|
On November 01 2012 05:26 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:00 Sanctimonius wrote:On November 01 2012 04:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 04:42 Sanctimonius wrote:
It's not the first example of Republican vote-rigging allegations this election, and frankly it annoys me that it isn't more over the news. Any instances of suspected rigging should be investigated fully. Mind you I don't expect that, since Bush was able to 'win' and everyone just kinda forgot that in reality Gore did. How did Gore really win? It's sad that this old fantasy just won't die. Gore lost Florida. He lost the electoral college. The New York Times and the Miami Herald did their own statewide recount of Florida in 2001 and guess what, Bush won. Get over it already. Am I wrong in thinking that Gore won the popular vote? And that the Supreme Court threw out all of the votes in Florida and handed the Electoral College votes to Bush? This is, of course, ignoring the fact the Electoral College is an outdated and archaic device which reduces the chance of real democracy in this country. You're wrong. The Supreme Court told Gore he couldn't cherry-pick which districts he could get a recount in. Gore then conceded. Later studies have shown that Bush would have won a general recount, something that Gore's team likely knew at the time. Popular vote means nothing. We are a Federation, not a pure democracy. Who wins the popular vote is irrelevant to the presidency, which is something Americans learn in their first civics class. I would suggest that popular vote means an awful lot, since it would suggest that the majority of the country wants one person over the other. Just because you learn about the electoral college in civics class does not make it particularly democratic. It had a purpose a century or two ago, but in todays world all it does is make voting complicated and runs the risk of disenfranchising voters. Looks like I may have been wrong about Gore winning Florida, but then, maybe not. if people are still arguing about it today it would suggest that the votes were not looked at closely enough at the time and the Courts simply handed it to Bush when they should have been re-checking votes.
It still is relevant. I'm a Wisconsinite first, an American second. Just like someone would call themselves a German first, and a European second. I don't understand why people on the other side of the lake don't get the fact that we're not some uniform entity. I have very little in common with Americans from the south, even ones that are part of the same political party.
|
I don't really mind, actually. I want Obama to win and the double S in Hussain comes before the double T in Mitt, so I'm okay with it.
|
On November 01 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:26 Sanctimonius wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:00 Sanctimonius wrote:On November 01 2012 04:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 01 2012 04:42 Sanctimonius wrote:
It's not the first example of Republican vote-rigging allegations this election, and frankly it annoys me that it isn't more over the news. Any instances of suspected rigging should be investigated fully. Mind you I don't expect that, since Bush was able to 'win' and everyone just kinda forgot that in reality Gore did. How did Gore really win? It's sad that this old fantasy just won't die. Gore lost Florida. He lost the electoral college. The New York Times and the Miami Herald did their own statewide recount of Florida in 2001 and guess what, Bush won. Get over it already. Am I wrong in thinking that Gore won the popular vote? And that the Supreme Court threw out all of the votes in Florida and handed the Electoral College votes to Bush? This is, of course, ignoring the fact the Electoral College is an outdated and archaic device which reduces the chance of real democracy in this country. You're wrong. The Supreme Court told Gore he couldn't cherry-pick which districts he could get a recount in. Gore then conceded. Later studies have shown that Bush would have won a general recount, something that Gore's team likely knew at the time. Popular vote means nothing. We are a Federation, not a pure democracy. Who wins the popular vote is irrelevant to the presidency, which is something Americans learn in their first civics class. I would suggest that popular vote means an awful lot, since it would suggest that the majority of the country wants one person over the other. Just because you learn about the electoral college in civics class does not make it particularly democratic. It had a purpose a century or two ago, but in todays world all it does is make voting complicated and runs the risk of disenfranchising voters. Looks like I may have been wrong about Gore winning Florida, but then, maybe not. if people are still arguing about it today it would suggest that the votes were not looked at closely enough at the time and the Courts simply handed it to Bush when they should have been re-checking votes. It still is relevant. I'm a Wisconsinite first, an American second. Just like someone would call themselves a German first, and a European second. I don't understand why people on the other side of the lake don't get the fact that we're not some uniform entity. I have very little in common with Americans from the south, even ones that are part of the same political party.
Plenty of people call themselves Bavarian first, German second. Or Texan first, American second. But I think you're quite the outlier as a Cheesehead first.
|
Especially hilarious considering all the republican effort to suppress voters and make it harder to register and harder to vote... Because of "voter fraud". What a bunch of scumbags.
|
On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:58 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 04:53 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:39 Grumbels wrote:
The republican party is trying to manipulate the outcome of the election by scaring away voters and such already. I wouldn't put it past them to try and rig the voting machines also, but it's unlikely. This thread certainly hasn't convinced me. It's funny, because if you replaced "republican" with "democrat", this statement would actually be true. You should get out of the FOX-News bubble or whatever you're into. Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida? I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists.
You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district.
There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.).
Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots.
|
Wow, this thread is still open, with the lack of reliable sources and all? I guess I'm okay with that, we can contain all the shitty "Americans don't care what their leaders do" and ""Republicans are a bunch of scumbags" posts in here. Carry on.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:58 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 04:53 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:39 Grumbels wrote:
The republican party is trying to manipulate the outcome of the election by scaring away voters and such already. I wouldn't put it past them to try and rig the voting machines also, but it's unlikely. This thread certainly hasn't convinced me. It's funny, because if you replaced "republican" with "democrat", this statement would actually be true. You should get out of the FOX-News bubble or whatever you're into. Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida? I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots.
Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights.
|
On November 01 2012 05:42 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:58 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 04:53 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
It's funny, because if you replaced "republican" with "democrat", this statement would actually be true. You should get out of the FOX-News bubble or whatever you're into. Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida? I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights.
The only reason Republicans could possibly benefit more from it is if Democrats were cheating more. That's such a terrible argument I don't even know where to begin with it...
And threatening people with jail is voter intimidation, and it results in a jail sentence... Those things get investigated and prosecuted. Stop living in conspiracy theory world.
|
On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:58 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 04:53 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:39 Grumbels wrote:
The republican party is trying to manipulate the outcome of the election by scaring away voters and such already. I wouldn't put it past them to try and rig the voting machines also, but it's unlikely. This thread certainly hasn't convinced me. It's funny, because if you replaced "republican" with "democrat", this statement would actually be true. You should get out of the FOX-News bubble or whatever you're into. Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida? I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots.
It's amazing that someone who does election law would cheer on voting suppression efforts. It's like a doctor cheering on tobacco commercials.
|
On November 01 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:42 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:58 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
You should get out of the FOX-News bubble or whatever you're into. Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida? I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights. The only reason Republicans could possibly benefit more from it is if Democrats were cheating more. That's such a terrible argument I don't even know where to begin with it... And threatening people with jail is voter intimidation, and it results in a jail sentence... Those things get investigated and prosecuted. Stop living in conspiracy theory world.
No, the reasons Republicans benefit more is because the groups most easily disenfranchised, the poor and minorities, tend to vote Democratic.
This is real life, not some conspiracy
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ua18V.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iU50ZDQhUBjs.jpg)
The fact is that voter fraud is vanishingly rare (because of safeguards people like you are a part of) and voter suppression far more common--and the response is to step up anti-fraud measures that increase voter suppression (and don't even do anything substantial against fraud) as a consequence! This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would do if democracy were the goal.
|
On November 01 2012 05:35 leveller wrote:
Especially hilarious considering all the republican effort to suppress voters and make it harder to register and harder to vote... Because of "voter fraud". What a bunch of scumbags.
Though the danish media are generally very partisan, there are some programs with a far less biased take on the issue. As far as they found out both parties did their share of getting potential voters for their party to register and keep the opposing partys potential voters from registering.
I see the voter ID as a huge step towards what works in the rest of the western world. The real problem is that voter ID is not universal and thus still has a clear bias towards the most partisan people. There is a lack of incentive for true independents to register!
In my opinion voting should be possible for everyone. IIRC there are laws against criminals getting to vote and that makes the problems in the gettos far less a part of the election since many in those areas have jailbirded it out.
|
On November 01 2012 05:46 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:58 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 04:53 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
It's funny, because if you replaced "republican" with "democrat", this statement would actually be true. You should get out of the FOX-News bubble or whatever you're into. Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida? I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. It's amazing that someone who does election law would cheer on voting suppression efforts. It's like a doctor cheering on tobacco commercials.
Or maybe I actually understand how it works on a practical level instead of just making assumptions based on biased media reports that I receive from halfway around the world? You don't see me commenting on the validity of Dutch elections do you? Why? Because I know jack shit about about them.
Certain individuals slapped the tag "voter suppression" onto certain actions that actually create valid elections in the hope that it evokes certain emotional resentment to those actions. It's political persuasion.
|
On November 01 2012 05:54 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:46 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:58 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
You should get out of the FOX-News bubble or whatever you're into. Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida? I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. It's amazing that someone who does election law would cheer on voting suppression efforts. It's like a doctor cheering on tobacco commercials. Or maybe I actually understand how it works on a practical level instead of just making assumptions based on biased media reports that I receive from halfway around the world? You don't see me commenting on the validity of Dutch elections do you? Why? Because I know jack shit about about them. Certain individuals slapped the tag "voter suppression" onto certain actions that actually create valid elections in the hope that it evokes certain emotional resentment to those actions. It's political persuasion.
preach it sun
|
On November 01 2012 05:51 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:42 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida?
I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights. The only reason Republicans could possibly benefit more from it is if Democrats were cheating more. That's such a terrible argument I don't even know where to begin with it... And threatening people with jail is voter intimidation, and it results in a jail sentence... Those things get investigated and prosecuted. Stop living in conspiracy theory world. No, the reasons Republicans benefit more is because the groups most easily disenfranchised, the poor and minorities, tend to vote Democratic. This is real life, not some conspiracy The fact is that voter fraud is vanishingly rare (because of safeguards people like you are a part of) and voter suppression far more common--and the response is to step up anti-fraud measures that increase voter suppression (and don't even do anything substantial against fraud) as a consequence! This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would do if democracy were the goal.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that first billboard, and I don't speak Spanish so I can't comment on that second billboard.
Telling people it's a crime to commit fraud isn't intimidation. That's merely a reminder that they shouldn't scam the election.
|
On November 01 2012 05:54 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:46 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:58 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
You should get out of the FOX-News bubble or whatever you're into. Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida? I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. It's amazing that someone who does election law would cheer on voting suppression efforts. It's like a doctor cheering on tobacco commercials. Or maybe I actually understand how it works on a practical level instead of just making assumptions based on biased media reports that I receive from halfway around the world? You don't see me commenting on the validity of Dutch elections do you? Why? Because I know jack shit about about them. Certain individuals slapped the tag "voter suppression" onto certain actions that actually create valid elections in the hope that it evokes certain emotional resentment to those actions. It's political persuasion.
The tag "voter suppression" is slapped onto certain actions undertaken with the deliberate intent of suppressing voters. That's a bad thing. Sure, it's emotional, but only in the sense that it is emotional to prefer democracy over oligarchy or some other non-democratic system.
|
On November 01 2012 05:54 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:46 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 04:58 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
You should get out of the FOX-News bubble or whatever you're into. Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida? I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. It's amazing that someone who does election law would cheer on voting suppression efforts. It's like a doctor cheering on tobacco commercials. Or maybe I actually understand how it works on a practical level instead of just making assumptions based on biased media reports that I receive from halfway around the world? You don't see me commenting on the validity of Dutch elections do you? Why? Because I know jack shit about about them. Certain individuals slapped the tag "voter suppression" onto certain actions that actually create valid elections in the hope that it evokes certain emotional resentment to those actions. It's political persuasion.
You realize that you're telling me that "All the media are wrong. Trust me, I have secret information." I'll continue to believe media reports about this.
|
On November 01 2012 05:57 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:51 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:42 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights. The only reason Republicans could possibly benefit more from it is if Democrats were cheating more. That's such a terrible argument I don't even know where to begin with it... And threatening people with jail is voter intimidation, and it results in a jail sentence... Those things get investigated and prosecuted. Stop living in conspiracy theory world. No, the reasons Republicans benefit more is because the groups most easily disenfranchised, the poor and minorities, tend to vote Democratic. This is real life, not some conspiracy The fact is that voter fraud is vanishingly rare (because of safeguards people like you are a part of) and voter suppression far more common--and the response is to step up anti-fraud measures that increase voter suppression (and don't even do anything substantial against fraud) as a consequence! This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would do if democracy were the goal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that first billboard, and I don't speak Spanish so I can't comment on that second billboard. Telling people it's a crime to commit fraud isn't intimidation. That's merely a reminder that they shouldn't scam the election.
You don't see a problem with putting up more billboards than recorded cases of voter fraud in the last election? That doesn't strike you as at all suspicious?
|
On November 01 2012 05:58 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:54 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:46 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida?
I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. It's amazing that someone who does election law would cheer on voting suppression efforts. It's like a doctor cheering on tobacco commercials. Or maybe I actually understand how it works on a practical level instead of just making assumptions based on biased media reports that I receive from halfway around the world? You don't see me commenting on the validity of Dutch elections do you? Why? Because I know jack shit about about them. Certain individuals slapped the tag "voter suppression" onto certain actions that actually create valid elections in the hope that it evokes certain emotional resentment to those actions. It's political persuasion. The tag "voter suppression" is slapped onto certain actions undertaken with the deliberate intent of suppressing voters. That's a bad thing. Sure, it's emotional, but only in the sense that it is emotional to prefer democracy over oligarchy or some other non-democratic system.
But you overlook that it's intent is to suppress only illegal votes. Democrats dislike these rules because they are the overwhelming beneficiary of illegal votes.
|
On November 01 2012 05:57 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:51 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:42 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights. The only reason Republicans could possibly benefit more from it is if Democrats were cheating more. That's such a terrible argument I don't even know where to begin with it... And threatening people with jail is voter intimidation, and it results in a jail sentence... Those things get investigated and prosecuted. Stop living in conspiracy theory world. No, the reasons Republicans benefit more is because the groups most easily disenfranchised, the poor and minorities, tend to vote Democratic. This is real life, not some conspiracy The fact is that voter fraud is vanishingly rare (because of safeguards people like you are a part of) and voter suppression far more common--and the response is to step up anti-fraud measures that increase voter suppression (and don't even do anything substantial against fraud) as a consequence! This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would do if democracy were the goal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that first billboard, and I don't speak Spanish so I can't comment on that second billboard. Telling people it's a crime to commit fraud isn't intimidation. That's merely a reminder that they shouldn't scam the election.
The first billboard is intimidating as it will only serve to scare off people from voting - people who don't know better but are completely innocent will be afraid in case they commit voter fraud 'by accident.' It wont deter people who actually want to commit voter fraud.
The second says 'if you want to vote, you have to show this.' Which is probably a falsehood designed to deter hispanics from voting.
|
On November 01 2012 05:58 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:54 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:46 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida?
I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. It's amazing that someone who does election law would cheer on voting suppression efforts. It's like a doctor cheering on tobacco commercials. Or maybe I actually understand how it works on a practical level instead of just making assumptions based on biased media reports that I receive from halfway around the world? You don't see me commenting on the validity of Dutch elections do you? Why? Because I know jack shit about about them. Certain individuals slapped the tag "voter suppression" onto certain actions that actually create valid elections in the hope that it evokes certain emotional resentment to those actions. It's political persuasion. You realize that you're telling me that "All the media are wrong. Trust me, I have secret information." I'll continue to believe media reports about this.
To be quite blunt, most media services in the USA that report internationally have a rather liberal bias. This isn't exactly a secret.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
