No All Star Game in Atlanta This Season?

[Deester11]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc...outputType=amp

Good writeup comparing Georgia's law to other states. Anyone who calls this Jim Crow 2 should be sat down and forced to read what Jim Crow laws actually did.

I read it 3 times and still think parts are.....questionable (words are dressed up to look nice. But whatever you think). I also never said that.

[sturg33]

Scrolls through federal papers and constitution

Hmmm don't see any constitutional rights for someone to have a Paypal account.

Yeah it guarantees.citizens can vote.

How does one prove they are citizen?

[sturg33]

Scrolls through federal papers and constitution

Hmmm don't see any constitutional rights for someone to have a Paypal account.

But would you agree that PayPal is racist, because the require an ID to do business with them?

[striker42]

One thing that's incredibly sad in all this is how virtually no legitimate journalism has been done on this story. It's a complete echo chamber of generalities and virtue signaling.

There's no spine in journalism to stand up to the mob.

[nsacpi]

One thing that's incredibly sad in all this is how virtually no legitimate journalism has been done on this story. It's a complete echo chamber of generalities and virtue signaling.

There's no spine in journalism to stand up to the mob.

this is an analysis column rather than reporting, but it has some interesting things to say about the likely effects of the new law

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/u...w-turnout.html

and here is a fairly straightforward dems the facts account of the new law

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/u...publicans.html

an account of the decision to move the All-Star game

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mlb-rem...aw-11617394748

locally, the AJC has covered the whole thing extensively...here is an article about Kemp's reaction to MLB's move

https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-new...MLQLALSKHVJWE/

[striker42]

this is an analysis column rather than reporting, but it has some interesting things to say about the likely effects of the new law

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/u...w-turnout.html

and here is a fairly straightforward dems the facts account of the matter

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/u...publicans.html

First one isn't really much of an analysis of the law as much as a run down of voting studied. The second is behind a pay wall.

What is getting to he here is the number of articles taking it as a foregone conclusion the law drastically limits voting, is racist, or is evil in some other way. So few journalists are taking the time to look at the law and put it in context.

Democracy dies in darkness but blinders are far more dangerous. Darkness is obvious. Selective vision is not.

[sturg33]

One thing that's incredibly sad in all this is how virtually no legitimate journalism has been done on this story. It's a complete echo chamber of generalities and virtue signaling.

There's no spine in journalism to stand up to the mob.

They are the enemy of the people

[nsacpi]

First one isn't really much of an analysis of the law as much as a run down of voting studied. The second is behind a pay wall.

What is getting to he here is the number of articles taking it as a foregone conclusion the law drastically limits voting, is racist, or is evil in some other way. So few journalists are taking the time to look at the law and put it in context.

Democracy dies in darkness but blinders are far more dangerous. Darkness is obvious. Selective vision is not.

The Times article behind the paywall has this paragraph:

The law does not include some of the harshest restrictions that had been proposed, like a ban on Sunday voting that was seen as an attempt to curtail the role of Black churches in driving turnout. And the legislation now, in fact, expands early voting options in some areas. No-excuse absentee voting, in which voters do not have to provide a rationale for casting a ballot by mail, also remains in place, though it will now entail new restrictions such as providing a state-issued identification card.

So anyhow, I'm a little curious about who is putting out news articles of the kind you describe.

[striker42]

The Times article behind the paywall has this paragraph:

The law does not include some of the harshest restrictions that had been proposed, like a ban on Sunday voting that was seen as an attempt to curtail the role of Black churches in driving turnout. And the legislation now, in fact, expands early voting options in some areas. No-excuse absentee voting, in which voters do not have to provide a rationale for casting a ballot by mail, also remains in place, though it will now entail new restrictions such as providing a state-issued identification card.

So anyhow, I'm a little curious about who is putting out news articles of the kind you describe.

Here's a great example:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/03/polit...law/index.html

"(CNN)Former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump have weighed in on Major League Baseball's decision to move its All-Star Game out of Atlanta in response to Georgia's new sweeping election law that imposes significant new obstacles to voting."

It's an article about what Obama and Trump have said but the writer included the conclusion that the law "imposes significant new obstacles to voting".

9 out of 10 articles on the subject throw out that conclusion as if it's patiently obvious. One thing that any honest analysis of the law would conclude is that the obstacles imposed are not significant.

[nsacpi]

Here's a great example:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/03/polit...law/index.html

"(CNN)Former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump have weighed in on Major League Baseball's decision to move its All-Star Game out of Atlanta in response to Georgia's new sweeping election law that imposes significant new obstacles to voting."

It's an article about what Obama and Trump have said but the writer included the conclusion that the law "imposes significant new obstacles to voting".

9 out of 10 articles on the subject throw out that conclusion as if it's patiently obvious. One thing that any honest analysis of the law would conclude is that the obstacles imposed are not significant.

Yeah, the "significant new obstacles" part is just not an accurate depiction of the new law. There are some new restrictions on use of dropboxes and there is the id requirement. But imo those changes will have minimal effect on people's ability to vote. There are some changes (reassigning some of the Secretary of State's authority to the legislature) that are potentially significant but at this point we just don't know how they will play out.

I do find it disturbing that the new law was used to signal displeasure at Raffensperger for acting in accordance with the law. The guy should be getting a patting in the back not a kick in the shins.

[Carp]

Ah well, those people MLB is trying to help didn't need those jobs anyway following a global recession

Agree 100% here

[striker42]

Question, would MLB have taken the game away from LA, Boston, New York, or Chicago for similar conduct? Somehow I get the feeling that the sacred cows wouldn't be messed with.

It's similar to the Braves getting killed for engaging in conduct Boston got slapped on the wrist for.

[sturg33]

Question, would MLB have taken the game away from LA, Boston, New York, or Chicago for similar conduct? Somehow I get the feeling that the sacred cows wouldn't be messed with.

It's similar to the Braves getting killed for engaging in conduct Boston got slapped on the wrist for.

Hahahahahaha

The enemy of the people would have heralded those states for expanding their voter access.

There would have never been a controversy for MLB to respond to

[thethe]

Yeah, the "significant new obstacles" part is just not an accurate depiction of the new law. There are some new restrictions on use of dropboxes and there is the id requirement. But imo those changes will have minimal effect on people's ability to vote. There are some changes (reassigning some of the Secretary of State's authority to the legislature) that are potentially significant but at this point we just don't know how they will play out.

I do find it disturbing that the new law was used to signal displeasure at Raffensperger for acting in accordance with the law. The guy should be getting a patting in the back not a kick in the shins.

Get a pat on the back for ripping the power away from the people of Georgia and changing voting laws unconstitutionally with Stacey Abrams.

Yeah ok buddy. Keep on being delusional and hoping traditional republicanism is back so your ideological side can wipe the floor with them. What happened to rafflensberger is a sign of the changing times. Be prepared to be very frustrated with who will be running the show in the future.

[sturg33]

Fan suppression is unacceptable

[thethe]

Fan suppression is unacceptable

You mean they are assuming that not all people purchased a ticket for the game? That seems racist.

[thethe]

Bootlicker

[sturg33]

Bootlicker

He is a white supremacist

[thethe]

Elitists from other countries and white women housewives know better.

[Deester11]

He is a white supremacist

Sturg...just because you and thethe make light of racists...it don't mean they don't exist. Or is that a conspiracy?