American Politics IV: 1400 Reasons Why(A Stimulus Serial)

[Tyunmen]

After 80ish failed lawsuits over the matter; voter id will not solve the problem as there was little if any voter fraud. Take away the republican voter fraud; even less actual fraud.

I will make it simple for you. When there is enough voter fraud to threaten the outcome of an election; by all means we should secure it.

The fact the ex-president lost is NOT an indication of voter fraud.

He lost. Accept it and move on.

I think I see you did address my post and points. There was little if any voter fraud - thank you for at least recognizing their was at least certain vote fraud by the Democrats against Republican President Trump.

That's not what we said. We said that they IS voter-fraud, in general, NOT voter fraud against Donald Trump.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I think I see you did address my post and points. There was little if any voter fraud - thank you for at least recognizing their was at least certain vote fraud by the Democrats against Republican President Trump.

That's not what we said. We said that they IS voter-fraud, in general, NOT voter fraud against Donald Trump.

awh good one, I'm having a lol attack at the contexts of your post.

[Tyunmen]

That's not what we said. We said that they IS voter-fraud, in general, NOT voter fraud against Donald Trump.

awh good one, I'm having a lol attack at the contexts of your post.

you are just saying 'I am having a lol attack' and not actually addressing the post?

[Greater Miami Shores]

awh good one, I'm having a lol attack at the contexts of your post.

you are just saying 'I am having a lol attack' and not actually addressing the post?

ok I will address the post, so you are saying there was at least some vote fraud against certain Republicans but not against Republican President Trump, which many or certain Democrat Politicians hate the most, lol I'm having a lol attack at the context of your post, if this is what you are saying or implying.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Well considering you believe everything the ex-president says; I can understand why you don’t see a problem with conspiracies and loose fact checking.

You and you guys say I never post an anti Trump Post, but you guys never Post a Pro Trump Post, so we are even. Do you and you guys ever believe anything Republican President Trump said and says?

This isn't true though. Many people on NSG praised Trumps general foreign policy choices and his Supreme Court picks also got a lot of support here. You're the only one locked into a mindset of one side always being wrong no matter what.

[Kowani]

it's not just "uncommon"
it flat out doesn't happen. They've looked for it for decades, under immense political pressure, and in no election in the modern era has anyone found any.
At least, not the kind that would be prevented by voter ID.
the Chicago case was unique, because it took place in 1983, predating modern election security measures by decades. And even looking into the details, it wouldn't have been entirely prevented by voter ID either (though some of it would).

EDIT: it appears gallo has mentioned another chicago election that was marred by corruption, i believe his is the correct one

welcome to the modern GOP, where everything is a purity test


you're correct, they wouldn't
the actual intention is much more cynical: it just so happens that non-white voters in georgia (who overwhelmingly vote democratic) have much less polling places, and much longer lines
now why would people living in a hot state waiting an hour to vote need water in line?
seems like a mystery to me

Well again, I still stand by the voter ID. Without voter ID I believe there would indeed be voter fraud. To me, if there is no recorded voter fraud if anything look at it as (as far as the fraud prevention goes) the system works. Hence leave it as.

so let me get this straight
despite the fact that there was no fraud in the georgia runoffs or general election, which largely used vote-by-mail procedures, which did not require voter ID until this law, you want new voter ID restrictions...to prevent fraud

Now back to the hand-outs. I do follow the “no money” clause. The food and water inclusion?... honestly that just sounds petty. When I read that it was the first word to come to mind. Petty.
Just to clarify is that restricted to voter personnel (workers I mean) from handing things out or is one not even allowed to bring a drink to someone who’s in line when they text you or?...

I mean that is ridiculous I’m just curious as to how nit-picky it is.

it's restricted to...everyone
poll-workers and outside groups

[North Washington Republic]

You and you guys say I never post an anti Trump Post, but you guys never Post a Pro Trump Post, so we are even. Do you and you guys ever believe anything Republican President Trump said and says?

This isn't true though. Many people on NSG praised Trumps general foreign policy choices and his Supreme Court picks also got a lot of support here. You're the only one locked into a mindset of one side always being wrong no matter what.

Many people on the left loved Trump’s foreign policy. Paleocons and progressives have quite a bit of common ground when it comes to foreign policy...

Now..”Neocon” hawks like me...not so much.

[The Black Forrest]

After 80ish failed lawsuits over the matter; voter id will not solve the problem as there was little if any voter fraud. Take away the republican voter fraud; even less actual fraud.

I will make it simple for you. When there is enough voter fraud to threaten the outcome of an election; by all means we should secure it.

The fact the ex-president lost is NOT an indication of voter fraud.

He lost. Accept it and move on.

I think I see you did not address my post and points. There was little if any voter fraud - thank you for at least recognizing their was at least certain vote fraud by the Democrats against Republican President Trump.

Your points were probably specious at best.

And again. NOBODY denied voter fraud happens. As you have been told over and over and over and over and over and over and over; there isn’t enough to change the outcome of an election.

There isn’t a democrats effort to stage voter fraud.....even if there was; it was so minuscule; they failed horribly.

Your guy lost; he FAILED! He is a one term president. At least he will be remembered versus the other one term presidents.....though it will be for the level of ineptitude and his cruel and vindictive nature.

[North Washington Republic]

I think I see you did not address my post and points. There was little if any voter fraud - thank you for at least recognizing their was at least certain vote fraud by the Democrats against Republican President Trump.

Your points were probably specious at best.

And again. NOBODY denied voter fraud happens. As you have been told over and over and over and over and over and over and over; there isn’t enough to change the outcome of an election.

There isn’t a democrats effort to stage voter fraud.....even if there was; it was so minuscule; they failed horribly.

Your guy lost; he FAILED! He is a one term president. At least he will be remembered versus the other one term presidents.....though it will be for the level of ineptitude and his cruel and vindictive nature.

I was told many times by Trump supporters that I have “ Trump derangement syndrome“ during his time in office. However, even after four months after the election, they can’t accept the reality that Trump lost in a free and fair election.

[Greater Miami Shores]

You and you guys say I never post an anti Trump Post, but you guys never Post a Pro Trump Post, so we are even. Do you and you guys ever believe anything Republican President Trump said and says?

That actually doesn’t address their point. It’s not about pro or anti so much as you have literally said you will deliberately accept any words that come out of Trump’s mouth. We have every reason to reject your attempts to claim much of anything.

We have reasons to reject Democrat Talking Points from Democrat Politicians and Pro Democrat leftists media against Republican President Trump and the Republicans.

[North Washington Republic]

That actually doesn’t address their point. It’s not about pro or anti so much as you have literally said you will deliberately accept any words that come out of Trump’s mouth. We have every reason to reject your attempts to claim much of anything.

We have reasons to reject Democrat Talking Points from Democrat Politicians and Pro Democrat leftists media against Republican President Trump and the Republicans.

Talk about living in your safe space.

[The Black Forrest]

Your points were probably specious at best.

And again. NOBODY denied voter fraud happens. As you have been told over and over and over and over and over and over and over; there isn’t enough to change the outcome of an election.

There isn’t a democrats effort to stage voter fraud.....even if there was; it was so minuscule; they failed horribly.

Your guy lost; he FAILED! He is a one term president. At least he will be remembered versus the other one term presidents.....though it will be for the level of ineptitude and his cruel and vindictive nature.

I was told many times by Trump supporters that I have “ Trump derangement syndrome“ during his time in office. However, even after four months after the election, they can’t accept the reality that Trump lost in a free and fair election.

Indeed. Some have an odd mindset. I have seen it over the news and even in person. Debate them on some of the “claims” especially the outlandish ones and if you get them to where they need to offer proof; it’s like their mind hit a checksum error and they reset and start the same comments again.

[Zurkir]

Well again, I still stand by the voter ID. Without voter ID I believe there would indeed be voter fraud. To me, if there is no recorded voter fraud if anything look at it as (as far as the fraud prevention goes) the system works. Hence leave it as.

so let me get this straight
despite the fact that there was no fraud in the georgia runoffs or general election, which largely used vote-by-mail procedures, which did not require voter ID until this law, you want new voter ID restrictions...to prevent fraud

Well let’s look at it this way: Voter ID is already in place. As there is no fraud on a difference-making level that obviously means that the voting system we have in place works. If the system was flawed and unbalanced there would be no hiding it and it would need to be repaired or scrapped and replaced.

I’d think that as someone who believes in there being no fraud you’d support the voter system that’s keeping it in check. Why - oh why - get rid of voter ID that is a part of this system and effectively alter said system?

That aside - why so hung up on getting rid of voter ID? I’ve never understood that in general. Is it part of the trending of “it’s old and outdated so get rid of it”? I mean why specifically voter ID, why not ID systems in general then if it’s just a pointless hassle?

The only thing I’m really defending right now to the fullest is voter ID. Not that entire bill/legislation.

[The Black Forrest]

so let me get this straight
despite the fact that there was no fraud in the georgia runoffs or general election, which largely used vote-by-mail procedures, which did not require voter ID until this law, you want new voter ID restrictions...to prevent fraud

Well let’s look at it this way: Voter ID is already in place. As there is no fraud on a difference-making level that obviously means that the voting system we have in place works. If the system was flawed and unbalanced there would be no hiding it and it would need to be repaired or scrapped and replaced.

I’d think that as someone who believes in there being no fraud you’d support the voter system that’s keeping it in check. Why - oh why - get rid of voter ID that is a part of this system and effectively alter said system?

That aside - why so hung up on getting rid of voter ID? I’ve never understood that in general. Is it part of the trending of “it’s old and outdated so get rid of it”? I mean why specifically voter ID, why not ID systems in general then if it’s just a pointless hassle?

The only thing I’m really defending right now to the fullest is voter ID. Not that entire bill/legislation.

Because the days of a simple paper ballot are over.

As mentioned in the previous comment; how did the state have me logged for receiving two ballots and knew the one I used to vote?

Ballots have to be signed and they go to the mail address we live.

I am not seeing how voter id save elections.....

[Zurkir]

Well let’s look at it this way: Voter ID is already in place. As there is no fraud on a difference-making level that obviously means that the voting system we have in place works. If the system was flawed and unbalanced there would be no hiding it and it would need to be repaired or scrapped and replaced.

I’d think that as someone who believes in there being no fraud you’d support the voter system that’s keeping it in check. Why - oh why - get rid of voter ID that is a part of this system and effectively alter said system?

That aside - why so hung up on getting rid of voter ID? I’ve never understood that in general. Is it part of the trending of “it’s old and outdated so get rid of it”? I mean why specifically voter ID, why not ID systems in general then if it’s just a pointless hassle?

The only thing I’m really defending right now to the fullest is voter ID. Not that entire bill/legislation.

Because the days of a simple paper ballot are over.

As mentioned in the previous comment; how did the state have me logged for receiving two ballots and knew the one I used to vote?

Ballots have to be signed and they go to the mail address we live.

I am not seeing how voter id save elections.....

And I am not seeing why it’s something that’s curiously has this rather rabid collective out to trash it. There are a lot of things that it could be argued have no real reason to have an ID if one sat down and really analyzed them and pondered it.

I won’t pretend to be an expert here. But me showing an ID when I show up to vote isn’t this huge hassle (nor is it as terrible a hassle to get aside from being an annoying inconvenience of sort). And like I said, this rather fanatical push to do away with it I just find eyebrow-raising.

[Greater Miami Shores]

We have reasons to reject Democrat Talking Points from Democrat Politicians and Pro Democrat leftists media against Republican President Trump and the Republicans.

Talk about living in your safe space.

1 - There aren't Republican Talking Points against Democrats?
2 - There aren't right wing news media Talking Points against Democrats?
3 - There aren't Democrat Talking Points against Republicans and President Trump?
4 - There aren't leftist news media Talking Points against Republicans and President Trump?

1 - I say Yes there are.
2 - I say Yes there are.
3 - I say Yes there are.
4 - I say Yes there are.

What do you say Yes or No and your comments?
What do any of you say Yes or No and your comments?
I thank all of your for answering my questions with a Yes or No and your comments?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

That actually doesn’t address their point. It’s not about pro or anti so much as you have literally said you will deliberately accept any words that come out of Trump’s mouth. We have every reason to reject your attempts to claim much of anything.

We have reasons to reject Democrat Talking Points from Democrat Politicians and Pro Democrat leftists media against Republican President Trump and the Republicans.

You might well have ‘reasons’ in much the same way that a toddler has ‘reasons’ to break a flowerpot.

They exist? Sure.

They make Sense? Only to you.

[Kowani]

so let me get this straight
despite the fact that there was no fraud in the georgia runoffs or general election, which largely used vote-by-mail procedures, which did not require voter ID until this law, you want new voter ID restrictions...to prevent fraud

Well let’s look at it this way: Voter ID is already in place. As there is no fraud on a difference-making level that obviously means that the voting system we have in place works. If the system was flawed and unbalanced there would be no hiding it and it would need to be repaired or scrapped and replaced.

voter ID is in place in some circumstance
what i object to here is placing onerous voter ID requirements on a process that did not previously have it and suffered no fraud

I’d think that as someone who believes in there being no fraud you’d support the voter system that’s keeping it in check. Why - oh why - get rid of voter ID that is a part of this system and effectively alter said system?

That aside - why so hung up on getting rid of voter ID? I’ve never understood that in general. Is it part of the trending of “it’s old and outdated so get rid of it”? I mean why specifically voter ID, why not ID systems in general then if it’s just a pointless hassle?

you misunderstand
the problem is not "Voter ID in principle"
the problem is "voter ID in the hands of the Republicans"
you see, they have a history of...abusing it
as the courts found, "targeting blacks with almost surgical precison"
and considering that the rest of this bill has been in egregiously bad faith, there's no indication to believe that they would flip on this particular issue

[Zurkir]

Well let’s look at it this way: Voter ID is already in place. As there is no fraud on a difference-making level that obviously means that the voting system we have in place works. If the system was flawed and unbalanced there would be no hiding it and it would need to be repaired or scrapped and replaced.

voter ID is in place in some circumstance
what i object to here is placing onerous voter ID requirements on a process that did not previously have it and suffered no fraud

I’d think that as someone who believes in there being no fraud you’d support the voter system that’s keeping it in check. Why - oh why - get rid of voter ID that is a part of this system and effectively alter said system?

That aside - why so hung up on getting rid of voter ID? I’ve never understood that in general. Is it part of the trending of “it’s old and outdated so get rid of it”? I mean why specifically voter ID, why not ID systems in general then if it’s just a pointless hassle?

you misunderstand
the problem is not "Voter ID in principle"
the problem is "voter ID in the hands of the Republicans"
you see, they have a history of...abusing it
as the courts found, "targeting blacks with almost surgical precison"
and considering that the rest of this bill has been in egregiously bad faith, there's no indication to believe that they would flip on this particular issue

Well as for the rest of the bill, as you can look back I had my points of agreement and condemnation. But there are points I disagree with in it. As for Voter ID, ceasing fire. I was mostly flying my banner for it on principle, as for VID with Republicans... well, not getting in to that.

[Neutraligon]

voter ID is in place in some circumstance
what i object to here is placing onerous voter ID requirements on a process that did not previously have it and suffered no fraud
you misunderstand
the problem is not "Voter ID in principle"
the problem is "voter ID in the hands of the Republicans"
you see, they have a history of...abusing it
as the courts found, "targeting blacks with almost surgical precison"
and considering that the rest of this bill has been in egregiously bad faith, there's no indication to believe that they would flip on this particular issue

Well as for the rest of the bill, as you can look back I had my points of agreement and condemnation. But there are points I disagree with in it. As for Voter ID, ceasing fire. I was mostly flying my banner for it on principle, as for VID with Republicans... well, not getting in to that.

I would have no problem with voter ID, if the IDs where free and easy to get both in terms of requirements and in terms of time needed to get them. Unfortunately in the US they are not free, tend to have onerous and costly paperwork to get, and are not easy to get time/transportation wise. Because of this voter ID laws act as a poll tax on the poor and particularly on African Americans who are less likely to have the paperwork needed to get the IDs.

[Drongonia]

Well as for the rest of the bill, as you can look back I had my points of agreement and condemnation. But there are points I disagree with in it. As for Voter ID, ceasing fire. I was mostly flying my banner for it on principle, as for VID with Republicans... well, not getting in to that.

I would have no problem with voter ID, if the IDs where free and easy to get both in terms of requirements and in terms of time needed to get them. Unfortunately in the US they are not free, tend to have onerous and costly paperwork to get, and are not easy to get time/transportation wise. Because of this voter ID laws act as a poll tax on the poor and particularly on African Americans who are less likely to have the paperwork needed to get the IDs.

Surely it can't be that hard. It's only a cursory form of ID, but here in NZ every registered voter is sent an EasyVote card prior to an election. You take the card, give it to the guy/gal, vote and then leave. (Yes, you can go without it). Even then if you went with a more identity enforcing system, how hard would it be to ask an adult to present their drivers licence/passport/birth certificate/work ID at the voting booth?

[Kowani]

I would have no problem with voter ID, if the IDs where free and easy to get both in terms of requirements and in terms of time needed to get them. Unfortunately in the US they are not free, tend to have onerous and costly paperwork to get, and are not easy to get time/transportation wise. Because of this voter ID laws act as a poll tax on the poor and particularly on African Americans who are less likely to have the paperwork needed to get the IDs.

Surely it can't be that hard. It's only a cursory form of ID, but here in NZ every registered voter is sent an EasyVote card prior to an election. You take the card, give it to the guy/gal, vote and then leave. (Yes, you can go without it). Even then if you went with a more identity enforcing system, how hard would it be to ask an adult to present their drivers licence/passport/birth certificate/work ID at the voting booth?

the problem (one of the problems)-as has been documented earlier-is that one of the political parties has a vested interest (and known strategy) to target making the type of ID's that are acceptable for voting to ones more commonly used by certain demographic groups that coincidentally happen to vote for them-and then making it harder to acquire those ID's in the first place

[Eahland]

so let me get this straight
despite the fact that there was no fraud in the georgia runoffs or general election, which largely used vote-by-mail procedures, which did not require voter ID until this law, you want new voter ID restrictions...to prevent fraud

Well let’s look at it this way: Voter ID is already in place. As there is no fraud on a difference-making level that obviously means that the voting system we have in place works. If the system was flawed and unbalanced there would be no hiding it and it would need to be repaired or scrapped and replaced.

I’d think that as someone who believes in there being no fraud you’d support the voter system that’s keeping it in check. Why - oh why - get rid of voter ID that is a part of this system and effectively alter said system?

That aside - why so hung up on getting rid of voter ID? I’ve never understood that in general. Is it part of the trending of “it’s old and outdated so get rid of it”? I mean why specifically voter ID, why not ID systems in general then if it’s just a pointless hassle?

The only thing I’m really defending right now to the fullest is voter ID. Not that entire bill/legislation.

Voter ID laws are not actually about identifying voters, and don't prevent the fraud that basically doesn't exist in the first place. They're effectively and intentionally a poll tax and a bunch of other hurdles installed to prevent marginalized citizens - who overwhelmingly vote blue - from being able to vote.

I described some pages back some of the issues I had with getting ID under the new guidelines. And I'm, again, a middle-aged white landowner with ancestors who literally came over on the Mayflower. I'm just a weird corner case in some ways, and the regulations do not make allowance for weird corner cases. If I didn't actually own my house, I would not have been able to get ID. If Mom hadn't known which box my birth certificate was in, I would not have been able to get ID. If my parents hadn't recently moved back in-state, I would have at least been significantly delayed in being able to get ID.

For people who don't have my advantages, who don't have permanent addresses or access to various original documents - perhaps because they're gay or trans teens who have been disowned and thrown out of their home - things like this can be insurmountable obstacles. For people who don't have need of a driver's license - say, poor urbanites who take mass transit everywhere - having to pay for an ID just to be able to vote can be a serious economic hardship.

Because, oh yeah, the price was about 50% higher than it was with the perfectly fine driver's licenses we had before, and it now apparently takes months for the ID to be delivered by mail instead of being printed on the spot. What's that, you don't have a mailing address?

[Neutraligon]

I would have no problem with voter ID, if the IDs where free and easy to get both in terms of requirements and in terms of time needed to get them. Unfortunately in the US they are not free, tend to have onerous and costly paperwork to get, and are not easy to get time/transportation wise. Because of this voter ID laws act as a poll tax on the poor and particularly on African Americans who are less likely to have the paperwork needed to get the IDs.

Surely it can't be that hard. It's only a cursory form of ID, but here in NZ every registered voter is sent an EasyVote card prior to an election. You take the card, give it to the guy/gal, vote and then leave. (Yes, you can go without it). Even then if you went with a more identity enforcing system, how hard would it be to ask an adult to present their drivers licence/passport/birth certificate/work ID at the voting booth?

It can be. The most common form of license in the US is a driver's license or a simple ID similar to a driver's license. To get these licenses you need to go to your state DMV. If you want something called a real ID, which can be used for air travel within the US, then you need
1 of
(a current US passport, birth certificate, certificate of citizenship, certificate of naturalization, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, Permanent Resident Card, Employment Authorization Card, Foreign Passport with unexpired visa and valid I-94 issued by DHS)
An African American would most likely only have 1 of the first 2, but to get a passport you need either the birth certificate or a government issued ID (like a driver's license among other things). A passport can easily cost more then 100 dollars, and for those living paycheck to paycheck that is a lot of money. To get a birth certificate it costs around 30 dollars to get the first copy. You also need to bring in 1 of the following (Social Security Card, a recent W2, a 1099 form, or a paystub). Then you must also prove that you live in the state which can be very hard for the homeless.

So you need all those documents, and then you need to get to the DMV. Problem is most DMVs have shitty hours and long lines, and a lot of the ones that are issuing IDs are some distance away since they need space for the driver's course. So now you have the issue of getting there. Better hope that you have friends who can drive you, there is good public transportation, or a taxi service. The later 2 of course add more cost to the already expensive ID. Then of course you have to wait in line at the DMV, which is infamous for how long the lines are. And of course there is the fee for the license, which is an additional 40 dollars depending on where you live. So most likely you would have had to take a day off from work that you cannot afford to get a license to vote that is already expensive.

[Kowani]

Amazon asks the SEC to prevent an investigation of its covid safety practices

As Amazon tries to beat back a union drive and silence critics of its labor practices, the retail behemoth is now asking the Biden administration to help quash a shareholder initiative demanding the company publicly disclose what it has done to protect its workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The company’s request comes as federal investigators have seen a spike in complaints by Amazon workers during the pandemic. [...] The company has consistently faced scrutiny over how it has responded to COVID. In February, New York’s attorney general filed a lawsuit arguing that, since the start of the pandemic, “Amazon has failed and continues to fail to provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health, and safety of its employees.” The lawsuit says the company illegally retaliated against workers raising concerns about their safety. Amazon responded by suing the attorney general in an attempt to block the case.

Now, Amazon wants President Joe Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to allow the company to ignore major shareholders demanding management publicly detail their efforts to protect workers from the coronavirus strain that led to a boost in company business and a bump in its stock price. Bezos has seen his net worth increase by $58 billion since the pandemic started, while nearly twenty thousand Amazon workers were infected by last September.

Amazon’s request comes as federal records show it has lobbied on Republican legislation to shield corporations from COVID-related lawsuits. Bezos is a member of the Business Roundtable, which continues to press Congress to enact such liability shields. As the pandemic raged in the winter, New York City comptroller Scott Stringer filed a shareholder resolution demanding Amazon produce a report for the company’s annual meeting next year reviewing “the adequacy of Amazon’s efforts to reduce or mitigate health and safety risks from the coronavirus pandemic.”

The resolution was filed on behalf of the New York City Teachers’ Retirement System, Employees’ Retirement System, and Board of Education Retirement System. Those systems together owned more than half a million shares of Amazon stock as of November 2019.

“The New York City pension funds have repeatedly called for transparency regarding the adequacy of Amazon’s efforts to protect workers’ health and safety amid the rise of COVID-19,” Stringer said in a statement provided to the Daily Poster. “There is a massive disconnect between what Amazon management says it’s doing to keep workers safe and what those workers are reporting — and investors have a right to information concerning Amazon’s business practices and the success of the company’s efforts to protect its workforce.”

Amazon is now asking the SEC to support its move to omit the resolution from a list of proposals that will be presented at the company’s annual shareholder meeting this spring.

The SEC has not yet issued a ruling.

In a statement attached to the shareholder resolution, Stringer outlined his concerns with a lack of transparency around worker safety at Amazon.

“Even pre-pandemic, long-term investors questioned the sustainability of Amazon’s business model, which emphasizes productivity, notwithstanding its reportedly negative effects on worker health and safety,” the statement said. Additionally, Stringer noted that investors had called on Amazon, “fruitlessly, to report at the 2020 annual meeting on the performance metrics it used to oversee the effectiveness of Amazon’s COVID response.” As injury rates rose among Amazon warehouse workers each year between 2016 and 2019, the company “profoundly misled the public and lawmakers about its record on worker safety,” according to reporting from the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Since the start of the pandemic, Amazon has faced persistent questions about how it has responded to COVID, and the company has responded by cracking down on workers who speak out about health and safety concerns. One year ago, Amazon fired Christian Smalls, a New York warehouse worker who was organizing a walkout to demand greater workplace protections against COVID.

On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has received at least thirty-seven complaints accusing Amazon of interfering with workers’ rights to organize or form a union since February last year, when the pandemic was starting to spread in the United States. The number of such complaints filed against Amazon tripled between 2019 and 2020, according to NBC, and the NLRB is now considering a rare move to combine the cases into a consolidated complaint against Amazon.

Recently, the company’s flacks have started getting defensive with Democratic lawmakers on social media. According to a report from Recode, the strategy came about after Bezos “expressed dissatisfaction in recent weeks that company officials weren’t more aggressive in how they pushed back against criticisms of the company that he and other leaders deem inaccurate or misleading.”

“You don’t really believe the peeing in bottles thing, do you?” the Amazon News Twitter account wrote to Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., last week. “If that were true, nobody would work for us.”

The Intercept quickly published internal company documents showing that Amazon is well aware that its delivery drivers often end up urinating in bottles. Workers say it happens because of impossible quotas from management.

Last May, more than a dozen state attorneys general sent a letter to Amazon demanding data on the number of employees who had been infected with COVID or died. Amazon released data in October which showed that nearly twenty thousand employees had contracted COVID between March 1 and September 19, but declined to provide any further breakdown of when and where the cases occurred.

According to Stringer’s statement on the shareholder proposal, “Independent scientists criticized [that report] for not disclosing overall trends and for comparing infection rates for workers to the general population, which has proportionately more vulnerable individuals. The report also failed to identify hotspots, trends by job or facility category, or to discuss rates for delivery driver contractors.”

Instead of compiling the report requested by Stringer and the city pension funds, Amazon is seeking to withhold the resolution from a shareholder vote, claiming that it has already “substantially implemented” the proposal by instituting “more than 150 significant process changes to make sure we are keeping our teams safe throughout each day, including new social distancing measures and enhanced cleaning and sanitizing across every site.” Further, Amazon lawyers wrote: “As the company reaffirmed in its Amazon Global Human Rights Principles, the company strives to be the most safety-centric organization in the world.”

Amazon’s “Global Human Rights Principles” is just a statement on the company’s website where it says things like: “We strive to be the most safety-centric organization in the world.” It also asserts there that “the health, wellness, and safety of our workers is our number one priority.”

Nevertheless, Amazon was able to use this statement as justification to shut down a separate worker safety initiative last year — a resolution demanding the company produce a detailed plan for “ensuring safe and healthy workplaces; prohibiting discrimination and retaliation (and) affirming the right of workers to form and join trade unions and bargain collectively.”

President Donald Trump’s appointees at the SEC allowed Amazon to prevent a shareholder vote on the measure. Amazon secured that rejection around the same time that the company was illegally interrogating a warehouse worker for leading a walkout in Queens, according to NLRB documents reviewed by Vice. Responding to the new resolution from Stringer, Amazon’s lawyers say that demanding a report on its COVID response is an unacceptable intrusion into the company’s “ordinary business operations.”

Amazon also argued the Stringer resolution would interfere with Amazon’s “litigation strategy and pending legal and investigative proceedings.”

The lawyers wrote that the company “is currently defending itself against a number of lawsuits alleging, among other things, inadequate health and safety measures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

They added that the company is also “the subject of an investigation by, and has received an investigative subpoena and investigative interrogatories from, the California Attorney General” regarding how it has protected workers from COVID.