2016 Election
He has made some errors, didn't seem prepared for some questions that he should have known were coming. He's pivoted to the right recently on the gay marriage issue, which is particularly tricky for repub presidential candidates as the republican electorate, especially caucus goes who tend to be far right activist are out of touch with main stream America, which support for gay marriage is at an all time high of 60%. And let's be clear, most of those people aren't fanatical hardcore supporters of gay marriage, it's just that they don't care. It's a done deal....they have moved on. THAT is where the far right is out of touch. They can't move on.
But the biggest thing is Jeb just looks frustrated, even at this early stage. His encounter with the college age white girl who questioned him....it wasn't really a question but rather a statement that George W was to blame for the formation of Isis, was very telling. Jeb was just frustrated and eventually just said, let's agree to disagree and walked away. He came across as very unlikable.
And that is were Jeb is no George W. Brother George was a likable guy. Even if you disagreed with most of what he said and I did, the way he said it, his sense of humor, he was just likable. Jeb is missing that quality so far. I don't think he has it in him. Maybe he does and will find his footing. But so far to me Marco Rubio, is the guy that while I disagree with most of his positions, he comes across as very likable. If I was a betting man, betting on the republican nominee, Rubio would be gaining momentum in my book (at this early stage).
Quote: SanchoPanzaGetting rid of the uptick rule and mark to market also had huge roles.Quote: petroglyphIf Clinton [Bill] hadn't signed away Glass Steagal, this monetary crisis the world is in wouldn't have happened, at least like it is now.
Absolutely.
But, due to destroying Glass Steagal [which came about do to the last depression and worked for 80 years] and allowing trading banks which are essentially hedge funds to use depositors funds on their banking side and letting them insure those trades with cheap FDIC insurance, their level 1, 2 or 3 assets can be "marked to fantasy" and third rate obscure stocks can be considered "money good",or level one for their GAAP accounting level one assets, and re -hypothicated and borrowed against again and again. That is how the world ends up with 600 trillion in derivative exposure. It is all good when the fed and other central banks can create enough fiat to keep the economy in the air. But when one failure [Greece, Zimbabwe, ect] collapses, that domino effect ripples from one exposed lender to the next and the next. The financial system [of the central banking countries] is literally a house of cards or a "jenga" game. Also why all gold is flowing west to east.
IIRC 95% of stock trades are now made by HFT [high frequency trading computers] and held on average for less than 3 seconds. This can only happen when profits are privatized and losses are socialized [payed by taxpayers], in one form or another. All stock prices are now manipulated, and the old fundamental stock trading analysis or "charting" is moot.
The fed printed upwards of 6 trillion dollars [since 08] and let the tbtf banks "borrow" that money at .000something% interest. With a wink and a nod, these same mega banks put billions of the capitol "in reserve" and collect 3-4% interest on that money. So what is happening is the fed is creating money out of thin air, giving to the mega bands [ taxpayer sponsored hedge funds] and when put in reserves, receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer funded interest.
My objection isn't for some socialistic reason. The mom and pop's of our country that did everything by the rules and saved and everything else the "greatest generation" did, relied on what they were being told, being true. When I was a kid, I remember being able to collect 5% interest on a passbook savings account. That was due to banks needing the capitol all the little people held in banks being used for fractional reserve lending. Back then bankers did well enough in my opinion using that system, borrowing [from us] at 4-5% and lending it out at 6-7%. That was capitalism.
Now, there really aren't the traditional lending banks except or some state banks and credit unions. The mega banks who have the potential to collapse the world [AIG, Goldman] are getting their money for free from the fed [taxpayers] making staggering sized wagers and obscene profits, all because they have no fear of losing their bets. They are also immune from prosecution. When they get caught swindling, the fines are minuscule compared to the amount embezelled, and is considered by them just a cost of doing business, and ironic enough, those fines are tax deductible for the criminal bankers. [political contributors]
If the trades were not subsidized by taxpayers [fdic, etc] and the the hedgies were forced to hold a stock for at least a few minutes, some integrity could be brought back to the market, which at one time was a pricing mechanism. Now it is a casino with civilization as we know it, on the table, win or lose. But if the traders lose, we pay, if they continue to win, we pay. just sayin
Quote: terapinedRepublican voters skew a lot older then Democrat voters.
Since 2012, 2.75 million voters that voted for Rmmney will have passed away
Since 2012 2.3 million voters that voted for Obama will have passed away.
The repubs are allready running behind and now have to make up 400,000 votes they have lost.
I think this is meaningless, terapined. There are all sorts of little segments of data that you can look at that favor one side or the other. A couple that you can look at that favor the repubs is can Democrats match the voting numbers of young first time votes that tend to vote democratic, that turned out in even higher numbers than usual in the two Obama cycles and similarly if the black vote which heavily favors democrats will turn out in the ridiculously high numbers that they did for Obama. To put it bluntly....will blacks really be willing to stand in line for 4 hours to vote if a black man isn't on the ticket?
Quote: kewljIt's so early in the process that I hate to make too much of anything at this point....BUT I think Jeb is in trouble. Like many, I kind of figured a Jeb Bush vs Hilary matchup was inevitable. The only question was just how beat up Jeb would be from his own party. But now I am beginning to have doubts that he will even get there.
But the biggest thing is Jeb just looks frustrated, even at this early stage. His encounter with the college age white girl who questioned him....it wasn't really a question but rather a statement that George W was to blame for the formation of Isis, was very telling. Jeb was just frustrated and eventually just said, let's agree to disagree and walked away. He came across as very unlikable.
If I was a betting man, betting on the republican nominee, Rubio would be gaining momentum in my book (at this early stage).
Jeb was being chosen by the media and country club establishment. Most regular voters do not care for him. He has top a lesser extent the attitude that Hillary has of, "why do I have to waste time on a primary? Just pick me!"
On the Iraq War question it is easy to say now, but when they said, "Knowing what you know now" he should have said, "why are you asking me? Ask Hillary, who voted for the war!" It was a loaded question. The GOP field needs to train to not play the game of "Gotcha Questions" and instead tell the reporter to ask a journalist question or end the interview. ''
I don't see Rubio as nominee but a good VP pick. GOP voters prefer governors, not senators.
Quote: Dalex64"If I'm President of the United States and you're thinkin' about joining al-Qaeda or ISIL — anybody thinkin' about that? — I'm not going to call a judge, I'm going to call a drone, and we will kill you," --Lindsay Graham
Trying to be the thought police is more than a little scary...but I do think that if you become an enemy combatant, a terrorist, or something of that sort you give up the protections you have here as a citizen. Fighting for the other team is a lot different than disagreeing with what our team is doing...
Jeb is a target now, but that will fade as others go to the front of the pack. I am not saying he will win or even be close; just that the process is long and there are a lot of people who will get some of the attention he is getting now as we move forward.
I don't count either one of them out...their connections count for something...
Quote: djatcwhich one of these candidates will be opposed to lowering W2-G handpays to $600? I'll vote for that one. Even if they bring back the draft or start experimenting on humans. Don't mess with my money!
+1 and my pretty uneducated guess would be Rand Paul is most likely the one to root for on that issue. Just a guess. I thought he spoke out against illegal searches and seizures also if my memory serves me right.
Quote: Mooseton+1 and my pretty uneducated guess would be Rand Paul is most likely the one to root for on that issue. Just a guess. I thought he spoke out against illegal searches and seizures also if my memory serves me right.
Well, he "spoke" for 14 hours yesterday on the Senate floor, so maybe he said something about something? Who knows. Lol. Was anyone listening?
Quote: Mooseton+1 and my pretty uneducated guess would be Rand Paul is most likely the one to root for on that issue. Just a guess. I thought he spoke out against illegal searches and seizures also if my memory serves me right.
List of Rand Paul one man [or two] filibuster's.http://www.zerohedge.com/search/apachesolr_search/
I was looking for the one with the link where yesterday he is filibustering to stop re-authorization of the "Patriot Act", calling it the furthest thing from patriotism.
Ahh, found it: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-17/congress-trying-reauthorize-key-patriot-act-provisions-sneaking-it-usa-freedom-act
I was worried the fruit might have fallen too far from the tree, but there is still hope?
While the lamestream media reported on just the few big races in 2010, 2014, and to a lesser extent in 2012 the Democrat Party has been getting wiped out at the state and local levels. The bench is very thin, and the bench to the bench is just as bad. The GOP had a similar but not as bad cycling when Bush won in 2000 and pulled lots of people up to the big leagues. Shoe is now on the other foot.
Democrats have been counting on "demographics" to carry the day. Will not work if there are not strong candidates.
http://abc13.com/news/clinton-received-now-classified-benghazi-info-on-private-email-server-documents-show/736030/
Okay, so she had information that at the very least was sensitive on a server that did not belong to the government while she was the Secretary of State. Now that information has been classified "secret"...that leads to a bunch of possibilities.
--Should it have always been classified?
--Is there something being hidden?
--How lax was the handling of information in her State Department?
This, for some reason, came out late on the Friday before a long weekend. That is the way information is diverted away from the masses by our government--they release it when no one is paying attention.
I know that email has been used more by each successive Secretary of State; there is no reason in the world for ANY of them in the recent past to have any emails related to their position on a personal server. Was the government out of servers?
Quote: AZDuffmanAn interesting article of why Hillary has such party support.
While the lamestream media reported on just the few big races in 2010, 2014, and to a lesser extent in 2012 the Democrat Party has been getting wiped out at the state and local levels. The bench is very thin, and the bench to the bench is just as bad. The GOP had a similar but not as bad cycling when Bush won in 2000 and pulled lots of people up to the big leagues. Shoe is now on the other foot.
Democrats have been counting on "demographics" to carry the day. Will not work if there are not strong candidates.
The fact you actually see a poll out know showing Jeb Bush winning a General Election vs Hillary in 2016 when the Republican vote is all over the place suggests that once the Repubs settle on someone that this could be a beatdown of epic proportions
Quote: RonCWASHINGTON --Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton received information on her private email server about the deadly attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that was classified Friday at the FBI's request.
Maybe something interesting will come out. Meanwhile...
The personal (and apparently scrubbed) Clinton server was serially hacked, at least by other countries, according to the deputy C.I.A. director at the time. So much for the vaunted security of that server in Chappaqua, N.Y.Quote: RonCOkay, so she had information that at the very least was sensitive on a server that did not belong to the government while she was the Secretary of State.
Quote: rxwineMaybe something interesting will come out. Meanwhile...
Yes, let's. The other side has been beating the "Bush lied" drums for years. It is clearly true that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; of course no one saw the pictures of the impact of their use on the people in his own country. That IS a dead horse--and Hillary voted for the war based on the best information we had at the time.
Benghazi? That isn't a dead horse yet. Stonewalling an investigation and using a private server? There is nothing to see here, folks, please vote for the lady because...well...she's a lady... That line of reasoning has served as well the past few years... Move along now...
"Stonewalling" is not as clear a crime as the removal, or theft, if you will, of official government documents and the reported subsequent destruction of that evidence in what all participants had to have known, or at least feared, would be a federal felony case.Quote: RonCBenghazi? That isn't a dead horse yet. Stonewalling an investigation and using a private server? There is nothing to see here, folks, please vote for the lady because...well...she's a lady... That line of reasoning has served as well the past few years... Move along now...
Quote: RonC
Benghazi? That isn't a dead horse yet. Stonewalling an investigation and using a private server? There is nothing to see here, folks, please vote for the lady because...well...she's a lady... That line of reasoning has served as well the past few years... Move along now...
The funniest/saddest part of Benghazi is that Hillary claimed how she could handle a crisis best because she was married to the POTUS or something, then when a crisis did hit she failed miserably not just during it but after it.
Imagine if some other leaders acted like she did:
"Mr. Churchill, the Germans just bombed our allies in Rotterdam!"
"What on earth did you wake me up for? Just tell the world they are upset at a News Reel!"
Quote: SanchoPanza"Stonewalling" is not as clear a crime as the removal, or theft, if you will, of official government documents and the reported subsequent destruction of that evidence in what all participants had to have known, or at least feared, would be a federal felony case.
You are correct. Stonewalling, though, is sometimes part of the process of hiding something from the public that may be harmful to whoever is doing the stonewalling. It could be poor leadership, criminal actions, financial shenanigans that border on illegal, or any of those things. Stonewalling doesn't mean there is something criminal going on, it is just blocking everyone from the whole truth.
I get that there are some things that people in government (the president, for example) that I can't know. There are things the last President could not tell this President before the inauguration. The problem is when people try to make more than is absolutely necessary to our safety and security a secret just to cover their asses.
It happens with both parties. I am against it with both parties. The diehards on either side just dig in and say "dead horse" when the horse is far from dead because someone is not sharing the whole truth. That someone, in the case of Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation, among others, is Hillary Clinton. She is a candidate for President. That means that she needs to prove herself worthy of the position instead of just ascending to the throne as some would like.
Rice gave a statement that was false and it is pretty much known now that it was false and the people involved KNEW it was false at the time. If they had figured it out later, it may have been poor knowledge of the situation but the best info they could provide at the time. That is clearly not what happened. Yet the Hillary supporters and diehard Demos just say "dead horse"...being overly committed to one's party over the country is a deadly disease.
Quote: RonCQuote: rxwineMaybe something interesting will come out. Meanwhile...
Yes, let's. The other side has been beating the "Bush lied" drums for years. It is clearly true that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; of course no one saw the pictures of the impact of their use on the people in his own country. That IS a dead horse--and Hillary voted for the war based on the best information we had at the time.
Benghazi? That isn't a dead horse yet. Stonewalling an investigation and using a private server? There is nothing to see here, folks, please vote for the lady because...well...she's a lady... That line of reasoning has served as well the past few years... Move along now...
The left only supports the freedom to beat certain dead horses.
Quote: Gandler
The left only supports the freedom to beat certain dead horses.
I realize guilty until proven innocent is the typical standard for politicians.
If we don't know what a politician did every minute it must of been something bad.
That's why this is all political so far. Because it's not really a standard under actual law.
And I'm not interested in any guessing, because all of it is still old news and not particularly significant.
Quote: rxwineI realize guilty until proven innocent is the typical standard for politicians.
If we don't know what a politician did every minute it must of been something bad.
That's why this is all political so far. Because it's not really a standard under actual law.
And I'm not interested in any guessing, because all of it is still old news and not particularly significant.
The personal server thing is not at all "old news" and is "particularly significant." The average American, however, is not well enough informed to see how big of an issue it really is. If we had real journalism in the USA the press would be on it by a factor of 10 over what they are now. A POTUS was forced to resign over less.
Quote: rxwineI realize guilty until proven innocent is the typical standard for politicians.
That is the standard that has been set by the media and politicians, but you you aren't being honest if you don't see that it is applied more quickly to those on the right than those on the left. I don't think the set of current Hillary Clinton issues have been explored completely by the media. Isn't that part of what they are supposed to do?
If everything is on the up and up, she should be fine.
The mainstream media has been trying to just let it go, but there is enough information getting out that even they are seeing that something is wrong.
She's innocent of any potential crime until proven guilty; she's already shown incredibly bad judgement in the server issue. No crime there so far--just bad judgement on her part. Presidential? You'll say it's okay...but would it be okay if the next Republican Secretary of State did the same thing?
Quote: rxwineIf we don't know what a politician did every minute it must of been something bad.
No, just at the moments they are supposed to be doing their jobs.
Quote: rxwineThat's why this is all political so far. Because it's not really a standard under actual law.
Again, there is a difference. Just because something may not be a "crime" under the law, the judgement Hillary Clinton used can be questioned. There IS a standard that all of us hold for levels of confidence in a candidate's judgment. Some people will just say it is fine; others will say she should not become President.
What she did was for political reasons, I assume. To look better (in the case of the way Benghazi was described) and to control information (in the case of the email server). Maybe there is a crime in there, maybe not. It is like some of us would like to say nothing happened and move forward because the results of digging for information may be bad for Hillary. Others want it fully investigated.
Funny thing...if she hadn't let her spokesperson lie and if she had kept her emails in the right place, would we be talking about this?
It isn't the Republicans who started this chain of events.
Quote: rxwineAnd I'm not interested in any guessing, because all of it is still old news and not particularly significant.
I don't want to guess either. It is too important. Her competence, judgement, and leadership are in question. How about we get all the answers out there and go from there?
Quote: RonCI don't want to guess either. It is too important. Her competence, judgement, and leadership are in question. How about we get all the answers out there and go from there?
It's a fishing expedition and a hunt for a big fish they haven't seen yet. That is different than investigating wrong doing of a crime. I expect it to continue on until the election.
But don't expect me to be impressed by something they have discovered.
Quote: rxwineIt's a fishing expedition and a hunt for a big fish they haven't seen yet. That is different than investigating wrong doing of a crime. I expect it to continue on until the election.
But don't expect me to be impressed by something they have discovered.
My question to you is this:
Do you think that Hillary Clinton showed good judgement by using a personal server instead of a government server for her official emails while she served as Secretary of State?
The reason for that is solely because Clinton violated the laws and rules on government e-mail messages, as well as her solemn written promise to the president.Quote: rxwineIt's a fishing expedition and a hunt for a big fish they haven't seen yet.
The reason for that is because of adamantly partisan federal law enforcement that focuses only its political rivals.Quote: rxwineThat is different than investigating wrong doing of a crime.
Wouldn't think of it. Not even with bald-faced documentation of facts.Quote: rxwineBut don't expect me to be impressed by something they have discovered.
Quote: petroglyphList of Rand Paul one man [or two] filibuster's.http://www.zerohedge.com/search/apachesolr_search/
I was looking for the one with the link where yesterday he is filibustering to stop re-authorization of the "Patriot Act", calling it the furthest thing from patriotism.
Ahh, found it: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-17/congress-trying-reauthorize-key-patriot-act-provisions-sneaking-it-usa-freedom-act
I was worried the fruit might have fallen too far from the tree, but there is still hope?
A small victory thanks to Rand Paul: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/rand-paul-blocks-extension-patriot-act-future-illegal-nsa-spying-americans-limbo#comments
Also this, great article; http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/constitution-1-0-government-nsa-starts-winding-down-bulk-data-collection
Quote: AZDuffmanThe personal server thing is not at all "old news" and is "particularly significant." The average American, however, is not well enough informed to see how big of an issue it really is. If we had real journalism in the USA the press would be on it by a factor of 10 over what they are now. A POTUS was forced to resign over less.
Maybe if the GOP hadn't been the boy who cried wolf for so long this could gain some traction but everyone has grown tired of these stupid faux scandals that no one believes them anymore when they claim something is a controversy. I mean after multiple house hearings on Benghazi run by the Republicans all of which have found no wrongdoing on the part of the administration no one believes them when they say "We have the smoking gun this time let us just do one more investigation." This is not counting other stupid scandals that Fox news has trotted out like Acorn bullshit or even more fringe things like the Birther movement.
Quote: TwirdmanMaybe if the GOP hadn't been the boy who cried wolf for so long this could gain some traction but everyone has grown tired of these stupid faux scandals that no one believes them anymore when they claim something is a controversy. I mean after multiple house hearings on Benghazi run by the Republicans all of which have found no wrongdoing on the part of the administration no one believes them when they say "We have the smoking gun this time let us just do one more investigation." This is not counting other stupid scandals that Fox news has trotted out like Acorn bullshit or even more fringe things like the Birther movement.
I'll ask you the same question I asked another person:
My question to you is this:
Do you think that Hillary Clinton showed good judgement by using a personal server instead of a government server for her official emails while she served as Secretary of State?
Quote: TwirdmanThis is not counting other stupid scandals that Fox news has trotted out like Acorn bullshit
No, there was nothing at all to the ACORN thing:
"Clifton Mitchell helped register nearly 2,000 voters for the community group ACORN. But not one of them actually existed."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/voter.fraud/
C'mon, my Democrat friends, would you seriously have left the issue alone had their been any information leading you to believe that voter fraud took place by Republican supporters? It is illegal to register someone to vote who doesn't exist, isn't it? Yes! Voter fraud did take place. It may not have been as widespread as once thought, but it at least deserved a full investigation.
Voter ID--Registering fake people may not make a difference in the election unless some of those "registered" voter. Since Voter ID is such a bad idea, what stops someone from voting under a different name once that name is registered?
Quote: RonCMy question to you is this:
Do you think that Hillary Clinton showed good judgement by using a personal server instead of a government server for her official emails while she served as Secretary of State?
NOPE.
But we need to look at the judgment calls of all potential candidates.
Scott Walker tried to get a Wiccan chaplain removed from the prison system because he said the religion offends other religions. Interesting, but he failed.
He believes in abstinence only sex education. Ridiculous. And he passed laws interfering in medical decisions of women's right to an abortion.
He says Tribal casinos can only be approved if all tribes in the state approve it. It just sounds like a arbitrary way to oppose something, 'cause it doesn't make much sense.
Quote:Referring to Walker’s comments, Greendeer said the requirement wouldn’t make sense in any other business setting.
“It’s a bit obscure when you apply it to a non-native business,” he said. “You wouldn’t say a gas station can’t open unless all the other stations say it could.”
http://www.beloitdailynews.com/news/walker-sets-new-rule-for-casinos/article_67a0be60-8286-11e2-abaf-0019bb2963f4.html
He doesn't just doubt climate change he obviously opposes it existence from what I've seen of his statements.
His record of true statements is outweighed by his record of false statements at politifact making it worse than Hillary.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/scott-walker/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
This is one of your better candidates.
Quote: RonCNo, there was nothing at all to the ACORN thing:
"Clifton Mitchell helped register nearly 2,000 voters for the community group ACORN. But not one of them actually existed."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/voter.fraud/
C'mon, my Democrat friends, would you seriously have left the issue alone had their been any information leading you to believe that voter fraud took place by Republican supporters? It is illegal to register someone to vote who doesn't exist, isn't it? Yes! Voter fraud did take place. It may not have been as widespread as once thought, but it at least deserved a full investigation.
Voter ID--Registering fake people may not make a difference in the election unless some of those "registered" voter. Since Voter ID is such a bad idea, what stops someone from voting under a different name once that name is registered?
Voter registration fraud is different then voter fraud and has different reasons for their existence. The registration fraud took place because of an incentive for registering voters not to actually steal an election. In fact voter fraud is incredibly rare http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ accounting for 31 cases out of over 1 billion voters cast. Many of those are things that wouldn't be stopped by an ID like people voting in multiple precincts they are voting as who they say so have the proper identification.
Also investigations into ACORN found that there was no systematic abuse by ACORN and they were acting legally in what they did. Some employees did things that happened to be illegal but you don't dissolve a company because some of the employees are doing things that are illegal without being told to do so by their superiors. So investigations were done and they were found not guilty yet because we chose to assume they were guilty from the onset they were destroyed and funding bills for some odd reason say we still cannot fund ACORN even though it no longer exist and they were acquitted of all accusations.
Oh and in comparison the GOP in Florida hired a company known to not only falsely register people which has no effect on elections really but also had been found to destroy Democratic voter registration forms They also knowingly hired this fraudster since they hired him in 2012 after he had been accused of shredding documents in 2008. http://www.thenation.com/blog/170198/gop-quietly-hires-firm-tied-voter-fraud-scandal-work-battleground-states
Oh and to answer your question about what is stopping someone a matter of scale needed to shift an election. Why would I go to the trouble of registering multiple names and voting to swing an election when I'd need to do this most likely thousands of times basically necessitating the need to get hundreds of compatriots to help me when for the same cost if not cheaper I can bribe an official taking part in securing and counting the votes or I can hire a firm to do registration and have them destroy opposing party registration. In person voter fraud is simply too ineffective for anyone to seriously contemplate doing. I mean say I could vote over a dozen times what election could I theoretically sway. I mean even things like working for a hospital or nursing home and registering people mentally incapable of voting and then filling out and sending in an absentee ballot for them because they are physically incapable of getting to a polling place would be easier cheaper and net me more votes.
As to the Clinton thing sure it was stupid but numerous government officials have used non government issued email address. Its not the best idea but most politicians are morons when it comes to technology.
Quote: TwirdmanVoter registration fraud is different then voter fraud and has different reasons for their existence. The registration fraud took place because of an incentive for registering voters not to actually steal an election. In fact voter fraud is incredibly rare http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ accounting for 31 cases out of over 1 billion voters cast. Many of those are things that wouldn't be stopped by an ID like people voting in multiple precincts they are voting as who they say so have the proper identification.
Also investigations into ACORN found that there was no systematic abuse by ACORN and they were acting legally in what they did. Some employees did things that happened to be illegal but you don't dissolve a company because some of the employees are doing things that are illegal without being told to do so by their superiors. So investigations were done and they were found not guilty yet because we chose to assume they were guilty from the onset they were destroyed and funding bills for some odd reason say we still cannot fund ACORN even though it no longer exist and they were acquitted of all accusations.
Oh and in comparison the GOP in Florida hired a company known to not only falsely register people which has no effect on elections really but also had been found to destroy Democratic voter registration forms They also knowingly hired this fraudster since they hired him in 2012 after he had been accused of shredding documents in 2008. http://www.thenation.com/blog/170198/gop-quietly-hires-firm-tied-voter-fraud-scandal-work-battleground-states
Oh and to answer your question about what is stopping someone a matter of scale needed to shift an election. Why would I go to the trouble of registering multiple names and voting to swing an election when I'd need to do this most likely thousands of times basically necessitating the need to get hundreds of compatriots to help me when for the same cost if not cheaper I can bribe an official taking part in securing and counting the votes or I can hire a firm to do registration and have them destroy opposing party registration. In person voter fraud is simply too ineffective for anyone to seriously contemplate doing. I mean say I could vote over a dozen times what election could I theoretically sway. I mean even things like working for a hospital or nursing home and registering people mentally incapable of voting and then filling out and sending in an absentee ballot for them because they are physically incapable of getting to a polling place would be easier cheaper and net me more votes.
As to the Clinton thing sure it was stupid but numerous government officials have used non government issued email address. Its not the best idea but most politicians are morons when it comes to technology.
...and this is the #1 tactic of the Democrats--YOUR SIDE DID IT, TOO!!
I guess you aren't listening to what I have said and will continue to say--we need to root out all of those who even attempt to do the wrong thing. That means we have to investigate everything and get to the bottom of it. I already said that ACORN wasn't found to be a huge problem, but who really knew that going in to the investigations?
Meanwhile, you'll rail on about someone on the other side...
I want ALL of them scrutinized but I am in favor of more conservative government because progressives have not served us well. Poverty still exists in spite of us spending billions to make it go away...it is time for different ideas. Ones that may piss some people off. Ones that favor families and not single parents. Ones that favor work. Ones that encourage business.
Some ideas that may help (like a bit of protectionism in business, perhaps) aren't conservative...it isn't an absolute that we must accept "conservative" or "progressive"; we just need to head in a better direction overall. Taking my money to give to someone who contributes nothing and has no incentive to contribute pisses me off and makes them helpless.
I don't give a rat's behind if we allow gay marriage. I am not "for" it in the sense of supporting it; I just think that that particular lobby is running out of things to "want" and they get way too much attention. Go ahead, get married...screw it up like the rest of us. The 2%-3% won't be able to carve out that wedge once it no longer exists. It is ridiculous that we talk more about that some days than the really important issues. That is not giving them short shrift; it is simply that we need to fix a lot of big things...
Quote: RonC...and this is the #1 tactic of the Democrats--YOUR SIDE DID IT, TOO!!
I guess you aren't listening to what I have said and will continue to say--we need to root out all of those who even attempt to do the wrong thing. That means we have to investigate everything and get to the bottom of it. I already said that ACORN wasn't found to be a huge problem, but who really knew that going in to the investigations?
Yes the problem is we cut their funding before the investigation even happened and still refuse to allow them funding even after they were found not guilty. It is an ass backwards way to handle law you don't execute someone and then investigate. Also all this effort on a basically non existent problem. The amount of in person voter fraud has no effect on any election since you are talking about maybe an extra couple hundred votes being cast over a span when 1 billion votes were cast. Doesn't matter who does it it is still not a problem worth really doing anything that could actually disenfranchise people.
Quote: TwirdmanYes the problem is we cut their funding before the investigation even happened and still refuse to allow them funding even after they were found not guilty. It is an ass backwards way to handle law you don't execute someone and then investigate. Also all this effort on a basically non existent problem. The amount of in person voter fraud has no effect on any election since you are talking about maybe an extra couple hundred votes being cast over a span when 1 billion votes were cast. Doesn't matter who does it it is still not a problem worth really doing anything that could actually disenfranchise people.
It may have been done backwards, but there was plenty of strange stuff going on in ACORN. Do we really think they were a group worthy of taking money from you and I to fund? It isn't the government's money; it is OUR money. That group did not measure up and we should demand that ANY organization we give money to measure up. It doesn't have to be criminal--it can be a poor organizational culture that we should not support.
They did try to get the funding restored via court action, but they failed:
"The high court on Monday refused to review a federal court's decision to uphold Congress's ban on federal funds for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/supreme-court-acorn-funding-ban_n_880415.html
Voter fraud isn't as harmless as you want to think. It may not be as prevalent as some say, but swinging Florida one way or the other in 2000 may have taken only a few hundred votes.
Local elections often hinge on single digit numbers...
One citizen, one vote. Showing an ID isn't a bad idea.
The whole "disenfranchise" thing is a scam--we can make it so everyone legal can vote. Reality is that Democrats don't want Republicans to vote and Republicans don't want Democrats to vote. It isn't some grand conspiracy. We, the people, just need to watch those we elect more closely.
Quote: RonC
Voter fraud isn't as harmless as you want to think. It may not be as prevalent as some say, but swinging Florida one way or the other in 2000 may have taken only a few hundred votes.
Local elections often hinge on single digit numbers...
One citizen, one vote. Showing an ID isn't a bad idea.
The whole "disenfranchise" thing is a scam--we can make it so everyone legal can vote. Reality is that Democrats don't want Republicans to vote and Republicans don't want Democrats to vote. It isn't some grand conspiracy. We, the people, just need to watch those we elect more closely.
Yeah and even those few hundred votes cannot be shown to have happened. Again 31 cases each of those would have to vote 20 times in Florida in 2000 to get the number of votes necessary to swing that election.
We could make it easy to get everyone an ID to locally vote but that isn't being done. I mean we don't have any kind of national ID to actually facilitate getting identification. We could have it so everyone moving to another state can go into a DMV and immediately be issued an ID with their old license that currently isn't how it is. We could open more DMV and have them open longer hours and on longer hours for the weekend along with having public transportation directly going there to lower wait times and make it easy to get an ID. We could in high school issue everyone an ID and have it not expire or at least so they can use that to get issued a new ID. Plenty of things could make it so people always have an ID or can easily get an ID but none of those things happen. Again the GOP is doing things backwards if they want to protect elections. First you make sure everyone can get an ID and has an ID and then you make ID required for voting.
Also while I'm not technically a Democrat since feel they are increasingly becoming center right making it so we no longer have a liberal party I do vote for them because the GOP has gone to the insane side. Even still I want everyone who has a legal right to vote to be able to vote. With our current ID system and the proposed laws that would not happen. Plenty of people would be prevented from voting to solve a problem that has been repeatedly shown to be basically non existent. You will prevent thousands of people from legally voting every election because 31 people illegally voted.
Quote: TwirdmanFirst you make sure everyone can get an ID and has an ID and then you make ID required for voting.
I have no problem with that--I have even said that we can make exceptions for those over 75-80-85 who cannot get a birth certificate because, well, everyone didn't get one when they were born. That problem is self-solving...
This is an issue we should come up with a good compromise on. Our current politicians are incapable of working together. It is sad.
Quote: RonCI have no problem with that--I have even said that we can make exceptions for those over 75-80-85 who cannot get a birth certificate because, well, everyone didn't get one when they were born. That problem is self-solving...
This is an issue we should come up with a good compromise on. Our current politicians are incapable of working together. It is sad.
See this is actually something I can get behind. I don't mind voter ID and many point out how other countries in the world have them, forgetting the important part that those countries issue national IDs.
I mean if we can make it so that basically everyone has an ID or can at least with very little effort get an ID and things would be much better. I mean my brother had problems getting an ID when we moved to Florida even though he had an ID issued by California and a certificate of life birth from a Filipino hospital, born on a naval base, and his social security card. They said they needed a birth certificate issued by the state department which to get cost a decent chunk of change and 2 notarized statement and a valid ID. Thankfully my mom still had his expired passports which were accepted by the Florida DMV so were able to get it but if it wasn't for that it would have been incredibly difficult and possibly impossible to get an ID especially if we waited too much longer.
Quote: Twirdman
We could make it easy to get everyone an ID to locally vote but that isn't being done. I mean we don't have any kind of national ID to actually facilitate getting identification. We could have it so everyone moving to another state can go into a DMV and immediately be issued an ID with their old license that currently isn't how it is. We could open more DMV and have them open longer hours and on longer hours for the weekend along with having public transportation directly going there to lower wait times and make it easy to get an ID. We could in high school issue everyone an ID and have it not expire or at least so they can use that to get issued a new ID. Plenty of things could make it so people always have an ID or can easily get an ID but none of those things happen. Again the GOP is doing things backwards if they want to protect elections. First you make sure everyone can get an ID and has an ID and then you make ID required for voting.
Why don't we just have a black car pick them up and drive them to the DMV?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If you want to vote, it is on you to get an ID, not the government to be sure you have one.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy don't we just have a black car pick them up and drive them to the DMV?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If you want to vote, it is on you to get an ID, not the government to be sure you have one.
OK you want to protect election that is a worthwhile goal and you want to do it by requiring ID but you refuse to do anything to make ID easy to obtain. That doesn't seem like you are doing it to protect elections anymore.
What advantage is had by making ID difficult to obtain other then preventing people from voting because of "bootstrapy" American values. Requiring ID to vote is already poll taxes when you do not provide a free alternative to use for voting purposes. Even if it is free it is borderline a poll tax since it requires a birth certificate which cost money to get and some times quite a bit of money. I mean if you are born outside the country it is 50 dollars to get an ID at least not counting cost of notary or anything else.
I mean really why do you want to make it difficult to obtain ID what worthwhile goal is accomplished by this.
Quote: TwirdmanOK you want to protect election that is a worthwhile goal and you want to do it by requiring ID but you refuse to do anything to make ID easy to obtain. That doesn't seem like you are doing it to protect elections anymore.
ID ***IS*** easy to obtain. ZERO need to do anything to make it easier.
Everyone has one, if they do not it is because they choose not to do so. At some point a person needs to put forth effort to do what they want, and that includes getting an ID to vote.
Quote:What advantage is had by making ID difficult to obtain other then preventing people from voting because of "bootstrapy" American values. Requiring ID to vote is already poll taxes when you do not provide a free alternative to use for voting purposes. Even if it is free it is borderline a poll tax since it requires a birth certificate which cost money to get and some times quite a bit of money. I mean if you are born outside the country it is 50 dollars to get an ID at least not counting cost of notary or anything else.
BOO HOO FREAKING HOO! You need an ID to function in society, this has been proven over and over. So it is not a "poll tax" anymore than transportation to the polling station is a "poll tax." ID does not need to be "free." You have it already.
Quote:I mean really why do you want to make it difficult to obtain ID what worthwhile goal is accomplished by this.
It is not difficult to obtain. Of course it does require you have a mentality of a person over 12 years old.
Quote: AZDuffmanID ***IS*** easy to obtain. ZERO need to do anything to make it easier.
Everyone has one, if they do not it is because they choose not to do so. At some point a person needs to put forth effort to do what they want, and that includes getting an ID to vote.
Again this has been proven false over and over again. There are tons of statistics on the number of people who do not have ID and this number is in the several thousand. So you are ignoring statistics.
I've also pointed out plenty of cases where it would be difficult to get an ID and why one might not have one. I mean it can be difficult for those born outside this country to get ID. I pointed out the case of my brother and while it was able to be done it could have easily been significantly more difficult if not impossible. I mean you need a valid ID to get a birth certificate from the state department. California accepts a certificate of life birth but Florida needs an actual state department birth certificate. So theoretically someone could retire to Florida after having lived and worked in California and be unable to get a license or at least have a significantly more difficult time getting a license, but hey if you happen to be born in the US and have an easy to get birth certificate it might be easy and that is all that matters right.
I mean there are plenty of cases of why people would not have ID or what at least not have valid ID anymore and I have said some a retired individual for instance or a stay at home parent. Yeah the retired individual wouldn't be able collect social security but that is not required. Also someone working may simply let their ID expire and if they transfer states might not want or be able to get a new one. Of course since you cannot think or understand why or how anyone can live without an ID all of these must not exist and you are still right.
So actual statistics aren't evidence to you and anecdotes aren't evidence to you. So I'm guessing the only evidence you will accept is your gut feeling and other things that prove you right. You have done nothing to prove an ID is needed to function in this country for everyone and its laughable that you not only think you have but think you have over and over again.
Quote: TwirdmanAgain this has been proven false over and over again. There are tons of statistics on the number of people who do not have ID and this number is in the several thousand. So you are ignoring statistics.
Random comment cuz I'm curious...
I have a Consitutional right to carry a firearm. Still, I had to go through a bitch of a process, at great financial pain, in order to obtain it. Mine personally was ~$200 and nearly a two year wait. If I move, I have to ensure my license is accepted in whichever state I plan to move to, and if it's not, I have to complete the necessary process to make it so.
I did it and I will do it again because it is important to me. Is this different than the voting issue, and if so, how so?
Quote: FaceRandom comment cuz I'm curious...
I have a Consitutional right to carry a firearm. Still, I had to go through a bitch of a process, at great financial pain, in order to obtain it. Mine personally was ~$200 and nearly a two year wait. If I move, I have to ensure my license is accepted in whichever state I plan to move to, and if it's not, I have to complete the necessary process to make it so.
I did it and I will do it again because it is important to me. Is this different than the voting issue, and if so, how so?
Because voting is a necessary process for the state to run. While gun ownership is a right and is protected as such it existence is not necessary for the government of the Unites State to function. Voting on the other hand is necessary. Also the other thing is poll taxes were specifically abolished as a requirement to vote by the 24th amendment in 1964. That courts have found that licensing requirements by the state for gun ownership are legal and barring any amendment are likely to remain that way. This means anything that can be construed as a poll tax like being forced to pay for ID that serves no purpose other then voting can be construed as a poll tax and in direct violation of the 24th amendment.
If you want the same requirements for guns and want guns to be able to be obtained with no payments to the state or federal government you are welcome to try and get an amendment passed. It is unlikely to pass but you are welcome to try. That is what was necessary to make poll taxers illegal and it didn't come about till 1964 but they are illegal now so requiring payment for ID to vote is most likely unconstitutional.
Edit: As for whether I care enough to do anything to make it so the state and federal government do not charge to own a gun I'm in the thorough meh camp. I don't care enough to actively try and do anything to make it happen but I'm not going to be upset if it passes. I say as long as the necessary background checks and training are being provided I don't care whether the person who wants them has to pay or if the government shoulders the burden of the cost.
Quote: TwirdmanAgain this has been proven false over and over again. There are tons of statistics on the number of people who do not have ID and this number is in the several thousand. So you are ignoring statistics.
So, in a nation of 200 million voters we are worried about SEVERAL THOUSAND? Really?
Quote:I've also pointed out plenty of cases where it would be difficult to get an ID and why one might not have one. I mean it can be difficult for those born outside this country to get ID. I pointed out the case of my brother and while it was able to be done it could have easily been significantly more difficult if not impossible. I mean you need a valid ID to get a birth certificate from the state department. California accepts a certificate of life birth but Florida needs an actual state department birth certificate. So theoretically someone could retire to Florida after having lived and worked in California and be unable to get a license or at least have a significantly more difficult time getting a license, but hey if you happen to be born in the US and have an easy to get birth certificate it might be easy and that is all that matters right.
Well guess what, these people need to overcome the difficulties and get an ID so they can function in society. Welcome to life.
Quote:I mean there are plenty of cases of why people would not have ID or what at least not have valid ID anymore and I have said some a retired individual for instance or a stay at home parent. Yeah the retired individual wouldn't be able collect social security but that is not required. Also someone working may simply let their ID expire and if they transfer states might not want or be able to get a new one.
Again, well guess what, these people need to overcome the difficulties and get an ID so they can function in society. Welcome to life.
Quote:Of course since you cannot think or understand why or how anyone can live without an ID all of these must not exist and you are still right.
So actual statistics aren't evidence to you and anecdotes aren't evidence to you. So I'm guessing the only evidence you will accept is your gut feeling and other things that prove you right. You have done nothing to prove an ID is needed to function in this country for everyone and its laughable that you not only think you have but think you have over and over again.
I have done nothing to prove an ID is needed to function in this country? Where have you been? I have proved it over and over. You cannot get a valid job with no ID, you cannot drive, you cannot open a bank account; and that is just the three biggest ones.
OK, can you live on the fringe of society as an un-person without ID? Maybe. But such people are unlikely to want to leave the paper trail of a vote. For the other 99.99% they can easily get an ID. And since they need the ID to function then getting it to vote and leave a paper trail.
On the contrary, you have done nothing to prove people cannot easily get an ID. I have heard a bunch of stories about people not being able to get an ID because they are too lazy to do so. But zero proof that they cannot get one.
Quote: TwirdmanBecause voting is a necessary process for the state to run. While gun ownership is a right and is protected as such it existence is not necessary for the government of the Unites State to function. Voting on the other hand is necessary. Also the other thing is poll taxes were specifically abolished as a requirement to vote by the 24th amendment in 1964. That courts have found that licensing requirements by the state for gun ownership are legal and barring any amendment are likely to remain that way. This means anything that can be construed as a poll tax like being forced to pay for ID that serves no purpose other then voting can be construed as a poll tax and in direct violation of the 24th amendment.
If you want the same requirements for guns and want guns to be able to be obtained with no payments to the state or federal government you are welcome to try and get an amendment passed. It is unlikely to pass but you are welcome to try. That is what was necessary to make poll taxers illegal and it didn't come about till 1964 but they are illegal now so requiring payment for ID to vote is most likely unconstitutional.
No, I wasn't trying to turn it into a gun debate. You're comments about being a foreigner, etc. aren't something I'm familiar with. Me, I've had an ID since high school, and can't envision my life without one. I can't even remember the process to get it, as it was that insignificant. In other words, I'm trying to understand your argument.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo, in a nation of 200 million voters we are worried about SEVERAL THOUSAND? Really?
Well guess what, these people need to overcome the difficulties and get an ID so they can function in society. Welcome to life.
Again, well guess what, these people need to overcome the difficulties and get an ID so they can function in society. Welcome to life.
I have done nothing to prove an ID is needed to function in this country? Where have you been? I have proved it over and over. You cannot get a valid job with no ID, you cannot drive, you cannot open a bank account; and that is just the three biggest ones.
OK, can you live on the fringe of society as an un-person without ID? Maybe. But such people are unlikely to want to leave the paper trail of a vote. For the other 99.99% they can easily get an ID. And since they need the ID to function then getting it to vote and leave a paper trail.
On the contrary, you have done nothing to prove people cannot easily get an ID. I have heard a bunch of stories about people not being able to get an ID because they are too lazy to do so. But zero proof that they cannot get one.
I was being generous with the thousands its actually between 6-11% http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/debunking-misinformation-photo-id with several tens of thousands in certain states that proposed these laws. And again yes you worry about them since you are literally only stopping 31 cases of voter fraud http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ .
Also again you assume you need an ID for every day of your life. Say I get a job and then I let my ID expire since I don't drive and I don't need it to keep my job. Perhaps I transfer states never bother getting a new ID since I don't drive and don't plan on using my ID. I lived in Florida for almost 2 years without ever bothering to get my ID since it was unnecessary and burdensome since they didn't accept my California ID as proof I did end up getting an expired passport from my old home shipped to get one just in case I needed it. I mean how often do you switch jobs that you always need to have a valid ID to have a job? Or how often do you need to open an account at a bank. These are things that for some people are only done once or twice in their life at which point ID becomes unnecessary. If their company relocates them they may never have an ID for the state they live in.
Again even if it is possible how is it not a poll tax. People can live without ID plenty do several million in fact, but because you cannot imagine how anyone could live that way that isn't a hermit obviously ID laws won't hurt anyone.
I mean seriously you are neglecting actual statistical evidence that there would be a significant number of people effected by these laws and forced to pay to get an ID sometimes amounts ranging up to over a hundred dollars and your only evidence that it isn't true is your gut feeling. In Florida to get my brothers it would have cost at least 80 dollars if we didn't have an expired passport. Now sure we could easily have afforded that, but plenty of others cannot. That is the equivalent of an entire weeks worth of food for a family.
Quote: FaceNo, I wasn't trying to turn it into a gun debate. You're comments about being a foreigner, etc. aren't something I'm familiar with. Me, I've had an ID since high school, and can't envision my life without one. I can't even remember the process to get it, as it was that insignificant. In other words, I'm trying to understand your argument.
I'm not a foreigner I was actually born in Washington and my brother while born overseas was born a citizen. He was born in the Philippines in Subic Bay when there was still a military base there. So the military hospital issued him a certificate of life birth and theoretically the state department was supposed to issue him a Consular Report of Birth Abroad my parents either never got it or it got lost somewhere. To replace it you have to send in copy of a identification as well as a 50 dollar fee and multiple notarized forms. Never bothered with it before since California accepted the certificate of life birth. When we moved to Florida even though he had his old California ID and all the forms he had to get issued an ID in California he could not get an ID in Florida.
I mean yeah getting IDs somewhere piece of cake. Both me and my brother really had no problems getting ID in California, but Florida kind of sucked about it.
There is no indication that any charges were even ever considered and certainly no sign of any effort toward adjudication involving either the organization or its reviled leader. Just more calumny of guilt by wild and undocumentable fantasies that even Eric Holder's avowedly partisan department wouldn't even take a glance at.Quote: TwirdmanOh and in comparison the GOP in Florida hired a company known to not only falsely register people which has no effect on elections really but also had been found to destroy Democratic voter registration forms They also knowingly hired this fraudster since they hired him in 2012 after he had been accused of shredding documents in 2008. http://www.thenation.com/blog/170198/gop-quietly-hires-firm-tied-voter-fraud-scandal-work-battleground-states.
