17 Apr 2014, 1:51 pm
17 Apr 2014, 3:22 pm
17 Apr 2014, 3:29 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,649
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
17 Apr 2014, 8:33 pm
Misslizard wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
/\ Yes, and I saw Kraichgauer and therefor I heard "voter suppression" being parroted over and over.
Well, now that you mentioned my name...
Just how can this not be a species of voter suppression if some, but not all, polling place restrooms are closed? Trying to hold it while standing in line certainly might dissuade many from voting. And why on God's green earth would anyone even justify closing access to the toilet for any other reason?
As they say around here,"Speak of the Devil and up he pops."Can't keep a good man down... or a bad one, if you go by Raptor's take on me.
20 Apr 2014, 3:44 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,649
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Apr 2014, 4:16 pm
20 Apr 2014, 9:04 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,649
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Apr 2014, 10:02 pm
20 Apr 2014, 10:44 pm
Read again:
Raptor wrote:
This is only an excerpt from the actual article. As stated, it has nothing whatsoever do do with singling out democrats in a democrat rich district. It's a matter of accessibility and privately owned polling locations. However, I can see the disability nazis (note the callously bold use of repugnant terminology) demanding that only handicapped accessible locations be utilized as polling locations, further limiting the number of available polling locations and no doubt having the effect being labeled as voter suppression. 
Snopes Report:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/restroom.asp
"Emails from a deputy elections supervisor and an assistant county attorney say Miami-Dade voters are banned from using restrooms at polling places. But the chief deputy elections supervisor pooh-poohed the notion.
Number One and Number Two are fine in publicly owned voting sites, such as libraries and city halls,
where bathrooms are open for anyone to use.
The problem might arise when precincts are located in private buildings, which don't have to allow public bathroom access, or in churches and other religious facilities, which are exempt from federal law requiring accessible restrooms for people with disabilities. Elections administrators have long relied on those locations to set up Miami-Dade's more than 500 polling places."
Snopes Report:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/restroom.asp
"Emails from a deputy elections supervisor and an assistant county attorney say Miami-Dade voters are banned from using restrooms at polling places. But the chief deputy elections supervisor pooh-poohed the notion.
Number One and Number Two are fine in publicly owned voting sites, such as libraries and city halls,
where bathrooms are open for anyone to use.
The problem might arise when precincts are located in private buildings, which don't have to allow public bathroom access, or in churches and other religious facilities, which are exempt from federal law requiring accessible restrooms for people with disabilities. Elections administrators have long relied on those locations to set up Miami-Dade's more than 500 polling places."
I'll spell it out:
If it's a privately owned building and not necessarily designed or intended for public use, as many polling locations are, then it's obviously not about cheap-skates.
If I own a building that the supervisor of elections deems usable as a polling location and offers to rent it from me for a few days, the monkey is not on my back to dig into my pockets and pay to make the shitter handicap accessible.
In this case we're talking about Metro Dade County (a huge densely populated area) with over 500 polling locations. Put 2 and 2 together will ya....
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,649
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Apr 2014, 1:14 am
Raptor wrote:
Read again:
I'll spell it out:
If it's a privately owned building and not necessarily designed or intended for public use, as many polling locations are, then it's obviously not about cheap-skates.
If I own a building that the supervisor of elections deems usable as a polling location and offers to rent it from me for a few days, the monkey is not on my back to dig into my pockets and pay to make the shitter handicap accessible.
In this case we're talking about Metro Dade County (a huge densely populated area) with over 500 polling locations. Put 2 and 2 together will ya....
Raptor wrote:
This is only an excerpt from the actual article. As stated, it has nothing whatsoever do do with singling out democrats in a democrat rich district. It's a matter of accessibility and privately owned polling locations. However, I can see the disability nazis (note the callously bold use of repugnant terminology) demanding that only handicapped accessible locations be utilized as polling locations, further limiting the number of available polling locations and no doubt having the effect being labeled as voter suppression.
Snopes Report:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/restroom.asp
"Emails from a deputy elections supervisor and an assistant county attorney say Miami-Dade voters are banned from using restrooms at polling places. But the chief deputy elections supervisor pooh-poohed the notion.
Number One and Number Two are fine in publicly owned voting sites, such as libraries and city halls,
where bathrooms are open for anyone to use.
The problem might arise when precincts are located in private buildings, which don't have to allow public bathroom access, or in churches and other religious facilities, which are exempt from federal law requiring accessible restrooms for people with disabilities. Elections administrators have long relied on those locations to set up Miami-Dade's more than 500 polling places."
Snopes Report:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/restroom.asp
"Emails from a deputy elections supervisor and an assistant county attorney say Miami-Dade voters are banned from using restrooms at polling places. But the chief deputy elections supervisor pooh-poohed the notion.
Number One and Number Two are fine in publicly owned voting sites, such as libraries and city halls,
where bathrooms are open for anyone to use.
The problem might arise when precincts are located in private buildings, which don't have to allow public bathroom access, or in churches and other religious facilities, which are exempt from federal law requiring accessible restrooms for people with disabilities. Elections administrators have long relied on those locations to set up Miami-Dade's more than 500 polling places."
I'll spell it out:
If it's a privately owned building and not necessarily designed or intended for public use, as many polling locations are, then it's obviously not about cheap-skates.
If I own a building that the supervisor of elections deems usable as a polling location and offers to rent it from me for a few days, the monkey is not on my back to dig into my pockets and pay to make the shitter handicap accessible.
In this case we're talking about Metro Dade County (a huge densely populated area) with over 500 polling locations. Put 2 and 2 together will ya....
It's still pretty hard to swallow that they're inconveniencing vulnerable voters just to evade a rule for handicap access. And I'm not buying it. As far as I'm concerned, this is still a means of voter intimidation and suppression hidden beneath the pretext of avoiding shelling out cash for equal access to the sh*tter.
21 Apr 2014, 7:06 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Read again:
I'll spell it out:
If it's a privately owned building and not necessarily designed or intended for public use, as many polling locations are, then it's obviously not about cheap-skates.
If I own a building that the supervisor of elections deems usable as a polling location and offers to rent it from me for a few days, the monkey is not on my back to dig into my pockets and pay to make the shitter handicap accessible.
In this case we're talking about Metro Dade County (a huge densely populated area) with over 500 polling locations. Put 2 and 2 together will ya....
Raptor wrote:
This is only an excerpt from the actual article. As stated, it has nothing whatsoever do do with singling out democrats in a democrat rich district. It's a matter of accessibility and privately owned polling locations. However, I can see the disability nazis (note the callously bold use of repugnant terminology) demanding that only handicapped accessible locations be utilized as polling locations, further limiting the number of available polling locations and no doubt having the effect being labeled as voter suppression.
Snopes Report:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/restroom.asp
"Emails from a deputy elections supervisor and an assistant county attorney say Miami-Dade voters are banned from using restrooms at polling places. But the chief deputy elections supervisor pooh-poohed the notion.
Number One and Number Two are fine in publicly owned voting sites, such as libraries and city halls,
where bathrooms are open for anyone to use.
The problem might arise when precincts are located in private buildings, which don't have to allow public bathroom access, or in churches and other religious facilities, which are exempt from federal law requiring accessible restrooms for people with disabilities. Elections administrators have long relied on those locations to set up Miami-Dade's more than 500 polling places."
Snopes Report:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/restroom.asp
"Emails from a deputy elections supervisor and an assistant county attorney say Miami-Dade voters are banned from using restrooms at polling places. But the chief deputy elections supervisor pooh-poohed the notion.
Number One and Number Two are fine in publicly owned voting sites, such as libraries and city halls,
where bathrooms are open for anyone to use.
The problem might arise when precincts are located in private buildings, which don't have to allow public bathroom access, or in churches and other religious facilities, which are exempt from federal law requiring accessible restrooms for people with disabilities. Elections administrators have long relied on those locations to set up Miami-Dade's more than 500 polling places."
I'll spell it out:
If it's a privately owned building and not necessarily designed or intended for public use, as many polling locations are, then it's obviously not about cheap-skates.
If I own a building that the supervisor of elections deems usable as a polling location and offers to rent it from me for a few days, the monkey is not on my back to dig into my pockets and pay to make the shitter handicap accessible.
In this case we're talking about Metro Dade County (a huge densely populated area) with over 500 polling locations. Put 2 and 2 together will ya....
It's still pretty hard to swallow that they're inconveniencing vulnerable voters just to evade a rule for handicap access. And I'm not buying it. As far as I'm concerned, this is still a means of voter intimidation and suppression hidden beneath the pretext of avoiding shelling out cash for equal access to the sh*tter.
Again, a lot of those buildings are not government owned and are only rented for elections. On top of all we're talking about a very progressive (i.e. liberal democrat) area so I don't think for a skinny minute that the citizens would tolerate "voter suppression". At this point I thnk you're just trying extra hard to be obtuse.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,649
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Apr 2014, 10:56 am
21 Apr 2014, 11:15 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
^^^
Conservatives can't live in liberal areas? I tend to think business people who rent out such properties would tend to be more conservative than most others in said area.
Conservatives can't live in liberal areas? I tend to think business people who rent out such properties would tend to be more conservative than most others in said area.
So what are you saying?
1. They should only rent from liberal owners?
2. They are only renting from conservative co-conspirators
that have secretly agreed to lock the restrooms just to "suppress" the voters in that district?
Get a grip.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,649
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Apr 2014, 11:20 am
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
^^^
Conservatives can't live in liberal areas? I tend to think business people who rent out such properties would tend to be more conservative than most others in said area.
Conservatives can't live in liberal areas? I tend to think business people who rent out such properties would tend to be more conservative than most others in said area.
So what are you saying?
1. They should only rent from liberal owners?
2. They are only renting from conservative co-conspirators
that have secretly agreed to lock the restrooms just to "suppress" the voters in that district?Get a grip.
No, I'm saying the damn bathrooms shouldn't be locked.
21 Apr 2014, 11:45 am
1. In SOME buildings the bathrooms are locked OUTSIDE the control of the supervisor of elections.
2. In SOME buildings that do not have handicapped accessible restrooms the disability nazis have raised a fuss and caused the restrooms to be locked out of some kind of BS fairness decision.
Making the assertion that either or both 1 and 2 are actually a front for a darker hidden agenda of "voter suppression" is delusional plain and simple.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,649
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Apr 2014, 12:09 pm
Raptor wrote:
:wall:
1. In SOME buildings the bathrooms are locked OUTSIDE the control of the supervisor of elections.
2. In SOME buildings that do not have handicapped accessible restrooms the disability nazis have raised a fuss and caused the restrooms to be locked out of some kind of BS fairness decision.
Making the assertion that either or both 1 and 2 are actually a front for a darker hidden agenda of "voter suppression" is delusional plain and simple.
1. In SOME buildings the bathrooms are locked OUTSIDE the control of the supervisor of elections.
2. In SOME buildings that do not have handicapped accessible restrooms the disability nazis have raised a fuss and caused the restrooms to be locked out of some kind of BS fairness decision.
Making the assertion that either or both 1 and 2 are actually a front for a darker hidden agenda of "voter suppression" is delusional plain and simple.
Maybe not every case is the same. But where there is a concern for the well being of the handicapped, and restroom facilities are closed to them, a red light goes off in my head.
And disability Nazis? Why not just call MLK a civil rights Nazi?!?!
