PhoenixDark
Banned
Ok, was just double checking. Same names makes sense, but same birth dates threw me for a loop.
765..."extrapolated" across the country to create 1 million cases of voter fraud. Amazing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Ok, was just double checking. Same names makes sense, but same birth dates threw me for a loop.
765..."extrapolated" across the country to create 1 million cases of voter fraud. Amazing.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
So this dipshit is running for House in Florida (United States house, not Florida), and has one of the most bizarre/insane tax polices i've seen. If it ever managed to get enacted, it would be a travesty for the poor in this country, and boon for the rich, even more so then it is now.
I mean, look at this shit:
So many WTFs, I can't even bold parts of it. Although, a opt-in tax policy is the biggest joke I've heard in awhile.
I mean, look at this shit:
Clawson Economic Growth Plan said:
So many WTFs, I can't even bold parts of it. Although, a opt-in tax policy is the biggest joke I've heard in awhile.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Birthdates aren't equally distributed between all 365 days as well.
empty vessel
Member
Some names are very common. For every 366 times it repeats (for a given year), no fewer than two will share a birthday. And probably many more than two.
WayneMorse
Banned
Jesus, what was wrong with Jennifer Granholm?
Yep, there are clusters of births around the same time, and also clusters of same name based on current events and other trends.
My question is, if they discovered 37,000 discrepancies before the elections, did they not do anything with them but log them?
Hobbestetrician
Member
Michigan (*cough*PD*cough*) was just thirsty for a Republican to come in and save the state. They didn't get their hero for four more years, though.
Aaron Strife
Banned
PD should field this one as apparently she was so bad she convinced him to vote for Snyder.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
empty vessel
Member
And why do Republican voter fraud reform laws not have anything to do with (what I'm sure is the relatively few number of) people voting in multiple states? Showing ID doesn't do anything to solve that.
Hah, I just realized the huge math jump he made. I see they investigated the small number, but I misread it as needing to investigate the large number instead.
Okay, if I'm reading that right, they took around 700 people, and from that extrapolated that as many as a million people could be committing voter fraud?
And also, every single one of those people who allegedly did so were democrats?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its convoluted
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tial-voter-fraud-uncovered-in-north-carolina/
Basically I think only the 700 actually voted the others just were on other rolls
NYCmetsfan
Banned
#patriotism
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117221/caterpillars-swiss-tax-avoidance-even-more-galling-rest
Rich Asshole said:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117221/caterpillars-swiss-tax-avoidance-even-more-galling-rest
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Is this any different from the analysis North Carolina did last year which had them investigating 1,200 individual cases and only finding 16 who committed actual fraud, where most of those 16 were just people who made clerical mistakes instead of actually trying to commit fraud?
How about instead of limiting thousands of people from voting, we just do investigations like this every year, so can take the 10 grandmothers who forgot they put in an absentee ballot and thought they needed to vote again at the booth, charge them with a felony, and ensure they never are able to vote again. Then we would be finally taking real strong steps to stop the root of the problem.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, do they have evidence that these people ACTUALLY VOTED in both places? I have no idea how the voter registration system works but from my side as a voter, it doesn't seem all that organized. All I know is that I go fill out a voter registration form when I move to new place to get registered. But I've never "de-registered" from a previous place. I wouldn't even know how to do that. So I presume voter rolls do fill up with duplicate registrations all the time.
But I (and I presume most people) have never actually voted more than once. It would be difficult to do and it is illegal. Who would risk jail time just for an extra vote?
PhoenixDark
Banned
I think Granholm, like Obama (or Jimmy Carter), was dealt a bad hand in terms of being in charge at a bad time. Manufacturing's slow death led to a horrible economy for much of the aughts, hence why our income % has dropped for a decade and young people are fleeing the state.
That being said Granholm didn't help by gutting education or passing the Michigan Business Tax. I give her credit for passing an ambitious job training program which partners with community colleges (MI has some of the best CCs in the country), but that's about it.
And like Obama, she was horrible at working with politicians. I don't excuse local GOP obstruction anymore than national GOP obstruction, but both leaders were simply bad at dealing with it. Be it compromise or strategies to outflank obstruction, both simply aren't good at either. Just as I consider Obama a poor leader, I'd say the same of Granholm.
So the House had yet another "investigative" session on BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI. The Republicans in the oversight committee accused the acting CIA director of lying for the administration. He didn't seem none too pleased about that (also, apparently this dude was with Bush when 9/11 occurred).
I know these retards are zealous and all that, but don't they realize it's probably not a good idea to piss pretty much everyone off?
I know these retards are zealous and all that, but don't they realize it's probably not a good idea to piss pretty much everyone off?
RustyNails
Member
It's the best "ammunition" they have against Clinton 2016 campaign. They're going to stick with it come hell or high water.
Avon Barksdale
Member
SMH Mississippi.
Hobbestetrician
Member
Where are my other LCC Stars at?!
PhoenixDark
Banned
Pretty much, but I also think a lot of the anger is about the election. Let's not forget the context of that summer and fall. Obama had a clear lead in the polls and there were multiple stories on the right spinning it as a repeat of 1980; Carter had a lead on Reagan until the Iran hostage situation got out of control (obviously there were more factors, but this is the republican narrative). Benghazi gave republicans the foreign policy disaster they wanted, and they clearly thought it would end Obama's presidency.
Remember the night it happened, including Romney's pathetic response? I remember twitter going insane with conservatives hailing it as a strong speech. Yet the attack had next to no impact on the election and Obama won handily. So I think a lot of the obsession over Benghazi has to do with republicans claiming Obama won the election by lying about Benghazi, thus invalidating his re-election. There's also the fringe insinuation that Obama either wanted US servicemen to die or didn't care.
This shit moved into incitement territory a long time ago. It's pretty clear many on the right are accusing Obama and Hillary of treason, of letting US servicemen die in order to protect their political positions. That's dangerous, and yet there's not a single republican who has backed off or tried to calm this shit down; instead they're all fanning the flames. There's a very obvious sinister undercurrent to the way the far right discusses Benghazi, or shit like this.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its like the John Birch Society took over the GOP
Hey guess who was a founding member of that?
Fred Koch!
The obsession with Chris Stevens from the right is just so absurd. If this dude was alive, he would have been lambasted by these same fucks the same way Hillary, Holder, Geithner, and pretty much anyone else in Obama's administration were.
Aaron Strife
Banned
WayneMorse
Banned
Actually Carter's lead didn't close until the weekend before the election, the debate actually helped Reagan a lot because he managed to fool people into thinking he wasn't a god damn useless idiot who probably couldn't remember his own name some mornings.
Also the hostage crisis actually helped his Presidency believe it or not, he was facing a tough primary challenge from Ted Kennedy in late 1979, and by all accounts Kennedy was going to trounce Carter. Then the hostage crisis happens and because of the rally around the flag effect Carter won big landslides in Iowa and New Hampshire giving him momentum Kennedy couldn't overcome.
He was damned either way, if the hostage crisis never happened he would've suffered the humiliation of being the first incumbent whose party refuses to renominate.
It's a shame, because Kennedy would've easily won the election in November and set our country in a different direction. No supply side economics,. no Alan Greenspan or Scalia, a better world.
I believe one reason was that Carter's UHC plan didn't go far enough for Kennedy.
Oh how history is so fun to look back at.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I think people miss the inevitability of the Conservative Movement its at its core a revanchist movement reacting to losing power.
Edit: I really don't know how he should have reacted to the Invasion of Afghanistan.
Carter was to the right of Kennedy. I don't get where people get the Carter being a raging liberal from. Economically he never really was. He was pretty good on civil rights and other social things for his time. And besides the Hostage Crisis and general handling of the Iran Revolution he was pretty good on Foreign Affairs.
Edit: I really don't know how he should have reacted to the Invasion of Afghanistan.
Yeah, I was pretty sure Carter was moderate economically and him and Kennedy had differences there, but I just thought there would have to be some severe problems/disagreements to primary a sitting president. I was under the impression there was a lot of personal animosity between the two of them for years as well.
zero shift
Banned
JesseEwiak
Member
Reagan goes from losing to this on the weekend before the election?
Anderson got 7% of the vote and back then, there were far less committed voters. Along with higher viewership of the debates, Reagan's "are you better off now than 4 years ago" allowed him to become electable to many swing voters.
Also, in addition, aside from various disagreements on policy, Carter came to DC with a bunch of his good ole' boys and had a bad working relationship with Congress from day one, due to being an outsider. As much as Reagan put it on steroids, neoliberalism, the remilitarization of America, and deregulation got it's start under Carter.
RustyNails
Member
192k Jobs, UE rate steady. We have officially recovered all the jobs lost prior to recession.
<House GOP> Let's repeal.
WayneMorse
Banned
The battle of health care reform as previously said, Kennedy wanted single payer and by all means that could've passed Congress in 1977 while Carter wanted something more along the lines of the ACA. Also there's was Carter watering down the full employment bill and blocking a lot of the initiatives the Democratic leadership in the Senate wanted.
Carter was convinced Kennedy was trying to subvert his Presidency from day one, they despised each other although I've heard they reconciled after 1980.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Generally I think it's easier for a Republican to earn the goodwill of blue state voters than vice-versa.
Even though it's unlikely, there could be a Republican winning in MN, PA, MI under the right conditions. A Democrat winning Texas anytime soon though?
This has probably softened since Reagan's time, too.
Even though it's unlikely, there could be a Republican winning in MN, PA, MI under the right conditions. A Democrat winning Texas anytime soon though?
This has probably softened since Reagan's time, too.
benjipwns
Banned
Polling back then was much more volatile:
The best example coming the election before, check out Carter's lead in the summer:
Also, as noted, the 1980 campaigns SOLE debate was October 29th.
Tough to compete with whatever court shat out Dredd Scott or Plessy vs. Ferguson on the world.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Kennedy was a dick, basically. Did a lot of great things but his behavior can't be dismissed. He blew up Carter's healthcare plan out of spite, and while I understand why Carter was polling in the 20s at the time, it's pathetic that his party threw him under the bus nearly from day one.
Also Kennedy hurt himself with a pretty bad CBS interview where he couldn't explain why he wanted to be president; that cut his lead from double digits to about 5. I don't believe he could beat Reagan that year, especially due to his past (letting someone die and getting away with it, having an affair, etc).
I think Kennedy was a great legislator and atoned for his past behavior, but in 1979 he wasn't going to win.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I was just talking to someone about this and I agree. It seems like a lot of Democrat voters like to see a candidate who fulfills some "bipartisan" quota and occasionally votes Republican. I guess it demonstrates to them that he's an independent thinker. Meanwhile, the Republican party is much more interested in ideological purity, supporting candidates who vote Republican as often as possible. What we're left with is a choice between two parties: A party that always votes Republican and a party that sometimes votes Republican.
WayneMorse
Banned
I think Kennedy would've still won despite the interview and Chappaquiddick, Reagan had a lot of blunders as well on the campaign trail in 1980.
Despite the Republican narrative telling you otherwise, Reagan was an extremely disliked figure in 1980, but to his benefit people hated Carter so much more that they were willing to accept any change.
mightynine
Member
So I'm reading about Mississippi's new Religious Freedom Bill.
http://time.com/49682/mississippi-phil-bryant-religious-freedom/
The bolded goes to something rattling around in the back of my head ever since the Supreme Court ruling this week about how limiting political contributions is limiting free speech. I might be very wrong on this, but isn't denying service to someone because you love Jesus and they love a man violating the customer's right of free speech, based on the Court deciding spending money is free speech? Or would there be a difference because of commerce over donations, where in the latter you're not "buying" something (wink-wink)?
(As an aside, Tony Perkins is one of the biggest pieces of manure to ever come out of Louisiana, and as I'm from the state, I feel like I should apologize for him at every opportunity.)
http://time.com/49682/mississippi-phil-bryant-religious-freedom/
The bolded goes to something rattling around in the back of my head ever since the Supreme Court ruling this week about how limiting political contributions is limiting free speech. I might be very wrong on this, but isn't denying service to someone because you love Jesus and they love a man violating the customer's right of free speech, based on the Court deciding spending money is free speech? Or would there be a difference because of commerce over donations, where in the latter you're not "buying" something (wink-wink)?
(As an aside, Tony Perkins is one of the biggest pieces of manure to ever come out of Louisiana, and as I'm from the state, I feel like I should apologize for him at every opportunity.)
NYCmetsfan
Banned
That's not the courts holding on why money in elections is protected as speech. They've never held money equals speech in that way.
WayneMorse
Banned
So basically the private sector is doing just fine?
mightynine
Member
I guess the difference is so slim I'm having a hard time seeing it (don't both involve or invoke the First Amendment?), but as I said, I'm not nearly versed enough to really argue differently.
AnotherNils
Member
the difference is between a private and public transaction. You can't be barred from practicing speech in public but a private individual can bar you from doing it on their property.
speculawyer
Member
Bush painting of Putin.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked