A high profile lib already lost an election by just one vote...I believe the count was 5 to 4. The Conservative court didn't want the people's votes to be counted. Yeah, you guys have a long distinguished history of voter suppression.
Printable View
A high profile lib already lost an election by just one vote...I believe the count was 5 to 4. The Conservative court didn't want the people's votes to be counted. Yeah, you guys have a long distinguished history of voter suppression.
Looove how this thread is just running off the rails :p
Hey here is a random thought libs what about absentee ballots? All done by mail, with no ID needed.
Why can't these poor disenfranchised voters just mail their damn vote in. #logic #tryitsometime
I didn't understand any of it!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTB
Erika is my favorite Republican.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erika1487
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
I don't know about libs, but I personally have reservations about any sort of mail in or on-line balloting. Both are much more open to fraud. To relate it to a previous poster's point there is no profit in in-person voter fraud...that's why there isn't any to speak of. However, one can easily buy mail-in and on-line votes and verify that the voter indeed voted as agreed. There is a real potential for profit in political power. On the other hand, the military votes mainly by mail, many elderly vote by mail and of course the handicapped and infirm vote largely by mail. But the new photo ID laws do nothing to address this issue, they are about suppressing the vote at the polls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erika1487
But it's a nice idea Ericka. Do those votes actually get counted or do they hold them in reserve to break ties?:)
Thank you :DQuote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
I see what you did there well played Trish :p In my experiance the last few years Ohio has streamlined the absentee voting process making the ballot easier to read and count! It was only just a few years ago that a large portion of Ohio absentee ballots where punch cards, which resulted in many votes getting tossed for 'hanging chads' 'I.e the 2004 recount.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
~bump~Quote:
Originally Posted by francisfkudrow
Gave up on the O'Keefe vids, eh? You couldn't actually find anyone dumb enough to risk 5 years in the can and a $10k fine for vote fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTB
You and the kneeler continue to cite bullshit sources, while failing to rationally refute any of the info that's been presented in this thread. Both of you are now citing claims (that's claims, not facts) from the so-called 'Minnesota Majority', a far right (OMK doesn't even name his source and falsely calls them independent) group whose findings have been questioned by many, including Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, who actually investigated most of the cases. You should read the entire article the next quote is from. It disproves the 'Minnesota Majority' conclusions a number of times-
“There is no basis in fact, whatsoever, in these inaccuracies propagated by the Minnesota Majority here, none,” Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said Wednesday. “After the most closely scrutinized election in Minnesota history in 2008, there were zero cases of fraud. Even the Republicans lawyers acknowledged that there was no systematic effort to defraud the election, none.”
“In Hennepin County, 650,000 people voted,” he continued. “The Minnesota Majority presented us with 1,500 cases that they felt there were problems with voting. Our own election bureau gave us 100. At the end of the day, we charged 38 cases. And all but one of them are felons voting who were still under the penalty [of not legally applying to regain individual voting rights]. There was no fraud.” http://www.alternet.org/gop-voter-fr...ken-us-senator
The whole Franken argument is about ex-felons voting - people who hadn't yet done the proper paperwork and should not have been able to register, yet somehow they did. Again, the problem was with registration, an issue not affected by new ID laws. Asking them for photo ID at the polling place would not have stopped them from voting. Remember photo ID? This is a thread about photo ID.
To this excellent refutation of Onmyknee's baseless accusation, I would add this account of the challenge the the Minnesota election which clearly identifies the problem Minnesota had with an increase in absentee ballots it was apparently not prepared to deal with in 2008; one assumes it has improved since then:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs.../elj.2010.0090
There is also an exacting survey of elections since 2000 which confirms the points that Trish has been making about fraud in elections, vide:
Allegations that widespread voter fraud is threatening to the integrity of American elections and American democracy itself have intensified since the disputed 2000 presidential election. The claim that elections are being stolen by illegal immigrants and unscrupulous voter registration activists and vote buyers has been used to persuade the public that voter malfeasance is of greater concern than structural inequities in the ways votes are gathered and tallied, justifying ever tighter restrictions on access to the polls. Yet, that claim is a myth.
In The Myth of Voter Fraud, Lorraine C. Minnite presents the results of her meticulous search for evidence of voter fraud. She concludes that while voting irregularities produced by the fragmented and complex nature of the electoral process in the United States are common, incidents of deliberate voter fraud are actually quite rare. Based on painstaking research aggregating and sifting through data from a variety of sources, including public records requests to all fifty state governments and the U.S. Justice Department, Minnite contends that voter fraud is in reality a politically constructed myth intended to further complicate the voting process and reduce voter turnout. She refutes several high-profile charges of alleged voter fraud, such as the assertion that eight of the 9/11 hijackers were registered to vote, and makes the question of voter fraud more precise by distinguishing fraud from the manifold ways in which electoral democracy can be distorted. Effectively disentangling misunderstandings and deliberate distortions from reality, The Myth of Voter Fraud provides rigorous empirical evidence for those fighting to make the electoral process more efficient, more equitable, and more democratic.
The Myth of Voter Fraud: Amazon.co.uk: Lorraine C. Minnite: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51puhbfZgYL.@@AMEPARAM@@51puhbfZgYL
"Also, if you live in Florida, make sure you are still registered to vote. They've been purging people from the rolls for political reasons."
Is it still "hanging chads" in Florida? Or are you executing them with lethal injections these days?
The point is they could've. If you would've watched the vid, you would've noticed the election workers saying stuff like, "We trust that you are who you say you are. or Your name is in the book." not even bothering to try to make sure that the person was whom they were claiming to be. The point of the vids was to show how easy it would be for someone to vote under an assumed name. Also, if you would've watched the vid, you would've seen that in most cases they were not even asked to sign for the ballot.Quote:
at what points O'Keefe actually signs for and gets a ballot under a fake name
Just sayin'
Loren - not simply a blog article but a piece of research by a law professor at Florida state university - and published in one of the UK's top political journals Prospect. A bit less biased I think than the squeals from some of the trailer park folk here and their favourite TV channel Fox News.
Some States are accepting only photo IDs that have expiration dates. This criterion eliminates most military IDs, student IDs and food cards. Please be sure what your State's criteria are. Be prepared to vote.
30,000 dead people were found on the North Carolina voting rolls. Since that State has no voter ID laws, it is impossible to say if any of these "disenfranchised" voted.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...0000-dead.html
Meanwhile, a story about real voter disenfranchisment:
http://www.thestate.com/2012/06/27/2...l#.UCHh3KCVOQQ
Make sure you get Obama's birth certificate when he votes.
Wow. Do you really believe that? Did you watch those vids and actually come away with that opinion? Wow. Now I understand why late night infomercials make money.Quote:
Originally Posted by loren
The point of those carefully edited vids was to MAKE IT LOOK LIKE it was easy to vote under a different name. It doesn't matter whether poll workers 'trust' you, you WILL sign for that ballot or you won't get one anywhere in the US.
Ya know what? I invite anyone to watch those silly vids and form their own opinion. Wow.
BumpQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
~bump~Quote:
Originally Posted by francisfkudrow
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
You have a strangely inconsistent and arbitrarily selective world view..... You want tighter controls on everything from guns, to salt to soft drinks yet when states seek to eliminate even the possibility of fraudulent vote casting,even to the extent of helping anyone who needs an ID get one free of charge....you think that's an over reach.....too much government.
You went hysterical when the cops pepper sprayed some OWS protestors, yet when NYC cops sprayed mid town with bullets recently, you told us cops were trained professionals.
For weeks you attempted to tie political speech to the Arizona shooting, yet when Floyd Corkins walks into the lobby of an advocacy group with a bag of Chick-fil-A and a semi auto pistol and starts shooting, your outrage is not so much.
You've asked people if they're being racist , obviously realizing they'll strenuously deny it...then ask them why they're being so sensitive. Cute tactic.
You were the unofficial spokesperson for OWS, then when the anarchy, rapes and crime spree became apparent, you exited stage left...silently.
You were all over the stand your grounds laws in Florida as a potential reason for a shooting, yet when 18 are gunned down in one night in Chicago with no apparent motive.....nothing.
I think I understand :dancing:
I thought this was a thread about issues and not your personal animosity toward contributors to these threads. But okay. You have a strangely inconsistent and arbitrarily selective world view...you want loose controls on everything from toxins in our water supply, greedy bankers, oil companies, lumber and mining corporations, weapons manufacturers and their customers. Yet when the people seek to continue to exercise the right to vote that they exercised for two centuries without incident (other than past attempts to suppress that right via poll taxes, tests and outright violence) suddenly, just months away from a presidential election, you want to tighten things up. :dancing::dancing::dancing: (See how that works)
Yes, cops ARE professionals. Let me see you deny it. Yet professionals accidentally kill innocent people. My point then (which is hardly relevant to this thread...but since you bring it up...) was that if professionals can make such consequential errors imagine what would have happen if ordinary wannabe gunslingers on the street carrying secret weapons opened up.
So let me thank you again for keeping this thread going.
GET YOUR VOTING ID IN ORDER and VOTE. Pass the word.
Si usted vive en Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Luisiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Dakota del Sur y Tennessee y quiere votar este año, asegúrese de tener identificación vigente con fotografía válida, ya que ahora se requiere en estos estados. Asegúrese de que sus amigos y familiares tienen ID también.
Esto es especialmente importante si usted vive en uno de estos estados que podrían ir en cualquier dirección en las elecciones de este año. (Seamos realistas, ya sabemos cómo Georgia, Kansas y Tennessee a votar)
Además, si usted vive en Florida, asegúrese de que está siendo registrado para votar. Ellos han estado purgando personas de las listas por razones políticas.
Pasarlo bien.
Once again... you prove yourself to either be a liar... or a fraud... which would you prefer?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Remember Al Franken? Senator from Minnesota? Elected after a rather controversial election? ... by only 312 votes in fact... out of 2.4 million cast.
Did you know... at least 1099 votes were cast by felons who did not have the right to vote?
What do you call that? I'd call it VOTER FRAUD!
More so... do you think they voted 50/50 Franken(D)/Colman(R)? ... probably not... in fact... if they just voted 313/786... then Franken would have won... and that assumes a minimal vote for a Democrat (who tend to get the felon vote).
That's right... Al Franken... is almost certainly a Senator from the State of Minnesota because of VOTER FRAUD.
Care to withdraw your claims as to only 10 (known) cases in the last decade?
What % do you think of people who speed are ever caught for their speeding at the time? 50%? 10%? 1%? It'd be awful silly to assume that the only people who ever speed are those who are caught... as discussed above... we've seen people in the last year be offered the ballot for people other than them... and only an ignorant person (ie you) would assume that these are one off cases... or are you one of those who when driving down the road and getting passed by speeders... assumes that only 10 people, nationwide in the past decade have ever been pulled over for speeding?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
If you refuse to take steps to making such crimes more visible, then you do nothing but enable those who commit them.
To avoid being charged for actual voter fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain
That same hand issue is present in multiple 'attempts' to get ballots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain
Oh really? In most states (where you show up to vote) they do not check your signature against a known registry... instead, so long as you sign your name as best you can... you get to vote. Provisional ballots tend to be used for cases when the identity or eligibility of a person is in doubt... something that WAS NOT the case in the videos we've seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain
Really? I guess I don't recall any of the people HANDING A BALLOT TO HIM saying "We'll let you fill this out now... but it may get rejected later if your signature doesn't check out"... care to prove me wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain
If we take what you said above as true... then you are right... thank god you are clearly talking out of your ass and know not of what you speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain
Your point was already demolished. See post #91 and the also the post quoted therein.
But thanks for keeping this public service thread on the front page.
*facepalm*Quote:
Originally Posted by BluegrassCat
Really? So the recent claims in Mexico are... false?
OH WAIT! When looking for another link... I turned up a man who admitted to VOTER FRAUD... does this mean Trish's count is up to at least 11? I wonder how many others she (or you) have/has ignored? ... and those are just ones we know about.
Though still... drug dealers in Kentucky might disagree with what there is to be had through voter fraud... and that is just ONE example.
But you still showed them! Rather than show up to the polls and say "I don't need to stinking ID!" you said "Eeek! I better get an ID!"Quote:
Originally Posted by BluegrassCat
Good for you! and doing just what those evil people spending millions of dollars to try to stop you from voting wanted you to do... Having and producing ID when you vote!
On the contrary... as you often do you pointed to something else in the hopes it would refute something I said... while not comprehending anything that was said on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Alas this is a well known tactic of yours.
I'd love it if you could/would specifically refute something I say... but alas... we both know you are quite incapable of such rational thought.
If you will excuse me though, the hour is extraordinarily late and I must be off to bed.
Toodles!
Sorry, lad. As trish pointed out, we covered the Minnesota Majority bullshit already. They pulled their 'facts' out of their ass, greatly inflating the numbers, according to the Minnesota prosecutor who investigated most of the cases. He determined that almost all the former felons who registered incorrectly simply didn't understand the procedure for getting their voting rights back.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
Any ex-felons (folks who didn't first fill out the proper paperwork to restore their ability to vote) who actually voted did so because they were able to register. The registration process failed. They had to have ID to register. For most people, that would be a driver's license, so asking for photo ID at the polls wouldn't have made any difference.
You CONs keep trying to drag this thread away from the new photo ID laws because you can't defend them. In the cold light of day, these laws stop far, far more legitimate voters than fraud because NOBODY IS STUPID ENOUGH TO RISK 5 YRS AND A 10K FINE just to cast one lousy fake vote.
Lol, what's the point? Everything you said here is bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
More horseshyte.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
1) We ain't talking about Mexico. It's not relevant to this discussion.
2)So a Mexican claims he committed voter fraud in the US. Is he telling the truth? How? Did he have ID? Would asking for photo ID have made any difference?
3)So some dumb rednecks are allegedly selling their votes? So they're using their own identities. How would asking for ID when voting have made a bit of difference?
BTW, the '10 cases of voter fraud' refers to in-person vote fraud that could have been prevented by asking for ID at the polling place - voter fraud that could actually be prevented by the new ID laws. Go back and read the links trish posted.
Like Bubba said, it's all Arithmetic.
That map is depressing. Two Americas very clear.
~bump~Quote:
Originally Posted by francisfkudrow
If you find this confusing, you should spend less time staring at your hand and more time reading. The purpose of these laws is not to encourage IDs but to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters. People who deny this fact are working to undermine the democratic process and subvert years of civil rights progress. Trish & others have already thoroughly debunked your bullshit links. But you have a real future as a troll, just follow OMK's example and you'll be race-baiting like a pro in no time.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
Good post Bluegrass.... but people like Bobvela and the notorious OMK really have no interest in evidence. It's prejudice all the way down the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by BluegrassCat
The most racially polarised election? Good piece in Today's Guardian by their US correspondent Gary Younge.
As Republicans were promoting themselves as a multiracial party from the platform in Tampa two weeks ago, an ugly incident on the convention floor suggested not everyone had got the memo. From the podium a range of speakers of Haitian, Mexican, Cuban and Indian descent spoke of how their parents had overcome huge barriers so they could succeed in the US. In the audience, a successful black woman who works for CNN was being pelted with peanuts by a convention-goer, who said: "This is how we feed the animals."
The tension between the projection of a modern, inclusive, tolerant party and the reality of a sizeable racially intolerant element within its base pining for the restoration of white privilege is neither new nor accidental. Indeed, it in no small part explains the trajectory of the Republican party for almost the last half century. In his diary, Richard Nixon's chief-of-staff, Bob Haldeman, described how his boss spelled out the racial contours of a new electoral game-plan to win southern and suburban whites over to the Republican party in the wake of the civil rights era. "You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks," Nixon told him. "The key is to devise a system that recognises that while not appearing to."
This could be the final hurrah for what became known as Nixon's southern strategy in what is shaping up to be the most racially polarised election ever. Black support for the Republican party literally cannot get any lower. A recent Wall Street Journal poll had 0% of African-Americans saying they intend to vote for Romney. At 32%, support among Latinos is higher but still remains pathetically low given what Republicans need to win (40%) and what they have had in the past – in 2004 George W Bush won 44%. As a result, the party of Lincoln is increasingly dependent on just one section of the electorate – white people. To win, Romney needs 61% of the white vote from a white turnout of 74%. That's a lot. In 2008, John McCain got 55% from the same turnout. "This is the last time anyone will try to do this," one Republican strategist told the National Journal. And Republican consultant Ana Navarro told the Los Angeles Times: "Where his numbers are right now, we should be pressing the panic button."
There are two main reasons for this panic. The first is that the "system" Nixon referred to is now recognisable by most – particularly with a black president in the White House. As people have become more attuned to the frequency of the dog whistles, the tone has necessarily become more shrill. During the primaries, Rick Santorum told a crowd in New Hampshire: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." Newt Gingrich branded Obama "the food stamp president". Just a few weeks ago, in a clear nod to the "birthers", who insist Obama was not born in the US, the party's nominee, Mitt Romney, went to Michigan and joked: "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised." This is rhetorical peanut throwing. When everyone can hear it, you've transitioned from a dog whistle to a straight-up whistle.
Second, with white people destined to become a minority in a few decades, the strategy is no longer an anchor but a millstone. Tying Republican fortunes to the white vote made electoral sense in the early 1970s. Since 1980, the white share of the electorate has fallen in every consecutive election bar one – 1996, when Ross Perot ran. The more black and Latino voters the Republicans alienate, the more white voters they need to replace them. The trouble is they are fishing for a larger number in a smaller pool, which demands ever more juicy bait. "The demographics race we're losing badly," said Senator Lindsey Graham, acknowledging the problem. "We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
But that's not for want of trying. In just one example, the New York Times' Thomas Edsall analyses a Romney ad lambasting Obama's healthcare reform. The ad states: "You paid into Medicare for years – every pay check. Now when you need it, Obama has cut $716bn from Medicare. Why? To pay for Obamacare. The money you paid for your guaranteed healthcare is going to a massive new government programme that is not for you."
Leave aside the fact that the ad is judged by Politifact as only half true and that the Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan has proposed a budget that would cut a similar amount from Medicare without healthcare reform. More than three-quarters of Medicare recipients are white; more than half those without health insurance are not white. By linking the two in this way, "Obamacare" thereby becomes a transfer of resources from hard working white retirees to indigent minority ethnic people. Meanwhile, Larry McCarthy, who produced the now infamously racist Willie Horton ad for George HW Bush's campaign in 1988, is working for one of the Super Pac's backing Romney.
Describing the evolution of the Republicans' racial appeal, the late Lee Atwater, one-time chair of the Republican National Committee and member of the Reagan administration, said in 1981. "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger'. By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing [and] states' rights. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites … obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'nigger, nigger'."
Reflecting on her experience in Tampa, Patricia Carroll, the CNN camerawoman who had peanuts thrown at her said: "I can't change these people's hearts and minds … This should be a wake-up call to black people … People were living in euphoria for a while. People think we're gone further than we have."
~bump~Quote:
Originally Posted by francisfkudrow
It is interesting how all the rightwingers here never red and respond to anything of any complexity... anything which offers genuine evidence of the nature of the beast that they support 9but cannot and will not be able to control at all once it attains office. Sad really.
Oh yes - bump.
~bump~Quote:
Originally Posted by francisfkudrow