As I believe you said above, the Democrats are a center-right party. As the board's resident leftist, as a matter of basic hygiene, all you Dems: take a hike!
That is, of course, your perogative, to vote for whom you like. My understanding that the Green Party of the United States holds no national offices, one state-level office, and about 100 county or local offices. So if you intend to displace Democrats from office, your action plan should be clear.
Oh, it is, and it starts with breaking with the Democrats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume you didn't read the complaint where the plaintiff identified himself as a member of the Republican Party?
Or did you just hope that none of us would read it?
Oh
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cut me some slack here. It's an old issue but it's the first one that popped into my head where "liberalism" (actually extreme radicalism) was causing property damage, employment troubles and physical injury. I'm not sure whether fringe extremism on the right is receiving greater social approval, or just greater news coverage. It's hard to find unbiased numbers in that regard.... To name a nutty example from the liberal end of the political spectrum, I do not think that environmental terrorism should receive any protection under law.You mean a pretend nutty example, right? Because no actual politicians are saying that terrorists deserve protection under the law?
Dude, its hard to claim media bias when you can't name a REAL left wing whacko idea but the republicans are putting theirs in the nationally televised debates and electing them into office.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not claiming media bias in the usual sense - I'm saying that the Tea Party gives the TV industry the kind of "reality drama" it loves to devote air time to.
I'm not claiming its a wolf I'm claiming its a wild four legged canine native to north america weighing in at 90 pounds.
Illegal radicalism isn't as likely to get press... well, except Ed Snowden's. (I don't claim Snowden was motivated by radicalism, but his actions are the kind of "the people must know!" thing that I associate with extreme leftists. Personally I'm almost always in sympathy with a whistle-blower.)
Perhaps that's the problem. In order to do something as crazy on the left as gets you into office on the right you need to do something illegal. This should point out how crazy the right has gotten.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure whether fringe extremism on the right is receiving greater social approval, or just greater news coverage.
How about option #3, "there is not as much fringe extremism on the left"?
As a simple example, name any organized left-wing hate crime groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center will be happy to provide you with a list of right-wing ones.
How many examples of neo-communist violence can you name? The neo-nazi murders are almost a cliche.
How many people have been murdered by left-wing extremists for being Christian or for being heterosexual? Because I can list a dozen murdered by right-wing extremists for being not-Christian or for being gay.
I'm not sure whether fringe extremism on the right is receiving greater social approval, or just greater news coverage.How about option #3, "there is not as much fringe extremism on the left"?
As a simple example, name any organized left-wing hate crime groups.
The ACLU? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ACLU? :)I'm not sure whether fringe extremism on the right is receiving greater social approval, or just greater news coverage.How about option #3, "there is not as much fringe extremism on the left"?
As a simple example, name any organized left-wing hate crime groups.
Yes. I particularly like the way they force their way into Mormon temples and beat people to death with subpoenas.
I do feel that there's oppression going on - but I think they're blaming politics when they should be looking at economics.
Ok, so whats this economic oppression on the left?
(and 90 pounds is a good sized wolf. That would either be morbidly obese or freaking HUGE for a coyote. All that fur and leg makes them look bigger than they are)
Point of information: I have never shot a bougie--nor anyone else for that matter--but I did have the pleasure of visiting Reno, Nevada once, back in '95.
Nutty extreme leftists would be hanging the banksters from the lampposts
My main problem there is my concern for the structural integrity of the lamp posts.
What can I say? I like fire.
I just wish we had real options not crap team a and crap team b both loyal to the same almighty dollar
You do have real options, but you're way more interested in pretending that all of your choices are identical - thus absolving you of personal responsibility while making you look fashionably cynical to those who don't know any better - than you are in thoughtful consideration of those options.
Because, you know. That would require work.
You do have real options, but you're way more interested in pretending that all of your choices are identical - thus absolving you of personal responsibility while making you look fashionably cynical to those who don't know any better - than you are in thoughtful consideration of those options.
Because, you know. That would require work.
It's true that both options aren't exactly the same, but they're both way too beholden to money. That needs fixing, badly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's true that both options aren't exactly the same, but they're both way too beholden to money. That needs fixing, badly.You do have real options, but you're way more interested in pretending that all of your choices are identical - thus absolving you of personal responsibility while making you look fashionably cynical to those who don't know any better - than you are in thoughtful consideration of those options.
Because, you know. That would require work.
It does, but in practice it hasn't produced candidates (or parties) who are the same, or even close to the same. The reality is that reliance on private contributions from large donors has an impact on a small handful of issues (some of which the public is already behind), and the rest are generally left up to the party itself to decide on (with corporate donors then choosing to provide funding to those parties which support their stance on a particular issue).
So, sure. We need to get rid of private large-donor financing of elections and PACs. Decisions like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission don't help. Let's take a look at how that decision split among the Supreme Court justices. Oh! What a surprise! All five conservative judges supported the decision, while all four liberal judges dissented! It's almost as if one side of the political spectrum is strongly in favor of private money in politics while the other side is strongly against it!
Isn't that just the weirdest thing?
|
Gore funds the R&D needed to get America off the oil habit.
Middle East goes to hell while America watches on TV and laughs and laughs.
2014: U.S. Nuke detonates on U.S. Base. Incident used by republicans to gain momentum in election. They suggest president gore dropped the ball on security and allowed terrorists to infiltrate us millitary.
It does, but in practice it hasn't produced candidates (or parties) who are the same, or even close to the same. The reality is that reliance on private contributions from large donors has an impact on a small handful of issues (some of which the public is already behind), and the rest are generally left up to the party itself to decide on (with corporate donors then choosing to provide funding to those parties which support their stance on a particular issue).
So, sure. We need to get rid of private large-donor financing of elections and PACs. Decisions like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission don't help. Let's take a look at how that decision split among the Supreme Court justices. Oh! What a surprise! All five conservative judges supported the decision, while all four liberal judges dissented! It's almost as if one side of the political spectrum is strongly in favor of private money in politics while the other side is strongly against it!
Isn't that just the weirdest thing?
Fair point. And I suppose the fact that I vote Democratic means that I still feel the difference is meaningful.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sad thing about this thread, I looked at the title and thought about answering honestly and fairly as someone who likes and respects Al Gore though recognises that he is not the most charismatic person in the world and may not have been the most effective President. That might be impossible here.
He would have been relatively honest. He wouldn't have invaded the wrong country (Iraq) and very likely had more troops in Afganistan. That perhaps would have led to a caught Osama in 2002 which might have earned the Democrats some more hawkish credentials and won the party seats in 2002 like the Republicans did (but which is unusual). Saddam would still be alive and in Bagdad but would have done nothing but oppress his countrymen.
He would have used 9/11 to push cleaner energy in order to 'limit dependence on forgein fossil fuels' that happen to come from countries that support terrorism and happened to align with his energy goals--yes.
Would he have been re elected in 2004? probably not.
Hope that helps.
The fact that you vote at all shows that you still f. the d. is m. I still do. Certain factions count on mass voter apathy (you don't need 50.1 percent of the populace on your side... just 50.1 percent of the people who vote! Or, actually, 50.1 percent of the votes that get counted... that's another issue that should be bugging voters on both sides.)
It doesn't bother the side that is cheating.
At this stage vote counting is far less of a problem than voter suppression. It's much easier, harder to lay blame and quite often legal, to make it harder for certain demographics that aren't likely to support you to vote than it is to muck with the counting afterwards.
Whether it's through new voter Id restrictions, less machines/person and thus longer wait times in certain areas, Voter roll purging or many other clever tactics it's common practice.
I don't understand this attitude. You have to show ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, to cash a check, to fly, to enter many Federal Buildings, to do many things in the modern world. But for what is possibly the most important thing a person can do, you don't want to make sure that John Doe, is who he says he is.
Felons in Minnesota lose the right to vote upon conviction, but regain it once they complete their sentences, including parole and probation. Some wind up voting before they are legally eligible. In a 2011 report, McGrath counted 113 such convictions for illegal felon voting during the 2008 election. The amount may seem inconsequential, but that year's U.S. Senate race was decided by 312 votes.
McGrath said many more felons -- 1,099 -- voted while still ineligible in 2008, but were not charged because the law says the act must be intentional.
Note that those 113 convictions require that the prosecutors prove that both the vote was fraudulent and intentional.
Or how about this:
Ohio Democrats, still pushing their phony “voter suppression” meme, kicked off a campaign tonight to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot. They even brought in Al Sharpton for support.
Sharon Coolidge of the Cincinnati Enquirer tweeted coverage of the event, and it seemed to be the same tired arguments that have been repeated endlessly, until she reported this:
Sharon Coolidge ✔ @SharonCoolidge
FollowMelowese Richardson, convicted of voter fraud and then released early from prison, called to stage for a "welcome home."
6:59 PM - 20 Mar 2014Remember Melowese Richardson?
She was a poll worker who used her position to vote for Obama multiple times. She is one of the few who ever gets caught for voter fraud and was sentenced to five years in prison.
CINCINNATI - A long-time poll worker who admitted to illegal voting was sentenced to five years in prison Wednesday and received a rebuke from the judge, who cited her criminal past. Melowese Richardson, 58, pleaded no contest to four counts of illegal voting in 2009, 2011 and 2012. One count charged her with voting for her sister, who is in a coma. Four other counts were dropped in exchange for Richardson's plea. During a passionate sentencing speech, Hamilton County Judge Robert P. Ruehlman laid out a laundry list of past charges against Richardson - from witness harassment to theft to assault - as Richardson stood before him. "I'm Melowese Richardson. I take the law into my own hands. I do what I want," Ruehlman said. "It's about criminal activity. You are a criminal."
That was only eight months ago. For some reason, she has already been released. At an event that was all about voting law, Ohio Democrats invited a person guilty of multiple counts of voter fraud to speak – to "welcome her back" and applaud her. They invited her up to the stage, like some sort of hero.
Democrats seem to oppose any changes in the law that make it harder to cheat. Their embrace of Melowese Richardson shows where their intentions actually lie.
“So let's be clear, the real voter fraud is the people who try to deny our rights by making bogus arguments about voter fraud,” Obama said.
So I guess all those convictions are "bogus."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand this attitude. You have to show ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, to cash a check, to fly, to enter many Federal Buildings, to do many things in the modern world. But for what is possibly the most important thing a person can do, you don't want to make sure that John Doe, is who he says he is.
And this is why I think republicans are not only wrong, but completely disingenuous. I'm tired of needing to pretend these regurgitated talking points have any merit what so ever.
They don't.
Many people do not have photo id. People living in cities who have public transportation and people too poor to afford a car. Making them get a 40 dollar drivers license serves the same purpose as, and is effectively a poll tax. Not only is it obvious that these people vote democratic, republicans have been on camera repeatedly admitting that the voter id requirements, the timing of the poles, and the end of early voting were for the express purpose of stopping minorities from voting.
Another republican in a different state admitting it as well
I can't open up the paper you're trying to link to, but in person voter fraud is nothing compared to mail in ballots, which oddly enough don't require id, are MORE likely to be fraudulent, and yet republicans seem to care NOTHING about because they're heavily used by their demographic.
You are not a parrot. Stop repeating the grarg without thinking. Give me some hope that there is intelligent life in this universe.
I don't understand this attitude. You have to show ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, to cash a check, to fly, to enter many Federal Buildings, to do many things in the modern world. But for what is possibly the most important thing a person can do, you don't want to make sure that John Doe, is who he says he is.And this is why I think republicans are not only wrong, but completely disingenuous. I'm tired of needing to pretend these regurgitated talking points have any merit what so ever.
They don't.
Many people do not have photo id. People living in cities who have public transportation and people too poor to afford a car. Making them get a 40 dollar drivers license serves the same purpose as, and is effectively a poll tax. Not only is it obvious that these people vote democratic, republicans have been on camera repeatedly admitting that the voter id requirements, the timing of the poles, and the end of early voting were for the express purpose of stopping minorities from voting.
Another republican in a different state admitting it as well
I can't open up the paper you're trying to link to, but in person voter fraud is nothing compared to mail in ballots, which oddly enough don't require id, are MORE likely to be fraudulent, and yet republicans seem to care NOTHING about because they're heavily used by their demographic.
You are not a parrot. Stop repeating the grarg without thinking. Give me some hope that there is intelligent life in this universe.
Fish in a barrel. And yet it never gets old.
I don't understand this attitude. You have to show ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, to cash a check, to fly, to enter many Federal Buildings, to do many things in the modern world. But for what is possibly the most important thing a person can do, you don't want to make sure that John Doe, is who he says he is.And this is why I think republicans are not only wrong, but completely disingenuous. I'm tired of needing to pretend these regurgitated talking points have any merit what so ever.
They don't.
Many people do not have photo id. People living in cities who have public transportation and people too poor to afford a car. Making them get a 40 dollar drivers license serves the same purpose as, and is effectively a poll tax. Not only is it obvious that these people vote democratic, republicans have been on camera repeatedly admitting that the voter id requirements, the timing of the poles, and the end of early voting were for the express purpose of stopping minorities from voting.
Another republican in a different state admitting it as well
I can't open up the paper you're trying to link to, but in person voter fraud is nothing compared to mail in ballots, which oddly enough don't require id, are MORE likely to be fraudulent, and yet republicans seem to care NOTHING about because they're heavily used by their demographic.
You are not a parrot. Stop repeating the grarg without thinking. Give me some hope that there is intelligent life in this universe.
You don't need a Driver's License, States also issue ID's, which are usually cheaper than DLs and can even be free. One state offered Free IDs, and free transportation to get that ID.
Speaking of being a parrot, what do you think you are doing?
So, by keeping voter fraud from happening, that is suppressing the vote? Because that is what I see in that second clip. (No idea what the first clip is, it won't play)
And of course most Americans disagree with you.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 70% of Likely U.S. Voters believe all voters should be required to prove their identity before being allowed to vote. Only 25% oppose such a requirement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need a Driver's License, States also issue ID's, which are usually cheaper than DLs and can even be free. One state offered Free IDs, and free transportation to get that ID.
And then had no implementation for either program, wasn't going to keep the DMV open to let people get the cards during work hours, and had no system in place for people that didn't have all of the documentation.
Speaking of being a parrot, what do you think you are doing?
Looking at the evidence, making an argument, and reaching a conclusion from there. Apparently known as unamerican activities. If i wasn't doing this, you could give a counter argument.
So, by keeping voter fraud from happening
STOP
No.
These are not measures that will prevent voter fraud. They are not even measures INTENDED to prevent voter fraud. They are measures to suppress democratic/minority votes.
In person voter fraud is practically non existant.
Most dead people vote republican
Dead people vote by mail, not in person.
Not only is this patently obvious but i've given you two instances of them ADMITTING IT ON CAMERA. There they are, they TOLD you exactly what they're doing, but apparently the narrative that scary cheating black people are going to vote at the pols 14 times resonates more strongly with you than the person confessing their actual motives in color television.
This is not to prevent voter fraud. This is to steal elections that their ideas can't win and they are giving you the incredibly lame excuse that its to prevent voter fraud and you are buying it hook line and sinker Its a canard.
How many instances of voter fraud is this allegedly going to stop?
Rasmusen reports: 59% Believe Voter ID Laws Do Not Discriminate
My entire point is that there is a concerted effort of disingenuous misinformation by republicans to manufacture grarg on this issue.
Your counter to that is not to substantiate the grarg in any way shape or form, but to show that many people believe the grarg. Do you see the problem there... at all?
And of course most Americans disagree with you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No idea what the first clip is, it won't play.
Worked fine for me. Then again, if I were you I probably wouldn't want to see it either. :)
Do you see the problem there... at all?
Nah...it's only a problem if Rush says it's a problem.
Rasmusen? Hahaha.
What was the question?
Should people have to show ID to vote OR should we kill a puppy?
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted September 30-October 1, 2013
By Rasmussen Reports1* How closely have about followed recent news reports about voter registration?
2* Should all voters be required to prove their identity before being allowed to vote?
3* Do laws requiring photo identification at the polls discriminate against some voters?
4* How serious a problem is voter fraud in America today?
5* Are supporters of stricter voter registration laws more interested in keeping eligible voters from voting or in trying to stop people who are not eligible to vote from voting?
No puppies were killed in the making of this poll.
And then had no implementation for either program, wasn't going to keep the DMV open to let people get the cards during work hours, and had no system in place for people that didn't have all of the documentation.
You don't need a Driver's License, States also issue ID's, which are usually cheaper than DLs and can even be free. One state offered Free IDs, and free transportation to get that ID.
I work across the street from a DMV. It's hours extend past 5 PM and it's open on Saturdays. I'm sorry that they don't deliver premade ID's to voters.
Speaking of being a parrot, what do you think you are doing?Looking at the evidence, making an argument, and reaching a conclusion from there. Apparently known as unamerican activities. If i wasn't doing this, you could give a counter argument.
Nope you are just repeating every Liberal talking point about voting. There is no voter fraud, it is only done by mail, voter ID is only to take the vote away from honest voters, etc.
So, by keeping voter fraud from happeningSTOP
No.
These are not measures that will prevent voter fraud. They are not even measures INTENDED to prevent voter fraud. They are measures to suppress democratic/minority votes.
In person voter fraud is practically non existant.
Most dead people vote republican
Dead people vote by mail, not in person.Not only is this patently obvious but i've given you two instances of them ADMITTING IT ON CAMERA. There they are, they TOLD you exactly what they're doing, but apparently the narrative that scary cheating black people are going to vote at the pols 14 times resonates more strongly with you than the person confessing their actual motives in color television.
This is not to prevent voter fraud. This is to steal elections that their ideas can't win and they are giving you the incredibly lame excuse that its to prevent voter fraud and you are buying it hook line and sinker Its a canard.
How many instances of voter fraud is this allegedly going to stop?
If it stops ONE it is worth it. Your interpretation of a few seconds of a soundbite are obviously different than mine.
Plus there is the great amount of hypocrisy amongst Democrats opposed to voter IDs, such as:
Liberals support ID rules for every other occasion. The First lady required a social security number and photo ID to attend her book signing in 2012. Attendees at the 2012 Democrat National Committee convention in Charlotte were asked to whip out their state-issued IDs in the same state (NC) where 30,000 dead people were found on its voter rolls. And just last month, NAACP organizers for a “Moral March” rallying against photo ID laws told marchers to bring photo identification to participate. Oh, the hypocrisy!
So you don't have to have an ID to vote, but you do to participate in a march against voter IDs, or to see the First Lady, or attend the DNC convention. Hmmmm, why the difference?
Rasmusen reports: 59% Believe Voter ID Laws Do Not Discriminate
My entire point is that there is a concerted effort of disingenuous misinformation by republicans to manufacture grarg on this issue.
Your counter to that is...
Did you miss the honoring of the woman that was convicted of voter fraud, then mysteriously let out of jail over 4 years early of a 5 year sentence?
And there is misinformation by Democrats too (Pres. Obama's quote comes to mind), plus the hypocrisy in requiring for IDs in one place but not the other.
In North Carolina there are 155,692 registered North Carolina voters whose first and last names, dates of birth and last four digits of their Social Security number match those of voters registered in other states. At least 700+ of those voted in both states.
Now I know you are going to say, "but Romney won NC." But I don't care about who won, or which side is voting fraudulently. I just want to stop voter fraud. As for Dead people voting more for Republicans, I suggest you take a look at Chicago. Dead voters are going to vote for whichever side is in control. In Republican areas it's Republican, in Democrat areas it's Democrat.
What I really don't understand is why you and others don't want to do anything to stop voter fraud?