One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
For anyone confused...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 next>>
Mar 14, 2019 03:26:20   #
lindajoy (a regular here)
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Yes, Ohio did do it the right way and for the right reasons, the Republican party did not, they deliberately targeted those they figured would vote Democratic, it was a deliberate attempt to suppress Democratic votes. That is what made it "voter caging" and therefore was ILLEGAL. Did you read the Quotes I posted, read the details? They weren't trying to clean voter registration rolls, they were trying to invalidate prospective Democratic votes, they did not verify whether the registered voters voted in the last two years, they didn't send to all neighborhoods in the districts, they specifically targeted Democratic voting blocks. You can say what you like but that is dirty pool.
Yes, Ohio did do it the right way and for the righ... (show quote)


I agree it is dirty pool if If that was the intent especially if Singling out minorities in the process....

It seems this issue comes up about every 10 years or so because either or both party claims it’s an intentional act by the opposing party to eliminate votes. Those cases also have gone to court some with favorable ruling’s and some of not favorable ruling‘s. Much like gerrymandering isn’t it? And the allegations made with it yet both parties enjoy the benefits when it is to their party....

So many other ways to cheat than just not counting ballards as we witnessed in the 2018 elections.. Who loses, we the voters do!!! And we bitch but do nothing to Hold these shysters responsible. We get but we allow don’t worry!

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 03:43:53   #
Common_Sense_Matters (a regular here)
 
lindajoy wrote:
I agree it is dirty pool if If that was the intent especially if Singling out minorities in the process....

It seems this issue comes up about every 10 years or so because either or both party claims it’s an intentional act by the opposing party to eliminate votes. Those cases also have gone to court some with favorable ruling’s and some of not favorable ruling‘s. Much like gerrymandering isn’t it? And the allegations made with it yet both parties enjoy the benefits when it is to their party....

So many other ways to cheat than just not counting ballards as we witnessed in the 2018 elections.. Who loses, we the voters do!!! And we bitch but do nothing to Hold these shysters responsible. We get but we allow don’t worry!
I agree it is dirty pool if If that was the intent... (show quote)


1981, 1986, 2004, 2008, 2013 and 2016, in 35 years it came up 6 times, slightly more than once in ten, closer to once in 6.

As for the implication that both parties do "voter caging", I have yet to have heard of a case where Democrats have done it, that is not to say that they havn't done it, only that I have never heard of a case where they have.

As for "Those cases also have gone to court some with favorable ruling’s and some of not favorable ruling‘s.", it would appear that only one case was thrown out for insufficient evidence, again, not to say there wasn't evidence, just that the judge didn't find it to be enough to fully support the case. It looks like the rest have been found to have had sufficient cause to support the claims.

As for gerrymandering... The practice is complete fraud, just seems nothing is ever done about it. I can understand why, it would be difficult to fully prove in a court of law as to intent, even if it does appear obvious, the guilty party only has to claim he didn't intentionally do it to defraud the voters and it would be hard to absolutely prove that he did intend it to defraud them. I do not know whether or not both parties pull that or which party tends to do it the most (or the only party if only one does it) so I will not attempt to speak on who does that one the most (or only).

If I had my way, neither party would pull any of that crap and we would run totally fair elections, too bad I am not likely to ever have my way on that one.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 07:15:11   #
RT friend (a regular here)
 
PeterS wrote:
What always gives me a grin about conservatives is that they are so ashamed of their own history that they will adopt liberal ideals and actions as their own all while denouncing what would be typical conservative behavior of the time. In today's conservatives mind, they are the abolitionists all while not understanding that as conservatives--by definition--they are tasked to maintaining status quo thus would be the Southern plantation owner--or siding with such--who were in a fight for their way of life.

JW and I got in this very debate several weeks ago where he took the position that historically conservatives were the ones who were progressive and were responsible for pushing for change throughout the history of this country. According to JW, conservatives thumbed your noses as status quo--at tradition--and instead stood up for change whether in the creation of this country, the civil war and freeing of the slaves, standing against Jim Crow laws, standing FOR workers rights and child labor laws. Standing for women's rights etc, etc, etc.

Now I understand why JW is taking the position that he is taking--if he didn't then he would have to admit that historically conservatives were the racists and the bigots...and the ones who were trying to maintain racism and bigotry as a tradition in this country then...and today.

And as our countries number one bigot likes to say...that's just sad...
What always gives me a grin about conservatives is... (show quote)


In recent times, the Republicans were always the arch conservatives and the Democrats were always more identified with the lower middle class following an English tradition of Lords and Commons translated as Liberal / Labour in Australia and Republican / Democrat in the States.

In practice however the representation will often vacillate, for example in Britain the Blair government was more Aristocratic than the Aristocrats, this is also true in the US the pendulum swings according to personalities at the top of each party, if a Conservative government is in the highest office it makes sense to plug up the interests of the bottom this was Trump's best bet, which he didn't take.

Likewise if a Socialist is holding Court like the Tony Blair for Global Change did it for successfully the Upper Class.

This is our time, so if you give Trump a second term it won't be the same as the last 27 months.

Trump started with the alt-right ascendency in France,Germany, Czechoslovakia and Italy as these Countries embraced extreme right and left alternatives despite the fact that these Nations were relatively stable, except for the immigration issue, Greece was adversely affected but had more pressing problums to worry about which is interesting.

Maybe it was because the tradition of anti fascism in Greece since the war prevented the altright gaining momentum in Greece exploiting the situation but I'm not sure about that.

Compare that to the deadly violence of Charlottesville, VA in August 2017.

Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts: How Neo-Nazies and Ancient Greeks Met in Charlottesville.
origins.osu.edu
From Ohio State University and Miami University. Article by Denise Eileen McCoskey.

Donald Trump refused to condemn the violance caused by the white supremacist hate groups.

I don't think that situation would be tolerated again.

Alt-righ are employing the symbols of the Ancient World to give themselves legitimacy not necessarily specifically Nazi symbols, Charlottesville was the best example of this.

This alt-right movement does use fascist emblums in Eastern
Europe but it's illegal in Germany although the ancient symbols of Greece mean the same thing.

I think Trump was riding this wave that began with the snipers of the Maidan 2014 which was the Colour Revolution that Paul Manafort was a principal actor in, whose side he was on is unclear, I think he was getting paid by both.

The revolution failed and split the the Ukraine, also the Yellow Vest protests in France will be the pattern for street action in the future, if there is any in the States, and Yellow Vests are bipartisan no symbols allowed.

A lot of the Comments on this topic have expressed views with either the Republicans or the Democrats being the party representing future popular political sentiment, the strongest current driving the political plankton will best feed the smartest Whale.

Going by International trends it's definitely the Democrats unloading their hippie bagage that plugged up Obama and rejected Hillary that is driving the International agendas, Trumps appeal really came from the hippy alternative that ended up as alt-righ being pushed off the streets, now 4 years in its just ended and Trump can't seem to recognise his situation.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 07:47:14   #
bylm1-Bernie (a regular here)
 
JW wrote:
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/big-switch-big-lie/




Thanks, JW. Dinesh is from India but is one of the best informed historians in the world. He is a brilliant spokesman for truth and America. If you examine his path from poverty in India to today, he is a real study in conservatism and Christianity as he fights the inequities of the Democrat party.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 07:51:08   #
slatten49 (a regular here)
 
I offer a brief analysis from Daniel Patrick Moynihan on the difference between the two major ideologies:

"The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determine the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself."

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 08:50:11   #
badbob85037 (a regular here)
 
PeterS wrote:
What always gives me a grin about conservatives is that they are so ashamed of their own history that they will adopt liberal ideals and actions as their own all while denouncing what would be typical conservative behavior of the time. In today's conservatives mind, they are the abolitionists all while not understanding that as conservatives--by definition--they are tasked to maintaining status quo thus would be the Southern plantation owner--or siding with such--who were in a fight for their way of life.

JW and I got in this very debate several weeks ago where he took the position that historically conservatives were the ones who were progressive and were responsible for pushing for change throughout the history of this country. According to JW, conservatives thumbed your noses as status quo--at tradition--and instead stood up for change whether in the creation of this country, the civil war and freeing of the slaves, standing against Jim Crow laws, standing FOR workers rights and child labor laws. Standing for women's rights etc, etc, etc.

Now I understand why JW is taking the position that he is taking--if he didn't then he would have to admit that historically conservatives were the racists and the bigots...and the ones who were trying to maintain racism and bigotry as a tradition in this country then...and today.

And as our countries number one bigot likes to say...that's just sad...
What always gives me a grin about conservatives is... (show quote)


You know what cracks my ass up about these Libtard Leftist besides they are way too stupid to know they will never be ignorant? They won't debate. They come on to the sight, post a bunch of school yard insults then run away with their shame between their legs. There is reason they won't debate. It's because they are so wrong on every issue. They have no prayer or fact to prove any point to advance their piece of crap position.

Abortion, Second Amendment, immigration, border security, health care, the poor, Government control, a national police force just as armed, just as well trained as our military, voter I.D. crime as why the top 10 cities with the highest murder rates also have anti Second Amendment laws, disarming the law abiding, high poverty, long histories of being controlled by democrats and to sum it up the shit hole slums of the nation with only one worse, the shit hole states. Even the way to stupid know their names.

Even common history they got wrong as Jim Crow Laws, where they came from, and who supported them. Completely clueless how woman's rights came to be, and it wasn't about some multi-gender hermaphrodite trapped in a hemaphrodyke's body in San Francisco, last week.

As far as the child labor laws, I was 12 years old when I got a Social Security number and it's one of the few obama never used. Libs get their number at 35 when mom and dad kick them out of the basement they flooded.

Oh yea, when you are teaming up with one whose views are the same as yours that isn't a debate. That's two libtards drooling on each other.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 09:11:46   #
bylm1-Bernie (a regular here)
 
badbob85037 wrote:
You know what cracks my ass up about these Libtard Leftist besides they are way too stupid to know they will never be ignorant? They won't debate. They come on to the sight, post a bunch of school yard insults then run away with their shame between their legs. There is reason they won't debate. It's because they are so wrong on every issue. They have no prayer or fact to prove any point to advance their piece of crap position.

Abortion, Second Amendment, immigration, border security, health care, the poor, Government control, a national police force just as armed, just as well trained as our military, voter I.D. crime as why the top 10 cities with the highest murder rates also have anti Second Amendment laws, disarming the law abiding, high poverty, long histories of being controlled by democrats and to sum it up the shit hole slums of the nation with only one worse, the shit hole states. Even the way to stupid know their names.

Even common history they got wrong as Jim Crow Laws, where they came from, and who supported them. Completely clueless how woman's rights came to be, and it wasn't about some multi-gender hermaphrodite trapped in a hemaphrodyke's body in San Francisco, last week.

As far as the child labor laws, I was 12 years old when I got a Social Security number and it's one of the few obama never used. Libs get their number at 35 when mom and dad kick them out of the basement they flooded.

Oh yea, when you are teaming up with one whose views are the same as yours that isn't a debate. That's two libtards drooling on each other.
You know what cracks my ass up about these Libtard... (show quote)



I'm not trying to team up with you Bobby but I would really hate to be a leftist and try to defend their position. It doesn't take a shrink to see that they are simply using talking points and ad hominem attacks. It's easy to see that they are trying to outdo each other with nasty comments thinking that is really solidifying their position.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 10:19:46   #
lindajoy (a regular here)
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
1981, 1986, 2004, 2008, 2013 and 2016, in 35 years it came up 6 times, slightly more than once in ten, closer to once in 6.

As for the implication that both parties do "voter caging", I have yet to have heard of a case where Democrats have done it, that is not to say that they havn't done it, only that I have never heard of a case where they have.

As for "Those cases also have gone to court some with favorable ruling’s and some of not favorable ruling‘s.", it would appear that only one case was thrown out for insufficient evidence, again, not to say there wasn't evidence, just that the judge didn't find it to be enough to fully support the case. It looks like the rest have been found to have had sufficient cause to support the claims.

As for gerrymandering... The practice is complete fraud, just seems nothing is ever done about it. I can understand why, it would be difficult to fully prove in a court of law as to intent, even if it does appear obvious, the guilty party only has to claim he didn't intentionally do it to defraud the voters and it would be hard to absolutely prove that he did intend it to defraud them. I do not know whether or not both parties pull that or which party tends to do it the most (or the only party if only one does it) so I will not attempt to speak on who does that one the most (or only).

If I had my way, neither party would pull any of that crap and we would run totally fair elections, too bad I am not likely to ever have my way on that one.
1981, 1986, 2004, 2008, 2013 and 2016, in 35 years... (show quote)


I don’ have time to vet your dates but believe they are most likely true..

Gerrymandering is as old as voting itself and always comes into contention every 10 years by the party that lost.. Everyone likes it when it Helps their party but not when it does not..Challenged just recently the SC has made unfavorable ruling with for four states now.. You may wish to look it up.

Another to consider; what do you call this?? Do you support this form of suppression??

One of the ways that New York slams the door in the face of voters is the one-two punch of its closed primaries and its draconian party switch rules. Here's how it works.

A minority of states, including New York, still cling to party rules that exclude so-called independent voters from participating in the major parties' primaries. While these primaries may have been a step forward decades ago, when they replaced an even more exclusionary nomination process, they are now locking out huge number of Democratic voters. What are the impact of these rules?

Today in New York, if you are not registered to vote at all, you can register and declare a party affiliation about one month before the primary. If you're registered as an independent, but are so inspired by a candidate like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that you want to switch your party registration to Democratic, you'd better be a good planner. To vote in New York's federal Democratic primary -- which was held on June 26, 2018 -- you would have had to have switched your party registration by October 13, 2017.

That's right. You had to switch your registration more than eight months before the primary.

How much bigger would Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's victory have been if young people of all races could have easily enrolled in the Democratic party and been eligible to vote in the primary? And how many more candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could be elected? The machine knows the answer and so they suppress the vote. It is so obviously a tool of voter suppression that the national Democratic Unity reform commission - comprised of members picked by Clinton, Sanders and the DNC -- unanimously voted to authorize the DNC to sanction the New York Democratic Party.

Some inside the Democratic Party retort that only someone who signs up for the donkey-emblazoned membership card should be allowed to vote in the primaries even if it means young people and disproportionately young people of color are locked out. They ignore how strikingly similar this argument is to those Republicans use to justify onerous voter ID laws.

Incredibly, the fix is easy. There is no statutory change needed in New York to open up the Democratic primaries to independents. According to testimony from New York election officials, the New York Democratic Party can change the practice by simply asking that it be done. But just like red state disenfranchisers, machine politicians use voter suppression to stay in power. The same political cowardice that motivates Republicans who want a rigged election process motivates these antiquated rules in New York -- fear that in a fair fight the voters will choose someone else.

But the onerous registration process and split primaries are not the only tool of voter suppression and disenfranchisement that New York uses. The New York City Board of Elections, for instance, admitted that it illegally purged over 200,000 names from its voter rolls during litigation with the United States Justice Department and others.

The same is true of the embarrassingly early party switch deadline -- which is by far the longest in the country. There are policies designed by those who don't want to build and expand the Democratic Party but rather to control it and make it less responsive to its base and the needs of voters.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/19/opinions/democrats-need-reform-new-york-primary-weaver/index.html

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 10:32:46   #
lindajoy (a regular here)
 
slatten49 wrote:
I offer a brief analysis from Daniel Patrick Moynihan on the difference between the two major ideologies:

"The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determine the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself."


Depending on what is supposedly being saved is what throws the fulture to the political, yes??

In the land of “two Americas,” it turns out Republicans and Democrats don't even like the same foods...Arthor unknown..but very true...

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 10:47:20   #
working class stiff (a regular here)
 
lindajoy wrote:
Depending on what is supposedly being saved is what throws the fulture to the political, yes??

In the land of “two Americas,” it turns out Republicans and Democrats don't even like the same foods...Arthor unknown..but very true...


LOL....just for you:

http://time.com/4410194/democratic-republican-bipartisan-political-foods-america/

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 10:51:42   #
bylm1-Bernie (a regular here)
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
I read what little was on the link you provided, I tend not to watch the videos of the right, I am much more tolerant of hate I read than hate I hear, "conservative" videos tend to be too hate filled for my tastes. Now if you have any sources that I can read and not have to listen to the hate, I would be glad to give them a quick perusal.


If you really do not like to hear hate, then you probably should not listen to CNN or MSNBC or read anything from Media Matters or any of the leftist organizations. How you can ascribe hate to only right wing source is way beyond me. I would suggest you devote more time to Dinesh D'Souza. I don't think you will find any hate there, even to left wing activists, just pure logic. You seem to like to twist everything to your point of view which wouldn't surprise any of us on the right. If you don't see hate in Kevyn's posts, then we are done talking.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 10:56:16   #
Lonewolf (a regular here)
 
lindajoy wrote:
Must respectively disagree with your summation~~if voters want to vote then they should vote or at least send change of address so the new location is updated... It isn’t the governments responsibility to keep up your voting records its yours..

Supreme Court’s conservative justices uphold Ohio’s voter purge system...
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, other states plan to follow Ohio’s lead on voter purges... The real issue was voter suppression...
So what is Ohio’s voter purge system? It’s a means of removing voter registrations that the state feels are outdated from its rolls, forcing someone to have to register once again to vote. Anytime you move you are required to notify the property division relative to your change of address so your new registration card can be sent to you for voting later.~~

Ohio uses a multi-step approach to do this: First, it waits for someone to not vote for two years. Then it mails them a prepaid return card to make sure the would-be voter still lives at the same address. If the state does not get the card back and the person does not vote in any election for four more years, the state assumes the person has moved and removes the person’s voter registration from the rolls, citing a change of residence.

Opponents of the system argue that it violates the federal National Voter Registration Act and Help America Vote Act, which restrict a state from removing someone from the rolls just because the person failed to vote...What if they died or moved out state?? Purging is necessary now more than ever too!!

The US Supreme Court on Monday upheld Ohio’s system for purging voters from the rolls.

The Court split 5-4 along partisan lines, with the five conservative-leaning justices, in a majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, upholding the system and the four liberal-leaning justices opposing it. The ruling focused in large part on technical interpretations of federal voting laws, although the argument underlying Ohio’s system is, in fact, a much bigger one about voter suppression.
The Supreme Court’s Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute ruling concluded, however, that Ohio’s voter purge system did not violate federal laws. The Court found that Ohio’s system uses a lack of voting as just one piece of evidence, along with the lack of response to the prepaid return card, to trigger a person’s removal from the rolls. Since a person not voting is not the sole basis for removal from the rolls, the Court said, it’s legal under federal law...

Here, just read this should you wish..

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/6/11/17448742/ohio-voter-purge-supreme-court-ruling
Must respectively disagree with your summation~~if... (show quote)


What I find troubling is why do they Waite till a few weeks before an election to do it

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 11:11:21   #
slatten49 (a regular here)
 

I know you meant this post for L-J. But, when it comes to food, I am definitely and totally non-partisan. I like 'em all, without bias...especially when it comes to an all-you-can-eat-buffet.

With a nod and apologies to Will Rogers, I never met a meal I didn't like.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 11:26:45   #
bylm1-Bernie (a regular here)
 
slatten49 wrote:
I know you meant this post for L-J. But, when it comes to food, I am definitely and totally non-partisan. I like 'em all, without bias...especially when it comes to an all-you-can-eat-buffet.

With a nod and apologies to Will Rogers, I never met a meal I didn't like.


You must be a lot younger than I, Slatts. I used to be that way too. In the last several years I have slowed down a lot on eating. I used to be able to lose 10 lbs anytime I wanted but lately, I get full with half a sandwich. I used to eat a whole 10 inch pizza but now I'm lucky to eat half. All-you-can-eat places are definitely a thing of the past for me. We still eat out a lot but have had to cut down the amount.

| Reply
Mar 14, 2019 11:36:36   #
working class stiff (a regular here)
 
slatten49 wrote:
I know you meant this post for L-J. But, when it comes to food, I am definitely and totally non-partisan. I like 'em all, without bias...especially when it comes to an all-you-can-eat-buffet.

With a nod and apologies to Will Rogers, I never met a meal I didn't like.


I'm with you....we don't have to turn everything into a political test. Especially when a great meal can be a unifying experience.

You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I'm not hungry enough to eat six. Yogi Berra

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.