article, and saw who was posting it.

That's enough. End the thread, what you stated isn't true at all.

that response was a fail to my request for you not being evasive.

we are done, I feel sorry for you...honest to god, not joking

@n64dd said:

@tryit said:

@n64dd said:

@tryit said:

@n64dd said:

His whole topic was defeated within the first source he listed.

The people being "opressed" can still vote. Any questions he has related are null and void since he's proposing a false narrative.

I know you might like to indulge in the stupidity, but it's worn out it's welcome.

look instead of being evasive and frankly out right as rude as possible, when you see something you do not agree with do not hide, instead just address it. show how the claim is wrong.

My question on the OP is basically as follows (yes I know its not literally but come on, do yourself a favor and try to work with it): Why is it the GOP is often accused of voter suppression but the Dems are NEVER accused of it?

for once dont be evasive, dont attack personally just address the subject and try to contribute something useful

I read your article, and saw who was posting it.

That's enough. End the thread, what you stated isn't true at all.

that response was a fail to my request for you not being evasive.

we are done, I feel sorry for you...honest to god, not joking

absolutely will not work with me.

a huge waste of time on your part

I'm pretty sure gerrymandering and voter suppression is done more on the right.

@zaryia: Like the Black Party members standing by voting areas with weapon on them?

like he said, gerrymandering and voter suppression is done more on the right

we dont know what you are refering to, so provide evidence of this being more than one incident.

more than likely that was from the 60s in which they were protecting blacks to allow them to vote.

how much you want to bet they were there literally to PREVENT voter suppression? should I look it up?

@tryit: Sure. It was recent and on live tv.

i think he's referring to the new black panther party, who the SPLC considers to be a hate group

two men standing outside one voting station vs institutionalized voter suppression and gerrymandering?

can you do any better? I am not limiting you, feel free to make the counter awesome becasue that is some weak ass shit right there

I looked it up, it was two men at a voting booth.

guys...dont wait for me to give you permission, please take it on yourself to post some AWESOME evidence that rises to the level of mass institutionalized voter suppression. make it rock ....for fucking once

and maybe double check it with the understanding that if you post something, there is a good chance I will look it up to verify it.

like snopes

i didn't say anything about that, just about what group he may have been referring to

fair enough it just gets me fired up when they 1. post something that is clearly extremely small by comparison, dont even bother to look for something large (maybe because they cant find it) and then 2. assume people are not going to use the internet to look into the claims

its likely because they just repeat what Fox news says without even looking into it.

@tryit: Does Hillary owning the DC and basically sabotaging Bernie count?

not remotely.

1. show that she 'owns' the DC in a manner that no other candidate for presidency has not

2. show that this so called 'ownership' is purging voter roles or some other form of voter suppression

3. make a link between Hillary and your claim of Bernie other than nothing

again...feel free to make it STRONG...not some limp *** bullshit

My goodness, DD's meltdown. Lol

Here in Utah, there is a proposition to deter Gerrymandering. Hope it wins.

@tryit: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna817411

@n64dd: Damn dude do you need a safe space?

@LJS9502_basic: Did you just assume my gender?

Trolling again I see........

@LJS9502_basic: http://www.anonews.co/transgender-man-identifies-as-a-dog/

You can be the dog you always wanted to be.

stop being facetious and just answer the question lol

However maybe not in the next presidential election...

@joebones5000: 1.4 million?

BTW Kemp has been sued for shady shit like this before,

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/georgia-settles-federal-lawsuit-alleging-blocked-thousands-minority-voters/4M2dMAHDRvC8fLYoV01fxN/

Georgia has settled a federal lawsuit that accused Secretary of State Brian Kemp of disenfranchising minority voters because of a requirement on registration forms that critics said blocked thousands of them from voter rolls.

The state will no longer reject applications that don’t exactly match identification information in state and federal databases as part of the agreement, which was finalized late Thursday.

“Based on the advice of the Attorney General’s office and in order to avoid the expense of further litigation, we agreed to settle this lawsuit,” said Candice Broce, Kemp’s spokeswoman. “The verification system Georgia had in place is important to accurately maintain our voter rolls and prevent illegal votes from being cast in our state’s elections.”

Of course that didn't stop him from successfully putting it in place again. Cause the south gonna south.

How could he get something so seemingly similar through again after being sued for it the first time?

can you stop throwing weak softballs please?

1. how is her 'take over' different from any other leading candiate for a party? how is it different from Bill Clinton? Different from Ted Kennedy? different from FDR? different from Carter. that is question number 1.

2. you need to understand that taking over a party thus influencing add campaigns in an effort to get more votes is NOT literally taking people off the voter rolls so they physically can not vote. Please point to how this is VOTER SUPPRESSION. without just lazily posting a link. you tell me, in your own words

3. voter suppression is not 'influencing a person to vote a different way then they otherwise would' (that is more like Russian attack on an election) Voter suppression means one can not physically vote at all.

I ask you again, send me your best shot, the best shot you got, because that was weak

This is probably relevant.

I read about this the other day. It's insane to sit here and say that the GOP isn't trying their best to keep people from voting or home on election days. 'Voter fraud' is simply a means to employ these barriers, since they can't even show ample evidence it even exists.

You can't lose an election if only your supporters are allowed to vote. Smart thinking GOP :P