Florida is illegally purging voter rolls before a
Presidential election in order to allegedly weed out non-citizens (why does
this sound familiar?). Republican Governor Rick Scott is suing the Department
of Homeland Security so he can gain access to a database to help the state
continue with its illegal purge. Florida is violating the National Voter
Registration Act and the Voting Rights Act with this illegal purge. The
Department of Justice is suing Florida to stop this unlawful conduct. Governor
Scott is not stopping. However, the 67 Florida Election Supervisors in charge
of purging the rolls have unanimously told Governor Scott to go fuck himself
since massive amounts of people on the faulty purge lists have been confirmed
US citizens. The Supervisors are no longer continuing the illegal purge; many
have reinstated previously purged names. The Supervisors, thirty of whom are
Republicans themselves, believe Governor Scott is in violation of Federal law,
or at least wish to wait until the court cases between the state of Florida and
the Federal Government are resolved.
Not so strangely, as with the fraudulent purge in 2000, the
lists overwhelmingly contain registered
Democrats and minorities, who statistically vote Democratic.
In honor of this current, blatant (and ever-continuing)
voter-suppression of Democrats by Republicans, here is the 'PolitiFiction' post I
promised you in my “Fruits of "Illegal" Labor” post.
Enjoy…
So, there’s this website called PolitiFact. They check out
the veracity of things politicians say. I used to dig them, but not so much
anymore. I've found that they are now too concerned with appearing
non-partisan. So much so that they’re noticeably being equal in their critiques
– which is handicapping their honesty and accuracy.
I know I should stay away from these public forums. Nothing is ever accomplished but a contest to see how many circles a debate can go in. These are the two and only two times (so far – no promises) I’ve done it. Somehow, I had managed to attract the same right-wing, propaganda-spewing adversary. Either I was lucky, or he trolls PolitiFact posts all the time. I suspect the latter.
I know I should stay away from these public forums. Nothing is ever accomplished but a contest to see how many circles a debate can go in. These are the two and only two times (so far – no promises) I’ve done it. Somehow, I had managed to attract the same right-wing, propaganda-spewing adversary. Either I was lucky, or he trolls PolitiFact posts all the time. I suspect the latter.
I did not include all
the contestants on this gameshow, just me, my adversary and several relevant
others. Some of these go on for a few hundred posts. Most things people say are
flat-out asinine.
Names changed. Grammar, spelling, punctuation left as is.
September 30, 2011
PolitiFact
Pants on Fire for Democratic Governors Association claim
that Scott Walker is denying Democrats the right to vote.
Olde English 800 3.2*
So you have to show a photo ID to vote? BIG DEAL! Sounds
like an excellent idea to me! If California did that the dems would be out of
power in a heart beat because they would no longer get the "illegal
immigrant" vote. [That doesn’t happen, but it’s a standard right-wing
manufactured complaint.] The people that have a problem
with this need to put down the kool aid and try thinking for themselves for a
change rather than preaching what Krugman, and the AFL-CIO say as the gospel. [“Kool
Aid” and “illegal immigrants voting” and “union blaming” are perennial
right-wing talking points. Who is actually “thinking for themselves” here?]
Bruno
Anyone encouraging less people to vote hates democracy.
Olde English 800 3.2
Anyone not willing to get take the steps to get themselves
registered and identified to vote obviously has no interest in participating in
the process in the first place. [Because yes, that’s exactly what’s happening.] What do you want? The government to hold your hand
all the way into the frakin polling booth? [That makes no sense.] Maybe you would like them to punch your card too? [That
makes no sense.] When does the individual
citizen take responsibility for themselves and do what needs to be done? [What
does this have to do with anything? People want to take responsibility and
register and vote, but they are being suppressed. Adding meaningless,
superfluous nonsense in order to confuse the issue is a standard right-wing
tactic.] Its called real life, its called
being grown up and having responsibilities, its called being a productive
citizen contributing to the betterment of society. [And this will all
be achieved through voter suppression!]
Cole
The goal of this law is to get fewer democrats to vote! How
simple is that to understand. You can call it whatever you want, but given
Scott Walker's record up to now, what would you call it?
Olde English 800 3.2
Democrats are sitting here criticizing the GOP and their own
base in the same breath. If making a photo ID a requirement to vote means
"less dems will vote" isn't that insinuating that they are either
lazy, or incompetent or even unable to take on responsibility and care for
themselves? [No. How does obstructing someone’s ability to do something
equate to ‘laziness’ or ‘incompetence’ on their part? I’ve noticed this false
comparison by other Conservatives. “Democrats are so stupid, they’re even
criticizing themselves.” It’s apparently one of the items on their list of
things to repeat.] Its not that hard to get
a photo ID. [Except for the fact that it certainly can be. Philly.com: Annette John-Hall: Voter ID bill: Shades of modern-day poll tax ]
Im not calling anyone any names [other than ‘lazy,’ incompetent,’ and
‘irresponsible’], just making a simple
observation.......
Ginger
Politifact. U r pants on fire lying. He is working very hard
at keeping probable democrats from voting by making it difficult for minorities
& elderly to vote. They r closing places that democrats go to apply for
photo id's & leaving places where republicans register, open. They most
certainly r trying to suppress the voters that will vote against them
Olde English 800 3.2
Ginger wrote - "They r closing places that democrats go
to apply for photo id's & leaving places where republicans register,
open"
So what your saying is that Wisconsin has segregated their
state DOT branches by political party affiliation?!?!!? Incredible! I think Wi.
might have bigger problems on their hands than voter verification if that were
true, but sadly it is not. Do you have any idea how ignorant that makes you
sound?
[Sadly, it is. You’re ignoring the existence of voting districts in
order to sound intelligent…
Do you have any idea how ignorant your blind denial of
facts makes YOU sound?]
Dave
Wait a minute, the answer to "Big Government" is more government? The answer to restrictive government
regulations is more restrictive
government regulations? This Voter ID Law doesn't sound very
"conservative" to me. [Great response.]
Tammy
A photo ID in Kansas costs $22.00, which doesn't sound like
much unless you're a minimum wage worker trying to support a family. There is
also the difficulty the disabled have in getting to the DMV. Add to that a need
to prove a permanent address, which the
homeless do not have; although they are American citizens, they have lost the
right to vote simply through impoverishment. And what wage employee has the
time to wait a couple of hours at the DMV to either get or renew their ID,
which I had to do? I can thank whatever powers may be the line wasn't even
longer; I was nearly late to work as it was.
My disabled husband fortunately was on the voter rolls
before the current law, which enables him to vote by absentee ballot. I've been
registered since 1975 (and at the same address to boot!) I shudder to think of
the difficulties new voters will have to endure, however, to exercise their
right to vote now.
[Add to that a $22 cost for a photo ID, or a $15-$25
charge for a copy of your birth certificate to get a photo ID equates to a de
facto Poll Tax, which has been illegal in the United States since 1964.]
Bill Mancuso
Politifact, you're becoming a joke. At worst, this should be
half true. Republicans are specifically trying to suppress Democrats from
voting since they are going to have trouble getting votes on merit. But
claiming they are trying to prevent voter-fraud when there is none so they can
justify implementing policies that impact statistically liberal-leaning voters
IS indeed voter-fraud.
Rod
Anything that hurts the democrats is fine with me. God knows
they've done enough damage to this country. [There’s democracy for you. What
a patriot.]
Felix
Olde English - As of
July, the Walker administration in Wisconsin was planning to close 10 DMV
offices in democratic districts and was planning on expanding services in
republican districts. Some of us who have been following Gov Walker's voter
suppression activities will see this as part of that voter suppression activity
while others, such as you, who deny that these are voter suppression efforts
will buy Gov Walker's argument that this is being done for economic reasons.
Maybe if I were Gov Walker, I would also be looking for ways to improve my
chances of surviving a looming recall election. [Which unfortunately he did. But a Republican State Senator who was also up for recall lost his seat to a Democrat, which shifted the majority over to the Democrats. Walker can no longer be the
über-fascist
he and the Republicans wish to be.]
Olde English 800 3.2
And as of August 2011 the Walker administration announced
they were dropping the DMV closure plan. Did you even read the article or did
you disagree with what I said so strongly you thought that any uninformed half
intelligible babble was better than nothing at all? [What was that about
‘uninformed half intelligible babble?’]
Felix
Thanks for the update. I knew that the closures had been
approved, but evidently Gov Walker walked them back only sometime after 16 US Senators asked the Justice Department to
investigate the issue. Yes, I do strongly disagree with you. The wave of voter
registration and photo id laws being promulgated by many republican governors
are clearly intended to suppress potential democratic votes. The problem they
purport to address is non-existent, (e.g., illegal immigrant vote). But, I do
enjoy your sense of humor: ‘I am not calling anyone names, but simply
observing democrats are lazy, incompetent, unable to take on responsibility or
care for themselves; not to mention their uninformed half intelligible babble.’
You obviously are fortunate and lacking in the experiences and hardships of
many of the disenfranchised whom you characterize.
Olde English 800 3.2
I can promise you illegal immigrants voting is a major
problem [in the fantasies of Republican minds], perhaps not to the magnitude that it is a problem here in CA [which
is also a statistical zero], but it is a
very real problem [for those of us who wish to use it as a talking
point cudgel] and for anyone to suggest otherwise
is suffering from ostrich syndrome. [Ha! I like that one.] Furthermore its flattering that you seem to think
that I was born into a life of privilege with a silver spoon in my mouth [That’s
not what he said, but please feel free to exaggerate for your own benefit.] but that couldn't be farther from the truth, as a
child my parents struggled to provide the necessities for my brother and I,
however they made the best out of what they had and worked hard to get
themselves into a better position. Once out on my own I survived on poverty
level wages for many years. It was through that struggle that I learned some
marketable job skills and started making a decent living doing something
respectable. [And now that you, Ayn Rand, have yours, fuck everyone
else? It should now be more difficult for other people who find themselves in a
similar situation?]
I also stand by my claim that I was not calling anyone any
names, if you scroll through the thread and read the griping by people,
"Oh no requiring a photo ID will discourage, or prevent democrats from
voting" what other conclusion is to be made? [Maybe the conclusion that
laws are being drafted to specifically discourage and prevent Democrats from
voting?] Its not that hard to get a photo
ID [except when it is]. As
someone else pointed out, "lower income" people sure don't have a
problem getting one when SS or welfare is involved...... [Jumping to
the inaccurate conclusion that voting has anything to do with welfare.] So there goes your argument that it is too difficult
to obtain. Besides who ever said that life was easy? [Nobody ever
said life was easy – that’s why we should go out of our way to make it
particularly difficult?] The problem with
people today is they dont want to deal with any sort of struggle [As
opposed to those who WANT to struggle?],
and instantly look to big brother to make their life easier. "Please Mr.
Gubm't legislate the struggle from my life!" [Oh, brother.]
Felix
Olde English - I
understand that you believe that anyone that is disenfranchised is so because
he is lazy or incompetent or does not want to work (a common argument from the
right). I hope that you will not have to find yourself in such a situation in
order to learn otherwise. I know that you believe that could never happen to
you because of your stellar attitude, but believe me it can. If you want me to
believe that voter fraud is a serious problem in this country, then please
provide me some instances and numbers. You may believe it because the GOP has
been beating this drum for years, but the facts dispute it. The right was also
convinced that ACORN was a criminal organization committing massive voter
fraud. ACORN was completely
exonerated; they have never been
convicted of any voter fraud; their accusers have been discredited, [as
I explained in my post, “Fruits of "Illegal" Labor.”] but I suspect you still buy into the right wing's
ACORN story. ACORN had to go because they were highly successful at new voter
registration in groups that mainly vote Democratic. I also understand that you
believe that you are not calling people names since you have concluded that
people with different knowledge, experience and values could not possible be
putting forward an informed opinion different than your own and therefore they
are properly described as lazy, incompetents unable to take care of themselves
and since you consider that an accurate description of the disenfranchised, it
should not be considered name calling. That gives me a chuckle. [Nice.]
Bill Mancuso
Olde English, you’re repeating right-wing lies that have
been debunked everywhere except in the impenetrable “Foxosphere.”
Republicans ran “Fake Democrats” in Wisconsin. Just exactly
how patriotic/American/honorable/Constitutional is it to intentionally take
away someone's right in a democracy for a fair and honest vote? It's not.
Sounds a bit Fascist.
Republicans keep insisting they have to make stricter voting
laws because of all the rampant voter-fraud that is happening across America by
Democrats. Aside from the easily researchable fact that there is virtually no
voter-fraud occurring, I'd like something clarified. The Republicans
fraudulently running 'Fake Democrats' in order to rig an election - does that
count as voter-fraud? Never mind. The answer is yes. Yes, it is voter-fraud.
Republicans falsely claim Democrats are committing
voter-fraud, but it's OK for Republicans to blatantly commit voter-fraud. The
state is in a budget crisis and the Republicans demand the middle class has to
ante-up, but the Republicans can hand the ante over directly to big
corporations by giving them more tax cuts - and waste $300,000+ on a fraudulent
election. Wasting $300,000+ on a fraudulent election is fiscally responsible,
how? Handing tax money to corporations – I’m sorry, “job creators” – for
creating NO jobs is fiscally
responsible, how?
The percentages of young and minorities and poor who
statistically vote Democrat is more than enough of a substantial argument
supporting the case for voter suppression by Republicans. Over 400,000 of them
in Wisconsin alone don't have a photo ID. I suppose you think they'll all just
pop down to the DMV for a driver's license - that is, if they even have cars -
many don't. (Do you know how many people live in NYC alone that don't have a
car and don't have an ID?) Line forms to the left, 400,000 people. Or join the
military just so they can vote?
You're also not taking into account that Republicans aren't
accepting State University-issued ID's of those students who statistically vote
more Democrat. That state-issued ID isn't good enough? Wonder why. You're also
not taking into account the new extended residency laws that target students
who statistically vote Democrat. If you go to college in September and the
voting is in November, how can you vote if you haven't lived in your new dorm
long enough to vote? No, that's not vote-suppression of Democrats at all.
You're also not taking into account the people with the clip-boards in front of
grocery stores signing up new voters who statistically vote more heavily
Democrat. Two new laws in that situation. First, making it illegal to vote
within a month of registering – in these situations, most register within 1 - 2
weeks prior to voting since it's generally a last-minute thing. Why? What could
possibly be the reason for preventing these new, Democratic-leaning voters from
voting? And the second, the clipboard people have 24-hours to report all the
registrations or they face a fine and jail time. What could possibly be the
reason for trying to make it too difficult for these people to register new,
Democrat-leaning voters? How does reporting registrations within 24 hours
instead of, say, a week, prevent fraud? It doesn't. Not even slightly. It is
simply voter-suppression.
Is this enough information that supports my substantial
argument? Or will you just ignore all these facts, too, and claim they're just
Left-Wing bullcrap so you can brush it off and make yourself feel righteous and
happy about it? [Signs point to ‘Yes.’]
[And for the ultimate evidence of right-wing voter-suppression bullshittery, Republicans do not want photo ID's to suppress their own votes:
And there isn't any voter-fraud going on. Even if there was,
NONE of these measures, not even photo ID’s, will prevent that. Again, NONE of these measures prevent fraud. They
just specifically target the Democratic-voting demographics and make it more
difficult for legal voting citizens to simply vote. I mean, seriously, you
don't find it odd that ONLY Republicans are making all these new,
non-fraud-preventing laws, which happen to mostly just prevent Democrats from
voting? Sure, there will be some collateral Republican votes lost, but that's
the cost of war. On the middle class.
I'm not sure if you consider The New York Times a liberal
news source - it's impossible to figure out just what exactly Republicans will
claim foul on when the facts contradict their unsubstantiated wishes and
desires - but this is just an article about the Bush Administration's Justice
Department and their 5-year investigation into voter-fraud that turned up
virtually NO evidence of fraud:
Republican lemmings** like to give the examples of
registering dead people and felons as a Democrat’s tool for voter-fraud. Those
are typical examples of the right-wing media picking words out of reports and
inventing their own story to fit their biased agenda. Er, I mean, typical
examples of right-wing lies. The Bush Justice Department did have dead people
and felons in the report. But the non-twisted facts are as follows: Dead people
were found to be registered. Not registered after they died, just registered.
Meaning, registered people had died. They never voted. No wrong-doing was
discovered. Nobody was showing up and voting with a deceased person’s ID. It
was just included in the report because it was something they investigated.
We'll all still be registered after we die. And one, ONE ex-convict was
unfamiliar with voting rules and he presented his prison ID card that was
stamped "Offender" when he tried to register. I wonder how they ever
uncovered his sinister plan of presenting his secret prison ID card with a big,
red offender stamp on it? That's not exactly a wide-spread Democrat scheme to
defraud the system, is it? One felon who didn't understand the rules and people
who died that were registered somehow became this massive Democratic Party
conspiracy after it passed through the right-wing media's cherry-picking spin
machine.
Since there is no voter-fraud occurring in America, why all
the new voting laws sweeping the Republ-o-sphere that specifically target
Democratic voters? Why all the new laws targeting Democrats that DO NOT prevent
fraud but DO prevent people from voting? What would the purpose be if they're
not necessary? I'm almost certain Republicans are not trying to prevent
Republicans from voting.
But, yes, there was an instance of actual voter-fraud. It
was when the Republican-dominated Supreme Court stopped the recount and removed
the democratic system of a free and fair election from the hands of the citizens
and summarily judged George W. Bush to be the winner in 2000 even though Al
Gore had the majority of the votes.
Oh, and one other instance of voter-fraud. When the
Republican-dominated Supreme Court summarily judged multi-billion dollar
corporations to be people. So, as a person, they could buy - I mean, donate to
- a candidate.
Oh, and another instance of voter-fraud is registering 'Fake
Democrats' in Wisconsin by the Republican Party in order to obfuscate voters.
And by demanding to register the 28 million legal Americans
who don’t have a Photo ID, which wouldn’t prevent fraudulent voting but does
prevent just the simple act of voting, the allegedly “smaller government,
fiscally responsible” Republicans would cause the federal government to expand
exponentially and spend $billions in the process. AND IT DOESN’T PREVENT VOTER
FRAUD ANYWAY.
Felix
@mancuso - you forgot the reduction of early voting periods
since a higher percentage of the early votes were democratic votes. (Obama won
Florida based on the early votes; he lost based on only the votes cast on
election day.) Or, how about the new Texas rule that accepts NRA photo IDs for
voter identification, but rejects student photo IDs.
Oh, we also forgot the changes that disallow same day
registration. Some of the states that reduced the early voting period reduced
them to eliminate the Sunday preceding election days which is when many people
(mostly democrats) voted since they could not afford to be off from work or
were not able to have sufficient time away from work to vote.
Anyone that doubts that the Republicans are executing a
voter suppression strategy to pre rig the 2012 election should check the
following Paul Weyrich video clip (38 seconds).
This has been part of the GOP strategy for the last 3 decades. Paul Weyrich,
"father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage
Foundation, Moral Majority and various other right-wing groups tells his flock
that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have
"Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government. Classic clip from 1980. This guy
still gives weekly strategy sessions to Republicans nowadays. The entire dialog
from the clip:
"Now many of our Christians have what I call the
goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want
everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never
have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter
of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting
populace goes down."
Olde English 800 3.2
@ Bill - That's funny, I assumed you had actually read the
article. Obviously you didn’t because you stated, "..not taking into
account that Republicans aren't accepting State University-issued ID's of those
students who statistically vote more Democrat. That state-issued ID isn't good
enough?" If you would have actually read the article you would know that,
"...since the law was signed, a state agency has made it possible for
colleges to add a sticker to student IDs to allow them to be used for
voting."
Claiming that voter fraud "doesn't exist" is like
claiming that earth is the only planet capable of supporting life in the entire
universe, statistically it is simply NOT POSSIBLE. [Ahh, Republican
analogies. 1.) If you ignore every report, including the Bush Administration's
Justice Department and their 5-year investigation into voter-fraud which found
virtually no fraud, then yes voter fraud is occurring and 2.) Extra-terrestrial
life is a supposition that “we can’t possibly be alone” whereas voter-fraud is
a researchable, statistical zero according to facts. For a fact. That you can
research. For a fact.] With an estimated
8-12 million illegal residents (and approx. 35 million legal aliens) you can't
possibly be convinced that not a single one has registered to vote. [Research,
statistics, proof, facts and evidence point to otherwise. That is to say, a
statistical zero, not “not a single one” as you impossibly demand. But 75
fraudulent votes out of 311,000,000 people in the entire United States is not
reason enough to disenfranchise 5 million people. No matter which Party they
vote for.]
 |
| I would like to point out a similar Republican ideal: Better to execute wrongly convicted innocent people than to let even a single guilty one go free. |
You also claimed that, "..NONE of these measures, not
even photo ID’s prevent that. Again, NONE of these measures prevent
fraud." Which is of course true, they aren’t designed to outright prevent
100% of fraud, that is impossible. Just like making murder illegal doesn't prevent
murder from ever happening. But we need laws in place to limit the negative
effects of these practices, and to give teeth to any punishment that is
associated with these offenses. So the law is still beneficial even though you
are correct in stating that it will not "prevent (all) fraud from
happening." [(any) fraud, which isn’t happening in the first place.
Murder, however, is.]
You also make at least 3 claims that vote fraud is nonexistent, or virtually nonexistent, then provide an example of voter fraud perpetrated by republicans (Bush and Florida) so which is it? Or is it ONLY perpetrated by republicans? I’m just pointing out that it typically works to your disadvantage if you contradict yourself during discussions such as these. [If only I were contradicting myself. But Republicans are good at ignoring the parts of things they don’t like in order to push their biased agenda.]
Also according to you and your "unbiased" views
virtually the entire US would be democrat. Since you stated that a majority of
students, low income, elderly, and "people who shop at grocery
stores" tend to be democrat. I must be democrat and not even know it
because truth be told I buy my groceries at the store!! The reality is that
party membership is virtual equal. The latest polls indicate that 33.5% of US
population identifies as Republican, 33% as Democrat, and 33.5% with no party
affiliation as reported here ( Rasmussen Report: Partisan Trends
) for someone who is so liberal, opened minded, and progressive thinking (such
as yourself) you have no problem painting people with the broadest brush
imaginable. [Again, you manipulate reality to push your biased agenda. To
you, statistics are lies if they disagree with your agenda. I did not say every
single student, elderly and grocery store patron is a Democrat. You tried to
push that falsehood in order to falsely represent what I said. Nice try,
though.]
Examples of voter fraud INFLUENCING elections:
"Following a mayor's race in Compton, California, for
example, aliens testified under oath in court that they voted in the election.
In that case, a candidate who was elected to the city council was permanently
disqualified from holding public office in California for soliciting
non-citizens to register and vote. The fact that non-citizens registered and
voted in the election would never have been discovered except for the fact that
it was a very close election and the incumbent mayor, who lost by less than 300
votes, contested it.
Similarly, a 1996 congressional race in California may have
been stolen by non-citizen voting. Republican incumbent Bob Dornan was
defending himself against a spirited challenger, Democrat Loretta Sanchez.
Sanchez won the election by just 979 votes, and Dornan contested the election
in the U.S. House of Representatives. His challenge was dismissed after an
investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform turned
up only 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) database because they had applied
for citizenship, as well as another 124 improper absentee ballots. The investigation,
however, could not detect illegal aliens, who were not in the INS records.
The Oversight Committee pointed out the elephant in the
room: "If there is a significant number of ‘documented aliens,' aliens in
INS records, on the Orange County voter registration rolls, how many illegal or
undocumented aliens may be registered to vote in Orange County?"
These are 2 examples of it happening here in CA. Calling it
"right wing propaganda" until your blue in the face doesn't change
the fact it is true, and it is a real problem. [Except you copied and pasted
these two examples from biased “right-wing propaganda” articles. Oh no. How
will I ever correct the misinformation in your “examples?” I hope my face
doesn’t turn blue too much in the process.]
@ Felix - First I never said anything about ACORN so lets
please keep this on topic [ACORN is 100% about Republicans claiming
voter-fraud where there was none, which is exactly what we’re discussing, so
Felix’s ACORN example IS on topic. You can’t object to it just because it
proves you wrong. Should I claim that I didn’t bring up the Mayor’s race in Compton,
so we can’t talk about it? {Except I’m the one who’s about to prove that
wrong.}], 2nd of all you either suffer from
dyslexia and find reading frustrating, or your comprehension is horrid [He
forgot to add, “But I’m not calling anyone names.”]. I have already explained that I have been disenfranchised in my life.
I have lived on poverty level wages [that’s not disenfranchisement], I have struggled with vehicles that break down
every week and need to be fixed (an no money to fix them) [that’s not
disenfranchisement], I have struggled with
medical bills and no insurance [that’s not disenfranchisement], I have been in a position where I had to choose do
I pay my electric bill or do I buy food? [that’s not
disenfranchisement] but if you don’t bother
to read what I have to say what am I doing here? [If you disregard
facts you don’t like and don’t bother to learn what the definitions of words
mean, then what ARE you doing here?] I
don’t need to see myself type. My point is this, I have been there and done
that, [Not according to what you said. That whole ‘definition of
words’ thing again. Being broke has nothing to do with being disenfranchised.] and I worked hard to better myself. If I can do it
ANYONE CAN! [Because your situation was exactly the same as everyone
else’s, right?] Plus if something is that
important to an individual then they will take steps to meet the challenge and
rise above it. Crying that requiring photo ID's will "prevent" people
from voting IS LAZY. [No. THAT’S DISENFRANCHISEMENT.] Not to mention if the Democratic Party felt this was
that important of an issue don't you think they would mobilize transportation
for those "disenfranchised" souls who somehow can’t manage to get a
photo ID? [That won’t prevent disenfranchisement.] Or get a ride to a polling place? [That
won’t prevent disenfranchisement.] Or
register to vote Democrat? [They can’t register to vote because of
the disenfranchisement. What the fuck?] I
have no sympathy for people who are not willing to help themselves and those
crying that this law is unfair are exactly those types of people. [I
have no sympathy for pseudo-intellectual shit-talkers.]
[Disenfranchisement is the revocation of the right of
suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a
person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur
explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing
unreasonable registration or identification impediments in the path of voters.]
Bill Mancuso
Yes, voter fraud by citizens voting is virtually nonexistent as was proved in the Bush
Administration's Justice Department and their 5-year investigation. However,
actual fraud is being perpetrated by the Republican politicians targeting Democratic voters under the guise of
preventing fraud - which practically doesn't exist. It's too bad you don't understand English.
Only after a bright
light was shown on Republicans not accepting state-issued college IDs did they
begrudgingly add the acceptance sticker. What could possibly be the reason for
not accepting state-issued college IDs to students who statistically lean
Democrat in the first place? Stop pathetically attempting to make me appear
wrong when I'm clearly not.
Having a photo ID prevents NO fraud. It ONLY prevents the
simple act of voting. Only Republicans are implementing all these laws. What
could be their reason? To stop Republicans from voting?
Your Compton example... the "illegals voting"
allegation was thrown out, as were three other charges. The only one of the 5
allegations that were not thrown out was the accidental name order on the
ballot. It was deemed "not fraudulent," but due to a statistical
3.32% advantage of having your name first on the ballot, 306 votes were shifted
from Perrodin to Bradley - giving him the win. The problem was not with the voters, it was with the ballot
itself. No fraud. Nice try, though.
Your Dornan/Sanchez example... The election was not stolen.
When racist, homophobe, pseudo-military guy, Dornan lost by 970 votes, he first
blamed OCWeekly for a story they did on him. Then he blamed the damn illegal
Mexicans. The LA Times championed his nutty claim, which also included a house
of nuns as part of the conspiracy. A reporter,
R. Scott Moxley, at OCWeekly reviewed voting records, interviewed experts, and
searched for these alleged fraudulent voters for 15 months (as did several other investigations) and found the
claim baseless. Dornan called the reporter a "homosexual hit man" that "carried wetbacks across
the border to vote for Sanchez." The
Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican federal judge allowed a
subpoena of Moxley's files. OCWeekly fought it. Moxley refused to cooperate.
Debate in the House of Representatives over whether to hold him in contempt of
Congress attracted national media attention, so the subpoena was cancelled.
Dornan grabbed Moxley by the throat at a congressional hearing. He declared on
TV that OCWeekly was "Satan's instrument" and a "scabrous, scandalous,
calumny-spreading homosexual tool."
After all the attention-grabbing headlines went away, the Orange County DA,
secretary of state, attorney general and the head of the congressional
oversight panel (all Republicans) dropped the case. The LA Times also finally
conceded what Moxley had originally reported: there was no proof
of a stolen election. Sanchez still
holds the seat. A congressional House Oversight Committee investigation later
found that the 624 invalid votes you mentioned were from immigrants in the
process of legally gaining citizenship, but weren't yet finalized. No
intentional wrongdoing occurred. No charges were filed.
[All that and I didn’t turn
even the slightest bit blue.]
In no cases where
there were accidental votes cast,
such as in the Dornan/Sanchez case, has there ever been enough to sway an election. Ever. Not nearly
enough as the lying Republicans would have us believe for a reason to implement
country-wide voting reformation (suppression) in such a way as they are doing.
They are specifically targeting Democratic voters because Democratic voters are
against all of their middle class-destroying policies. If they can prevent or
discourage Democrats from voting, Republicans will win by default. You don't
have to be a rocket scientist to figure out this blatant tactic. But you do
have to be a right-wing lemming** not to.
What middle class-destroying policies, you ask?
With the 2010 mid-term elections, Republicans gained a
significant amount of seats on their "We'll pretend to want to create jobs
so you vote for us" platform. Since then, creating jobs is one of the
things they not only have not tried to
create, but have blocked all
efforts to create. What they have tried to do, successfully in many cases, is to end-run abortion rights, go
on vacation, block affordable health care, secure more tax cuts for the
wealthy, raise taxes on the middle class, slash or end budgets for a plethora
of social services, end social security, end Medicare, get rid of unions and
workers' rights, cut salaries and benefits and pensions of the middle class,
close the Environmental Protection Agency, cut the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention's budget, slash the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's budget - you know, the organization that tracks hurricanes,
tsunamis, tropical storms, etc, filibuster infrastructure spending, defund
public broadcasting, grow the size of government and spend more money by
forcing drug tests, make laws preventing non-existent and already illegal Sharia
law from taking over America, prevent the LGBT community from having civil
rights, block legislation making it harder for criminals to purchase guns
illegally, deny science, manufacture a debt ceiling crisis - resulting in a
rating downgrade, pretend the Bush presidency never happened because it was
such a mega clusterfuck atrocity yet hypocritically get mad when it's pointed
out that he caused the situation America's in by cutting taxes and starting two
unnecessary - you know what? I could go on forever pointing out all the
Republican corporate profit-protecting/obstructionist policies bent on
destroying America while simultaneously trying to make Obama look bad. I don't
even have to prove that. They literally keep saying they don't want any policy
to go through that may make Obama look good and that their goal is to make
Obama a one term president. Putting party before country. Waging war on the
middle class. Fuck you very much, Republicans.
Andy
According to a study done by the Brennan Center For Justice,
as many as 5 million voters will be disenfranchised by Voter ID laws passed in
Republican states.
These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority,
and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of
changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. Based on
the Brennan Center’s analysis of the 19 laws and two executive actions that
passed in 14 states, it is clear that:
•These new laws could make it significantly harder for more
than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
•The states that have already cut back on voting rights will
provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 – 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the
presidency.
•Of the 12 likely battleground states, as assessed by an
August Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, five have already cut back
on voting rights (and may pass additional restrictive legislation), and two
more are currently considering new restrictions.
States have changed their laws so rapidly that no single
analysis has assessed the overall impact of such moves. Although it is too early
to quantify how the changes will impact voter turnout, they will be a hindrance
to many voters at a time when the United States continues to turn out less than
two thirds of its eligible citizens in presidential elections and less than
half in midterm elections.
South Carolina is one of the worst offenders already, and
they are still implementing the law. Via Chron.com:
Under the new law, people have to present photographic
identification at precinct polling places to cast regular ballots. The data
crunching is important because it will be used to reach out to voters to make
sure they know about the change, an issue the U.S. Justice Department is
concerned about as it reviews the law.
There's enough question about the data that the state on
Friday delayed filing responses to the U.S. Justice Department's questions
about the new voter ID law, Deputy Attorney General Bryan Stirling said.
"We obviously need to analyze their processes and their
methods," Stirling said.
Earlier this week, the Election Commission said nearly
217,000 registered voters in the state lack a state driver's license or photo
ID. That already was nearly 40,000 more than the election agency had previously
estimated.
Election Commission spokesman Chris Whitmire said data used
to match state driver's license and identification card data excluded about
117,000 inactive voters. That figure includes a mix of people who had died,
moved, been convicted of crimes that suspend their voting rights or hadn't
voted since 2006.
As you'll see from the article, it's actually even more when
the DMV reports in.
* * * *
The thread died out there. I guess Olde English couldn’t
come up with any more twists on why Republicans need to implement new,
voter-protection (voter-suppression) laws that aren’t targeting Democrats. Or
he got tired of people pointing out all his bullshit with the truth.
And guess what? I just went back to the posting on
PolitiFact’s Facebook page and Olde English 800 3.2 removed all his posts.
Anyway, here’s an excellently detailed article on Republican
mandated voter-suppression:
* Olde English 800 3.2: He was using the name of a beer
instead of his real name, which no one, including myself, commented on. Or his
parents named him after a beer. I don’t know. Either way, I looked up the worst
beer at RateBeer.com and they said it was Olde English 800 3.2 (3.2 refers to the percent alcohol content by volume, reformulated to meet stricter blue laws in certain states), so I used it
for his name because I’m clever that way.
**My apologies to lemmings, who do not actually blindly
follow their leader right off of cliffs to their deaths, as is commonly
believed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I’ve added this next discussion to the post for two reasons,
it’s short and it’s the only other one involving Olde English 800 3.2 and
PolitiFact.
I’m always making fun of Republicans for using analogies.
The reason is, their analogies are never apropos to the topic. Their analogies
use the same tactic as any of their biased explanations: twist the facts to
work in their favor.
I start off with an analogy. However, mine clearly
demonstrates what PolitiFact is saying.
Olde English 800 3.2 disagrees. And he will do his
Republican best to obfuscate reality with as much irrelevant nonsense as he can
muster. Quite amusing, really…
PolitiFact
PolitiFact Wisconsin debunks an oft-repeated claim.
Bill Mancuso
Analogy time - according to PolitiFact's criteria on what is
or isn't Medicare - If I dismantle a car and use a few of the parts to make a
unicycle out of it, it would still be considered a car.
As we know it? Please. That was just YOUR qualifier in
desperately trying to seem even-handed in your critiques of the two parties.
Just because there are two sides to any story, doesn't mean
those sides are equal in their veracity. If you just judged the reality of all
the statements you fact-check, the Republican Party would come out looking
poorly on a much higher level than Democrats.
And your fear of looking partisan is hampering your ability
to judge fairly.
You have become just one more allegedly fact-based
organization that I have to fact-check for myself. Not that I don't already.
Olde English 800 3.2
If Medicare is changed in anyway, it ceases to be what it is
and what it was created for"
So automobiles are no longer automobiles because they have
undergone modifications over the course of time? Refrigerators can no longer be
called by that word because they have been changed throughout the course of
history? The logic employed here is foolish at best.
Bill Mancuso
Olde English - It's not "modified" if it doesn't
do what it was created for. A unicycle is not a car. Modified means giving a
car electric windshield wipers or disc brakes - not removing three of its
wheels and reducing it to working on manpower. A refrigerator is still a refrigerator
because it still refrigerates, even if it works with electricity instead of a
giant ice block. And these are improvements.
Ryan's plan is not Medicare if the point of Medicare is to
lower medical costs for users and Ryan's plan increases costs for users. That
is not an improvement. It's a regression.
Olde English 800 3.2
Actually that is not an effective analogy because you have
taken away all the working parts of the automobile. [That is exactly the
point. Which is why it is effective. It’s what the Ryan plan literally does to
Medicare.] Automobiles originally were
crank power. Today's automobile do not have a crank however they are still
perfectly capable of providing transportation from point A to point B. Ryan's
plan did not "dismantle" Medicare at all, it modernized the
components of the plan to make it more realistic in today's society. Besides
with Obamacare being the winner it is we wont have to worry about outrageous
insurance rates because of all the competition it will add to the health insurance
market place. So health insurance subsidies should be perfectly reasonable
right? Unless you mean to tell me Obamacare is a complete crock of sh!t and it
will do nothing to rein in out of control health insurance hikes?
Facts regarding what the Ryan plan would and would not do to
Medicare. This is a balanced piece put out by slate.com which is owned by the
Washington Post, I am making this known so people dont scream that my source is
blatantly right wing, or biased or what have you. In order to really take in
this information and absorb it I encourage those of you who are drinking
Krugman's Kool-Aid [Again, with the Kool Aid.] to put the cup down and step away prior to reading.
Bill Mancuso
Olde English - My
analogy is effective. You claiming it isn't by adding a bunch of confused,
irrelevant extras, doesn't make it so.
That Slate.com article intentionally glossed over all the
negative effects of the Ryan Plan. If you read the article, they're there.
The Ryan Plan modernized the components? More realistic in
today's society? ...By giving vouchers to purchase from the same uber-expensive
insurance companies anyway - but with less money? Suggesting people work until
they're 70? By lowering corporate tax rates and capping government spending?
Making cuts on future retirees, working families, and the poor? AND being
unspecific about these cuts, enabling the plan to eviscerate middle class and
poor participants even further than originally, vaguely proposed? OK, Rod
Serling.
And you may have posted a link to slate.com, but you
certainly found a blatantly right-wing biased author in Jacob Weisberg. And I
just pointed that out without screaming.
"Obamacare" as you call it, IS a complete crock of
sh!t because the plan (which is virtually the same as Republican Mitt Romney’s
Massachusetts plan) gives all the power to insurance corporations and it will
do nothing to rein in out of control hikes. The only thing that would have
balanced that out would have been the public option, but Obama caved on
Republican pressure like he does on almost everything regarding Republicans.
Who got 98% of what they wanted on the completely Republican-manufactured debt
ceiling crisis? And again, if Ryan's plan makes Medicare more expensive, then
it is not Medicare. Ol' senile Grampa Biden is right.
Olde English 800 3.2
Unfortunatly I am stuck with my cellphone for internet
connection of the next several days. I look forward to getting onto a PC tomorrow
so I can rip your argument to shreds.
* * * *
Replying with ‘looking forward to ripping your argument tom
shreds’ was highly effective in bringing me back to the discussion. No, it
wasn’t. That was a lie. I did check back a week or so later, though.
Did Olde English return?
Yes, he did. Did he “rip [my] argument to shreds?” No, he didn’t. Although he
certainly thought he did. Am I going to bore you with it? Also no. If you know
me by now, you know I don’t back down from a bullshitter’s bullshit, so I’m not
just leaving it out because he really did accomplish his goal. It’s just
complete nonsense and quite lengthy. However, since I did not return to correct
his nonsense, I’ll just give you a small example of what he believes was
‘shredding.’
“I will completely agree with you that Obamacare is cr@p
however your comment insinuates that the Republicans are responsible for
Government health care vs. the "public option" which is just a flat
out falsehood.”
No, my argument does not insinuate that. Republicans think
that claiming something they don’t like to be false somehow magically makes
that thing false. First, “Obamacare,” as they like to call it, is the polar
opposite of “Government health care” since it gives more control to the
insurance corporations by forcing you to buy health insurance. Second,
“Government health care” IS the “public option.” And so went the rest of this asshat’s ‘shredding’ of my
argument.
If my argument insinuated anything, it was that the
Republicans are responsible for Corporate Health Care vs. the Public Option.
And I didn’t insinuate it, I flat out said it.
And guess what? I just went back to the posting on
PolitiFact’s Facebook page and Olde English 800 3.2 removed all his posts on
this one as well. Righteous.
If you’re interested in any other articles about the Fascist Republican
voter-suppression agenda, click here HERE for a list of over 200 of them.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
UPDATE: I found several videos (I wasn't even looking for them) of Rachel Maddow pointing out PolitiFact's blatant disregard for the definition of the word "fact." Apparently, Ms. Maddow has a "thing" for the true meanings of words.
UPDATE: I found several videos (I wasn't even looking for them) of Rachel Maddow pointing out PolitiFact's blatant disregard for the definition of the word "fact." Apparently, Ms. Maddow has a "thing" for the true meanings of words.
The PolitiFact section starts at 06:38 on this video.
No comments:
Post a Comment