SectionC3

It's called the presumption of regularity. Elections are presumed to be valid. I don’t have to prove validity. Those challenging the results—the Trumpian crow crowd—has to prove invalidity. So ... think there’s a problem? Have concerns with the process? Gotta show your work. Prove it. Long lines, like Chef Jim Crow likes to point to, don’t support irregularity. We don’t guess that there might be irregularity. We prove it. And the Trump/MAGA/Crow crew can’t do it.

See above. If for example, you signed your name “Buffalo Timmy” and dotted the “i” in the signature on file with the BOE, but didn’t dot the “i” over the signature you applied to the envelope containing your absentee ballot, then, under GA law prior to 2020, the ballot would have been rejected. Does that seem fair? Not to me it doesn’t. And I hardly would characterize the failure to dot the “i” as “fraud or extreme incompetence.” Surely not every dispute is exactly like the one I mentioned, but the reality is that many of them probably were, which gets us back to the “sword” and “shield” points.

And how it historically has been done in Georgia is to throw out the ballot if, for example, somebody dots the “i” in their name in the signature on file, and then doesn’t dot said “i” in the signature on the mailing envelope containing an absentee ballot. No, I don’t have a link, and no, I’m not going to dig it up. But I’ve worked on the issue in the past, and the point that GA historically has used signature match as a sword (to knock out votes) rather than as a shield (to protect the sanctity of an election) is a fair one. It’s not signature match that’s the issue, it’s the degree of similarity required to conclude that a signature “matches.” And GA’s threshold on that front used to be (and may still be) really, really high.

No, you still haven’t answered the question. You spoke of “chaos.” I still see no evidence of chaos. Long lines are not chaos. And, certification takes time. In New York State it takes around a month, and nobody in the history of New York State politics has had a problem with that. So I ask again. Where’s the chaos, and what problem was this law designed to address? Chef Jim Crow, the floor is yours.

Answering a question with a different question or questions is unbecoming. We could get a lot further if you could simply articulate a response to the question on the floor. Simple for some, but not simple for Chef Jim Crow. Ding ding we have a winner. This is the point that Chef Jim Crow refuses to acknowledge. Things, save for attempted/actual Trumpian interference in the count of the ballots cast in the general, went smoothly. The point to be drawn therefrom is that, while there were problems in the primary, the relative smoothness of the general showed that the rules that were in place worked and that there was nothing that required fixing. So what is the impetus for this nonsense bill? Chef Jim Crow and his acolytes are fumbling around on the issue because they don’t have a reasonable answer for the question, other than that the bill is intended to stifle minority vote and put a thumb on the scales for the suburban and rural vote (that is, the Republican vote) in Georgia.

Sorry, Chef Jim Crow. We do one question at a time. You indicated there was “chaos” in the November election in GA. The issue is the “chaos” of which you speak and how your crowy little bill addresses that issue. I thought it would be pretty simple for you to explain as much, but I guess simple for others isn’t so simple for you. And you think you could be my financial adviser . . . .

That's a link. As noted, I don't click on your links because I don't trust them. Could be malware. Could be some weird QAnon thing. Could be an attempt to sell me a MyPillow. Can't take the risk. So, what's your answer, Chef Jim Crow? I have to translate for you all the time, and it's tiresome. I can only assume if you can't type an answer that you don't have one. Which isn't surprising, given your shameful crowy position here. Maybe this type of thing works in your "professional" capacity as a mysterious "financial adviser," but it doesn't fly in the arena of Internet message board randos. No sir. Not a chance. So until you can type an answer and articulate your thoughts, I'll have no choice but to assume that Chef Jim Crow can't answer the question and doesn't have thoughts of his own on this issue. Enjoy your day, Chef Jim Crow.

So ... bottom line is no November chaos. Got it, Chef Jim Crow.

Sorry, Chef Jim Crow. As a matter of practice I don’t click your hoaxy links, and as a practical matter I need not do so here. The text of your link speaks to fears with respect to a November 2020 election to come. It doesn’t appear to address the November election. Of course, you previously indicated that the “chaos” infected the November election. Those with deduction skills can see where this is going. You have no evidence of “chaos” in the November election. The obvious conclusions to be drawn therefrom are that there was no such “chaos,” and (we’ll skip a few obvious steps here) that there was nothing that needed to be fixed. This, of course, leads us back to the point that the GA law was intended not to address a problem. Enjoy the rest of your day, Chef Jim Crow.

Sorry, Chef Jim Crow, but that's not exactly a great answer. What do you mean by "chaos?" If you're referring to Trump's efforts to interfere in the GA count, then I agree with you. The problem is that I'm not exactly sure how this bill addresses that interference-based chaos. Let's start with figuring out what Chef Jim Crow means by "chaos" and then we'll see where we go from there.

Sorry, Chef Jim Crow. The question on the floor is what problem this bill is intended to address. We await your response, cranky crow.

Still a cranky crow, eh?

I think you misspoke. I didn't want to call you Chef Jim Crow. You made me do it. You brought all of this upon yourself with your silly, Crowy views. You left me no choice in the matter whatsoever. If you don't want to be called Chef Jim Crow, then simply renounce Jim Crow policies and actions. Like this lousy new GA law.

Still a cranky crow, I see. Name-calling is never a nice thing. Maybe instead of hurling insults you should reflect for a moment and determine whether you're clearly articulating your positions. I think, if you can take some time away from your mysterious financial business for such a review, you'll find that much of what you write is incomprehensible gibberish, and that it's you, sir, who is the problem here. Or maybe it's that you don't even know what you think and just defer to whatever you hear on Newsmax or from the MyPillowGuy. Probably the latter, but I'll give Chef Jim Crow the benefit of the doubt and hope for the former.

That's not very nice, Chef Jim Crow. You seem to be a bit of a grumpy goat these days. Or, should I say, a cranky crow.

In addition to being lousy at epidemiology, you're also bad at logic. You will defend the right of anyone to vote as long as they are legally allowed to vote. Yet you believe that we should erect a barrier to voting through a "voter ID." So I guess, perhaps, you believe in the right, but you're also fine with making it more difficult to exercise that right. That's almost as convoluted as insisting that HCQ is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Along the HCQ line, any chance you'll be on the front lines of the Trump airlift of all of that excess HCQ to Brazil? It looks like they could use it now. Maybe you could work it out so that it's parachuted into Sao Paulo and just lies about the streets for everyone to pick up and munch. Or, maybe you could mash it up and put it in one of those big sprayer planes and just douse the hot zones with HCQ. Throw in a little Lysol while you're at it. All the fake treatments in one shot. Those are just ideas, of course. I'll leave it to your "expertise" in that field to select the proper course of care. And that's sort of the point, Chef Jim Crow. You support the erection of barriers to voting to address a problem with voting that doesn't exist. Seems like you're in the Wacka boat; he readily admits that the only "problem" this law is intended to address is "one party rule." Personally, rather than trying to disenfranchise people, if I was part of the group that passed this law I might try a moment of introspection and ask myself why my ideas no longer are popular with the majority of the population. But that's not what the MAGA/Republicans decided to do, and it's not what the Crow Crew here thinks is best.

This is especially hoaxy, even for you. I didn't realize that China deceived us about the efficacy of Lysol-to-lung COVID treatments. Sounds like you've had a bit too much hydroxychloroquine today and have become dizzy. Be careful on the roads if you decide to drive.

Tsk, tsk, Chef Jim Crow. Dropping some Q platitude about doing my work doesn’t change the fact that you still cannot identify a problem the GA law was designed to address. That lack of detail is exactly why I can’t hire you as my financial adviser.

You're right. Trying to wish a pandemic away with magic and malarial treatments has caused a big problem. Carry on. I reject your characterization of me as a communist. I note, however, that you agree that the GA law is intended to rig elections in that state. Thank you for your admission. Carry on.

Once again, Chef Jim Crow requires translation. What he meant to communicate is that he still doesn’t have an explanation as to the problem the GA law is intended to address, and he attempts to avoid that issue through deceit. And this guy thought he could be my financial advisor. Perish the thought.

Unfortunately Chef Jim Crow’s latest collection of words and phrases requires additional translation. I’ll help. What Chef Jim Crow intended to communicate is that he has one hilarious nickname and no explanation as to what problem is addressed by the new GA law.

I’ll translate. Chef Jim Crow cannot identify the problem that this law addresses. It’s because there is no real problem. The only “problem” that motivated the drafters is that their side lost.

I still haven't heard from Chef Jim Crow or any of his colleagues as to what problem this law solves. Could it be that the law doesn't solve any problem, and instead is simply a reaction to the voter fraud hoax and the recent statewide Republican/MAGA losses in Georgia? Until I hear otherwise I'll have no choice but to assume that this silly law was driven by that silly hoax and the nefarious desire to suppress the African-American vote for the benefit of MAGA/Republicans. Cheers. Except to the Jim Crow fans here. No cheers for you. Tell that the people who stand in line in Atlanta for several hours to vote on Election Day. Now, thanks to this new Jim Crow law, line warmers can't make their wait easier with such things as the privilege of water.

You’re the only one who brought out the word racist. Just you. It’s nice that you see yourself as empathetic. I hope it’s true. But if it is, it makes your stance with respect to this Georgia nonsense that much more curious. What problem does this Georgia law address?

Let's not change the subject here. I didn't wake up today and say, "I want to give this weird rando on the Internet an incredibly catchy and hilarious nickname." That's not what happened. You made me do this. You made me name you Chef Jim Crow. That's on you. And, to prove the point about your Crowy behavior, the test isn't "only" affects minorities. It's principally affects minorities, or primarily affects minorities, or is targeted at minorities. Kind of like the provision defeating line warmers. Or the part about vesting more power in state election officials. Or the part about limiting remote voting (without basis, I might add)---something in which African-Americans are far more likely to participate. So you have fun doing your Crow thing tonight and reminiscing about the good old days of hoaxes and hydoxychloroquine, and I'll focus on making this country more democratic and honest.