259
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
259 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19148 readers
1922 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What how is this not the headline? JFC, it's sort of an important point that SHE was the one who questioned her own citizenship.
If you read the article, though, she says she called in and said she couldn't do jury duty because she was taking care of young children (which is a valid excuse in many states). The person on the other end of the phone probably checked the wrong box on a form.
Which happens, as mistakes do, but the law in Texas states particular remedies for that, and those laws were not followed.
It all turned out OK in the end, this lady got use vote back due to the diligence of the press. She will likely use it to continue to vote for policies that make it harder for others to vote (and stay registered to vote), unironically.
It’s by her account that she had called in and that’s how she got flagged. I’m a bit disinclined to take her word for it.
Why would you not believe her? Lying to get out of jury duty is generally a crime. Why would she lie when she had a valid excuse?
And even if you did not believe her, the whole point of the opposition to these voter laws is that citizens have an inherent right to vote that shouldn't be taken away by the bureaucracy. And you can't just waive your citizenship because you said you weren't a citizen one time. Even if she tried to get out of jury duty by lying about her citizenship, that shouldn't affect her eligibility to vote at all. (Depending on the severity of the crime and the state laws, she might become ineligible after being convicted, but that will take a while and it will likely never get that far.)
The sad irony of this is that her story highlights all the worst parts of these voter laws, yet she will still continue to support them, because she believes the lies regarding illegals voting.
The reason it did affect her ability to vote is because it’s Texas and their government has been trying to go after as many people as possible and so would rather take down a few of their own than allow even one vote to go “the wrong way”. These are not smart or good people we’re talking about.
So she does have a motivation to lie now when she lied back then.
Nah, she still thinks that because she is white that it should've never happened.
Why would you take her word for it and assume the clerk made a mistake?
For the same reason non batshit-crazy people realize that illegals are not voting in droves: lying to the court is a serious crime, just like lying to register to vote is a crime. Why would she lie when she had a perfectly valid excuse?
Hahahahaha, good one.
Someone whose logic results in voting for Trump is clearly going to make logical decisions in court. Yeah, that is more plausible than the person assuming there would be no way to verify their story.
Because she thinks her skin color will protect her.
Is this just your guess? Are you making random excuses for this asshole? Oh no, this trumper could never have lied to get out of jury duty and fucked her chance to vote, it MUST have been someone else's fault. Jesus Christ. Stop making excuses for these lying idiots.
Look, we just how how much these folks fetishize citizenship status. They think the illegals are flooding in and eating their cats. Do you honestly think one would pose as a non-citizen just to get out of jury duty, particularly when they have a valid excuse anyway?
If you are going out of your way to find ill intent, look to the clerk at the other end of that phone line. Because it could have been a simple "tick the wrong box" mistake. Or, it could have been an overachiever who assumes that anyone who wants out of jury duty is probably one of those cat eaters. How many other people did s/he tick the "not a citizen" box for?
And regardless, when the lady presented the proper proof she still got stonewalled until the journalist got involved. I bet any other people who got this treatment didn't have the white connections to get it resolved properly.