Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion about hot topics trending today

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post
    The Republican party of -today- is not even a shadow of what it once stood for.

    Yet, the only politicians proven to encourage it are republican.
    How odd.
    Excuse me. Have you seen the discussion I've been having with Tood?

    https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/ce...aud-allegation

    The clerk said a staffer noticed the issue last week and in turn he notified the Board of Elections someone was on the voter rolls illegally. However, he said the law essentially requires his workers to turn a blind eye when it comes to status and voter registration.

    "When that person is completing that transaction they're asked the question, are you a citizen or not,” Kearns said. “If they answer yes, there is nothing right now that our staff can do. They've been told by the state of New York, stand down. On an E Felony, stand down."
    Yes, you read that right. NY is now allowing illegals to apply for drivers licenses. (a huge mistake in and of itself) And, with motor voter laws, you can register to vote at the same time. (they are also pushing for automatic voter registration) County clerks are being directed to take the applicants word as to their immigration status, without checking or verification.

    This is nothing but a blatant attempt to register illegals to vote.

    Comment


      Ok, now it's the Republicans turn.

      House votes to send impeachment articles to Senate

      What's the old saying? "He who laughs last laughs best".

      Comment


        Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
        Ok, the short version: I've provided references to what I'm talking about, but they don't agree with your worldview, so you're gonna ignore them. Fair 'nuff, you're free to think as you will.
        I didn't ignore them and they didn't speak to any worldview so I am left confused. What worldview did those articles express? The only thing I don't believe is the conspiracy nut interviewed in one article. Sorry, but "There are secret orders that are not written anywhere" is not a believable claim. That claim is a claim of corruption and a crime, yet I see no calls for investigation, no lawsuits...nada.

        I never claimed any issue with the sources. The truth of the matter is that you simply made things up that those sources don't say and tried to pass it off as if your claims were represented in the sources. Newsflash (pun intended)....your claims are not backed up by the articles you posted with the exception of the "Secret orders" voiced by one interviewee. I actually think for myself and it seems odd that there are these "Secret orders" being issued to clerks to fulfill some nefarious plot hatched by a cigarette smoking man hiding behind the scenes somewhere.

        In other words, your claim of me "ignoring" sources is pure crap and you know it. You're just too prideful and stubborn to ever admit that you made a mistake. Have you even actually read what you linked?

        I have no opposition to third parties, in fact, in years past, when there is no major party candidate that I do support (2012 pres., Romney vs Obama for example) I voted for the 3rd party, in order to help them maintain enough votes to survive on the next ballot.

        But I admit they face an uphill battle; the key to getting their message out is advertising in our media, which is very expensive. They have to earn the levels of support and donations needed, and that's difficult. Nothing we can do about that. While we can mandate that broadcast media (OTA TV/Radio) carry ads for legitimate candidates (as defined by petition signature counts) and I do support such measures, OTA is a small part of the picture these days, and the govt. doesn't have the right to mandate that other types of media do so.

        I don't see a practical solution, do you? Or do you just want to hand out $ ?
        Oh there are many more barriers to third parties than that. The fact is that in a presidential system, the lifeblood of a party is the possibility of electing a president. With the EC, that is an impossible barrier. No amount of money can overcome that barrier. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were fairly well known, only those who don't follow politics would have been ignorant of them...and that's a result of the education system as much as the lack of campaign funds.

        Where can I start....First we have an issue with getting people on the ballots. The DNC and GOP get automatic inclusion while third parties have to constantly fight tooth and nail to even have a shot at appearing there. Really, the Libertarian and Green parties should also be automatically included at this point.

        They are also underrepresented in the education system (I sneak them in as much as I can...but sadly the standards focus on the GOP and DNC). But these two aren't exactly unsurmountable either...but there are more reasons, continue reading.

        Incumbents have a ridiculous advantage at winning reelection. I think it's 90% get reelected or to similar affect in Congress. That is a massive barrier to getting a third party member squeezed in. For example, let's say that a state representative of Ohio's 3rd district is a republicrat. Changes are that that same guy will win most of the time in each reelection. Most districts will do that. But what if that republicrat can only be in office for two, three or four terms? When the term limit hits...it's a free for all. A Greenatarian (3rd party dude) can have a shot. Most districts are one party districts until there is a major shift. But a Green Party candidate can pose a serious challenge to a democrat and a libertarian to a republican. Once the republicrat loses...it breaks the idea that you only have two choices. But with no term limits...the odds are not in the favor of any Greenatarian.

        Then this is where gerrymandering comes into play as well. Greenatarians can thrive where there is a swing vote because it increases the chance of an incumbent losing. However, Gerrymandering is designed to eliminate swing votes. Also, campaign financing is incredibly corrupt and in need of severe overhaul which would help deal with the money issue.

        Then there is voter suppression. Low voter turnout (having two options is not feasible) and our political culture that falsely preaches a binary spectrum of politics.

        You don't need to solve all of these issues...just a few of them to make cracks. If we can get just a handful of Greenatarians in Congress, all of a sudden the "base" of Republicrats become less important. And that would start the process of changing the political culture. Add term limits and end the EC and all of a sudden appealing to Greenatarians becomes an important aspect damaging the Republicrat's ability to be ideologically pure...as in an end to the tyranny of the Republicrat base and the birth of coalition building to achieve a majority in Congresses...which means no President can ever rely on their own party...further giving power and value to Greenatarians. Maybe even a system where parties are replaced more often thus ending the corruption of party bosses. But you don't want any of that all.

        Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
        Excuse me. Have you seen the discussion I've been having with Tood?

        https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/ce...aud-allegation



        Yes, you read that right. NY is now allowing illegals to apply for drivers licenses. (a huge mistake in and of itself) And, with motor voter laws, you can register to vote at the same time. (they are also pushing for automatic voter registration) County clerks are being directed to take the applicants word as to their immigration status, without checking or verification.

        This is nothing but a blatant attempt to register illegals to vote.
        Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
        Ok, now it's the Republicans turn.

        House votes to send impeachment articles to Senate

        What's the old saying? "He who laughs last laughs best".
        And you don't see the issue with the implications of this sentence?
        By Nolamom
        sigpic


        Comment


          Originally posted by aretood2 View Post
          I didn't ignore them and they didn't speak to any worldview so I am left confused. What worldview did those articles express? The only thing I don't believe is the conspiracy nut interviewed in one article. Sorry, but "There are secret orders that are not written anywhere" is not a believable claim. That claim is a claim of corruption and a crime, yet I see no calls for investigation, no lawsuits...nada.
          The article I posted tells of a county clerk being told by the state to stand down or not investigate or verify claims of citizenship made by illegal aliens applying for drivers' licenses when it comes to their voting rights. You think he's imagining it?

          And, another question.. Did they ever think that if he is applying for a lic. as an illegal, he can't possibly be a citizen?

          Would you really expect someone to investigate or sue in this liberal hellhole? The state govt. as a whole is actively promoting citizenshp rights for illegals. Do you think some county clerk is going to get themselves canned by making a stink about this?

          Originally posted by aretood2 View Post
          Oh there are many more barriers to third parties than that. The fact is that in a presidential system, the lifeblood of a party is the possibility of electing a president. With the EC, that is an impossible barrier. No amount of money can overcome that barrier. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were fairly well known, only those who don't follow politics would have been ignorant of them...and that's a result of the education system as much as the lack of campaign funds.


          Where can I start....First we have an issue with getting people on the ballots. The DNC and GOP get automatic inclusion while third parties have to constantly fight tooth and nail to even have a shot at appearing there. Really, the Libertarian and Green parties should also be automatically included at this point.
          The DEMS and REPS do not legally get automatic inclusion, but yes, as a practical matter, they do because they've got proven levels of support as shown in prior elections. The Libertarian/Green or any other parties will get on if they meet the standards, same as everyone else. The plain and simple truth is that they aren't yet that popular.

          What's to stop a sufficiently popular 3rd party from getting his name on the ballot via petition signature counts or number of votes for that party in the last election? He would then have electors pledged to vote for him, just a would any other candidate. The rules are the same for all. Or do you want to give any minor party candidate a pass on them just because they are a minority party?

          Oh, and it's not unheard of for a 3rd party / independent to make it to the Presidential level. Remember Ross Perot? Whom I did support, btw.
          He had a very popular platform, so he made the cut. If other 3rd party folks want to play, they need to push popular platforms.

          Originally posted by aretood2 View Post
          They are also underrepresented in the education system (I sneak them in as much as I can...but sadly the standards focus on the GOP and DNC). But these two aren't exactly unsurmountable either...but there are more reasons, continue reading.

          Incumbents have a ridiculous advantage at winning reelection. I think it's 90% get reelected or to similar affect in Congress. That is a massive barrier to getting a third party member squeezed in. For example, let's say that a state representative of Ohio's 3rd district is a republicrat. Changes are that that same guy will win most of the time in each reelection. Most districts will do that. But what if that republicrat can only be in office for two, three or four terms? When the term limit hits...it's a free for all. A Greenatarian (3rd party dude) can have a shot. Most districts are one party districts until there is a major shift. But a Green Party candidate can pose a serious challenge to a democrat and a libertarian to a republican. Once the republicrat loses...it breaks the idea that you only have two choices. But with no term limits...the odds are not in the favor of any Greenatarian.
          Of course incumbents have an advantage. They get automatic name recognition, which is huge. How many voters go in the booth and think "oh, I've heard that name before"? They also have an easier time getting their message out.

          As the saying goes, "It's all about the benjamins". The 3rd party has to buy what incumbancy grants the officeholder.
          I've suggested reducing the impact of money on politics. The govt. can mandate that broadcast media provide time for any legitimate candidate (as defined by petition count or prior vote counts for that party) to partially offset that, and that would be good. But they can't force non-broadcast, there is no license to withhold.

          Originally posted by aretood2 View Post
          Then this is where gerrymandering comes into play as well. Greenatarians can thrive where there is a swing vote because it increases the chance of an incumbent losing. However, Gerrymandering is designed to eliminate swing votes. Also, campaign financing is incredibly corrupt and in need of severe overhaul which would help deal with the money issue.
          Of course, gerrymandering comes into play. But what grants one party or the other the ability to gerrymander? Their popularity with the voters in that state. If the people in the state like what one party or the other or third says, they win the statehouse and the legislatures, and thereby the ability to draw the districts. "To the victor go the spoils"

          Yes, 3rd party candidates face an uphill battle. But as long as everyone is required to play by the same rules,, same # of petition sigs. to get on the ballot, there is no foul. It sounds to me that you want to create a foul by giving special breaks to smaller, less popular parties. Sorry, stacking the deck is not the answer. Everyone must play by the same rules. Period.

          Originally posted by aretood2 View Post
          Then there is voter suppression. Low voter turnout (having two options is not feasible) and our political culture that falsely preaches a binary spectrum of politics.

          You don't need to solve all of these issues...just a few of them to make cracks. If we can get just a handful of Greenatarians in Congress, all of a sudden the "base" of Republicrats become less important. And that would start the process of changing the political culture. Add term limits and end the EC and all of a sudden appealing to Greenatarians becomes an important aspect damaging the Republicrat's ability to be ideologically pure...as in an end to the tyranny of the Republicrat base and the birth of coalition building to achieve a majority in Congresses...which means no President can ever rely on their own party...further giving power and value to Greenatarians. Maybe even a system where parties are replaced more often thus ending the corruption of party bosses. But you don't want any of that all.
          Oh, get lost with that suppression crap. Granted, there are some isolated incidences of some states making things more difficult by closing registration offices in urban area, and that's getting squashed. But overall, there are no special requirements for one group of people.

          Require citizenship verification in order to register to vote and govt. issued photo ID at the polling place. This should apply to all. Since most if not all state governments will provide non-driver ID cards at no charge, what is the problem?

          Comment


            https://people.com/food/almond-milk-...y-bees-report/ - always knew vegans were bad news

            Comment

            Working...
            X