336Robin Loc: North Carolina

There is no problem that I see.

Ri-chard Loc: 23322

May the status quo keep you then.

trashbaum

Robin and Nancy really go together

son of witless

Recognized modern temperature records only go back to 1880. The modern thermometer was invented in the early 18th century. British ships had widespread temperature readings from around the world from 1789 to 1834. That is not a lot of time to be making judgements on whether the weather is trending any which way.

Ri-chard Loc: 23322

Nothing like good deductive and common-sense skills.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Of course it isn’t that's why the scientist work from their self defined theoretical presumptions or assumptions and lace their reports with terminology phrases of: so and so so indicates, such and such, forms of a potential patterns “seems to indicate” and more research is needed. Etcetcetc… All theoretical interpretation with conclusions based on the information they chose to Experiment with~~ or fed into the search engines… Human error is not infallible…

RobertV2

Each person does have to choose. It's just not absolute for trusting one entity for everything. And when mistrust is high toward all of the choices, you have to do more by yourself. That only gives limited capability. That's why people band together to pool their resources. A few examples of banding together are: unions, governments, corporations, militia, and lynch mobs. Sometimes they band together for some good purpose, and sometimes they band together for some bad purpose, and usually it's a mixture in-between.

No, it's not "the Democrats" ("most in bed with the big companies, not the Republicans", you said). Instead of saying things like that, you'd be more effective to either focus on something more more specific or find a statistical study to back up the generalization.

RobertV2

I think so too.

RobertV2

Clues (sometimes accurate and reliable ones) are left; I don't know how they would find clues in California, but it's easy to point to "ice cores" in places like Antarctica. There was no thermometer back a few millennia ago, but the stuff that ended up in the ice got frozen in place anyway, and is still there to measure _now_ when we _do_ have instruments.

RobertV2

I'm not focused on whether something's a "law" or not; I'm more focused on whether actions that were done were voter suppression or not.

In my quotes below, I'll use braces ( {...} ) instead of square brackets, to avoid running afoul of the OPP formatting.

In what follows, the first paragraph is written satirically. This is a quote from pages 98-99, Ibid. (the same book as in my earlier post):

"Then there is the 'Mohamed Mohamed' posse. Because they share the most common name on the planet, they were able to pull off their electoral crime. Though, inexplicably, they changed their middle names. In Columbus, Ohio, alone, there are more than 20 Mohamed Mohameds illegally registering in two states.

"According to Kobach.

"It would be a joke ... except that thousands of these Mohameds and Michael Jacksons and James Browns were purged from the voter rolls ..."

"Once again, I brought in Mark Swedlund and his expert database team. They went through name by name and discovered that _two_million_ of the supposed matched voters had either mis-matched middle names or mis-matched suffixes (Jr./Sr.) or both.

"... reports about Crosscheck cited Kobach's statement that the voters were matched not only by first and last name, but by middle name, suffix, date of birth and last four digits of their social security numbers."

Pause, at this point, and reflect on the above example of many people named Mohamed Mohamed but having different middle names.

Resume:

"But then, I got my hands on the secret instructions for Crosscheck's implementation sent by Kobach to every voting state official telling them they could 'ignore' mis-matches. Indeed, says Swedlund, almost _every_one_ of the millions on the list was a mismatch.

"... Not a single American newspaper asked for the actual list of alleged double-registered voters. Not one asked for the names of the _hundreds_of_thousands_ of voters named Jackson and Rodriguez and Mohamed who were purged and lost their right to vote.

Page 101:

"Strach doubled down on the drama, hiring a big-name FBI agent, Chuck Stuber, to arrest these felon fraudulent voters {such as people supposedly voting twice, once in each of two states}."

Page 104:

"... North Carolina's million-dollar manhunt had produced nothing, zero, ... 'These voters were hard to find.' So, I offered to give him Kevin Hayes's mom's address.

"His eyes popped open wide. He realized I had something he wished I didn't have: his confidential Crosscheck list for tens of thousands of North Carolina voters."

"North Carolinas's Stuber and Strach, after a year of hunting, never convicted, never even charged one double-voter on the Crosscheck list .... There were no illegal voters ... but Crosscheck eliminated enough Hayeses, Jacksons and Mohameds to help flip the state from an Obama win in 2008 to Trump in 2016."

Page 109:

"You could call this Jim Crow trick the 'Last name game.'

"... According to the US Census, 85 of the 100 most common last names in America are minority names -- Rodriguez, Jones, Chong, Patel, Jackson, etc. ...

(Page 110) "The result, the list contains gazillions of Jesse Jacksons but not one double of Kris Kobach, Jon Husted nor David Koch."

Page 111:

"I showed him {Kobach} his own Kansas hit list, matching James _Evan_ Johnson with James _P._ Johnson. ... I showed him that the clearly illegal advice {"to ignore the social security number and other mis-matches"} had the Great Seal of the Secretary of State of Kansas stamped on it ..."

(end of quotes)

As you suggested that I do, you can "Try again", if you want to. I would just keep quoting from the same book, although maybe I've done enough of that and will give it a rest.

Radiance3

===============
Wrong analogy! In every organization, there is that common goal to achieve. Whether a corporation, labor union, or a state, a city, and a country. Depends upon the type of organization, or government ideology they have. In a communist government like CCP it is about power control. All people are enforced to obey and comply.

In a democratic system of government, the objective to achieve is thru the majority of the people. These majority have common bonds. they vote for the same leaders who'll be able to meet their demands.
The fewer population are left behind because they think differently, and not included as a whole.

In a government under a republic, all people or all states are part of the decision making process. Small and big states alike are represented to make decisions, choosing their leaders.

In a corporation, the goal is for profit. Though achieving that end, the processes involved different kinds of people, skills, and expertise, but focusing to that same goal of profitability.
A corporation is run by Board of Directors under the Chairman of the Board. However, they have one common bond and goals to achieve. profit.
A corporation can stand as a person, cause it is a juridical entity. They are protected legally like human being, can sue and be sued.

The political party is different. The party, if you belong to the left, or democrat, that are made up of left thinking people. These people believe that everybody must be equal, regardless of the mental ability, their lack of desires to learn, and work hard. They think more of dependency to those who are able to move upward. This party is usually held by their chosen leaders who control the power, and their desires to hold that power through various means, right or wrong. Sometimes cheating the election. That is why Obama, Hillary, Biden, and their cronies. along with the democrats in Congress. They have one common bond, power and control This is run thru the democrat- socialist party.

RobertV2

The corporation as described is not necessarily a good thing; but you did describe it pretty well.

Your description of political parties is not so good. It reads like propaganda. Somebody could have written a similar description of the opposite political party, and it would be as true as this one was (if not more so).

Ri-chard Loc: 23322

Yep, the Antarctic was once a Greenland with mountains galore with fresh waters.

When I bought my property on the Eastern shore, I had a well dug and at 60 feet they hit an oyster bed and at 90ft they hit a clam bed.

American Vet

Attempting to keep the vote secure is not 'voter suppression'.

Sorry you disagree with that.

336Robin Loc: North Carolina

Consider the manner of Social Security which operates a lot like an Insurance Policy.

They don't mind using that money do they? So how much is it really making outside of the fact that it pays very low interest? Many people never get to take a dime because they die. That is like having a guarantee income that they can go to and that is why they keep raiding it. Sure the interest paid is low but its the other that is paying the bills.

All they really have to do is back off of it. They will never pay back what they've taken. 2020 was supposed to be the first year they started payments and I have not searched to see if that happened but even if it did all they have to do to offset that payment is take out more.

I spent a fair amount of time on the calculations I made and I considered it throughly before I decided to not take mine until 67 or 70 and I'm 60 now.

I went back and figured how much interest I would have if all of that money had gone into one of my favorite mutual funds and the payout that I could plausibly get was on par with what the system offers because I wasn't putting in a ton of money in the system (54k over my lifetime).

The robbery occurs every single time that a participant dies and doesn't get all of his money out. I would have drawn out my entire amount in 3 yrs but for most people that is not the point. They want to say that they could have had a lot more money (which is true) but the amount of money wouldn't sustain a pay out of 4 to 5 percent and have that equal what they were getting from SS for a life time benefit in a lot of cases.

So if you privatize that, you end up with more money and likely less of a benefit because now its more like a mutual fund with an ownership of your account and not a collective insurance type investment where all recipient's are helping the rest have a lifetime benefit.

In the end if you consider what you put in and what you could be taking out its not such a bad program. Apparently our lawmakers love it and they won't be letting it go broke. It's too big of a cash cow for them. If it was really in trouble they would stop taking out IOU's from it.

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10-myths-explained.html

It's to bemoan the program but its there for pretty good reason. I will use mine to buy real estate and the insurance that goes with it if I die prematurely.