Bush = Obama

Bush and Obama were reelected by almost exactly the same percentages. Both got around 51% of the vote. It is enough to get reelected but not a big number. (Ronald Reagan got reelected with nearly 58%.) Bush perhaps had a little more political capital than Obama because his party controlled the Senate and the House, but he overreached, as Obama is doing today.

Bush wanted to create a society where people owned wealth. He called it an ownership society. I personally thought it was a good idea. It was a way to address the entitlement crisis and may have mitigated the economic downturn. But it was a bridge too far. Democrats, joined by many Republicans, blocked it and it never got off the ground.

Obama's plan seems to be the opposite of Bush's. He wants to create a society where people depend on government to a greater extend. It is also a kind of ownership society, but government is the owner.

Bush had the advantage of a better economy and majorities in both houses of congress. It was not enough. Obama has the "advantage" of a bad economy that he can still blame on George Bush because he also has the advantage of a generally compliant media. But his party does not control the House. So it looks like Obama in 2013 is about as strong as Bush was in 2005.

Both Bush and Obama won reelection by small percentages. Obama is the only president to be reelected by a smaller % than his first time, but Bush started from a lower base, so they ended up about the same. This gave them a mandate in the legal sense, but not a moral mandate like those of Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan or even Richard Nixon. In their second term, these real mandate holders overreached. Reagan ended his presidency successfully, although not unscathed. Nixon and Johnson were largely failures.

IMO, Obama's reach will exceed his grasp. Supporters will say he was stymied by the opposition, as happens to GW Bush. Generally, however, the next four years will under perform the American average. Obama will not address entitlements. It will be an unpleasant time generally when our country moves sideways. I remember the 1970s and I think the Obama time will feel like that. And the next president will get to blame his predecessor for the "mess he/she inherited."

Posted by Christine & John at January 22, 2013 10:02 PM
Comments
Comment #360799

Fifty one percent of the vote is not even close a mandate. It’s just a simple majority. Despite what the Democrats want to think. Obama would be closer to a mandate if he had around 60% of the vote.
I think Obama’s approval rating will tank as the economic doldrums he’s created in his first term continue his recession get’s worse.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 22, 2013 11:34 PM
Comment #360800

The vote was closer this time around due in large part to the repubs voter suppression tactics in what was it 14 states or so. Many couldn’t vote due to long lines and fewer voting stations. It is sad that repubs/conservatives have cheated an estimated 5 million American people out of voting but they did. When you add these numbers into the mix it changes things just a bit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/election-2012-voter-id-laws-suppression-and-equality_b_1898613.html

Lets also remember that GWB didn’t get a majority the first time out, so when he did the second time, according to conservatives then, it was a mandate. Seems to me the shoe is on the other foot now and conservatives are backpedaling. But a mandate is a mandate right?

http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/11/04/media-echoed-conservative-claim-on-bush-mandate/132246

Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2013 12:47 AM
Comment #360801

j2
Fifty one percent of the vote ain’t close to a mandate. It doesn’t matter if either the Democrats or Republicans want to think so. I told Republicans that in 2004, and now I’m telling y’all Democrats it in 2013.
Voter id laws don’t suppress voters. They only make sure that the person voting is who they say they are and keeps Democrats from voting more than once.
And yeah, if 5 million folks did get cheated out of voting, which I seriously doubt, all 5 million would have voted for Obama. LOL ROFL LOL

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 23, 2013 1:09 AM
Comment #360806

I don’t believe the republican conventional wisdom that Obama wants more dependence on government.

But I agree that he won’t address entitlements and is not interested in any ‘tough love’ initiatives.

It is yet to be shown whether a politician can hold national office by holding the good of the nation in higher regard than the needs of the individuals.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 23, 2013 8:31 AM
Comment #360810

I appreciate how you call the next four years a failure before it has even comes to pass. I have a friend who called President Obama a failure on day 1. I have a feeling the next four years are going to be a lot better than you expect, to the bitter disappointment of a great deal of Republicans.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 23, 2013 1:59 PM
Comment #360812

Adam,
I thought it was brave of C&J to mention the Bush “ownership society.” Part of that was the push to increase home ownership. It played a direct role in the housing bubble and collapse. Another part of the “ownership society” was the push to privatize Social Security. In 2004, Bush declared a crisis, to be solved ASAP by putting Social Security in the hands of Wall Street. That was how Bush wanted to use the “political capital” from his re-election. Fortunately, people overwhelmingly rejected that idea. One can only wonder what would have happened to those Social Security accounts had they been administered by Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, or WAMU.

Yesterday, I caught a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh on the way back from the gym. He was railing against the perception that Republicans are hated. Gee. Wonder how that perception came about. Can’t imagine.

There was an overreach during Obama’s first term. The GOP obstructed and blocked every piece of legislation as much as possible, every appointment, every initiative. Now, a portion of the Republican party- between 50 to 90 congressmen- has turned its back on the radicals and extremists, and has voted with the Democrats on the fiscal cliff compromise and relief for Sandy.

Meanwhile, the radicals and extremists continue to do everything in their power to make themselves hated. They voted against the compromise and relief for Sandy. They torched Gov Christie, a popular governor, for actually working with Obama to help the citizens of that state. Just incredible. And they continue a sustained legislative assault against women’s issues, aka The War on Women, with H.R. 23, a personhood amendment that grants 14th amendment rights to blastocysts, including property rights. Ryan was one of 18 co-sponsors. Threatening to hold the economy hostage over the debt ceiling didn’t help.

Well, I hope they keep doing what they are doing. Boehner, with an 18% favorability rating, has effectively lost control of the House. In a recent poll, Congress was less popular than head lice, root canals, and colonoscopies.

There’s an epic fail coming this second term, but it ain’t gonna be Obama.

Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2013 2:54 PM
Comment #360813

PHX8 wrote; “In 2004, Bush declared a crisis, to be solved ASAP by putting Social Security in the hands of Wall Street.”

Over on the Blue column he recently enlightened us with his fantastic recovery in wealth over the past four years due to Wall Street. He proclaims that his income tax bill ran to six figures.

It does make one wonder why equity investment is soooo goood for him, and not others.

And, he doesn’t recall that putting SS in the hands of Wall Street was not Bush’s position.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2013 3:45 PM
Comment #360814

RF,
The stock market is not the same as Wall Street, which usually refers to the financial sector. Equities are not the same as Wall Street either. Furthermore, there are lots of different types of markets and lots of different kinds of investments. Various investments carry varying degrees of risk, and understanding risk isn’t always as straight forward as it may seem.

T-Bills are the safest investments, and appropriate investments for Social Security.

The stock market is riskier. Over the long run, there’s a good chance it will outperform T-Bills, and for most people, it can be an appropriate place to make long-term investments. However, it can also fail, and most people cannot afford to risk their retirement on that kind of failure; for example, a person investing in T-Bills at the beginning of the Bush administration would have made more money by the end of the the Bush years than with stock market investments, and that would have been with greater certainty of the return, and with less risk.

My situation was unique. There were some good decisions, and there was a lot of luck. It involved insider stock, vesting, restrictions on sales, AMT, margin, a raging bull market, and turning out to have a stock that became beloved by institutional investors.

Oh! Here’s a fun link.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html

Let’s get the story from the horse’s mouth, shall we?

On home ownership:

“Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America’s vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade.”

On Social Security:

“The President has proposed voluntary personal accounts for younger workers that would allow them to build a nest egg for retirement that they would own and control, and could pass on to their families.”

These PSA’s were to be managed by the financial sector, for which those managers would have received a management fee. It was the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for the banksters. They wanted it. Bad. At the beginning of Bush’s second term, 58% thought it might be a good idea. By the time Bush stopped campaigning for it, only 27% thought it would be a good idea.



Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2013 4:26 PM
Comment #360815

Adam
I appreciate how you call the next four years a failure before it has even comes to pass.

They will be. The only way they won’t is for Obama and gang to change their borrow and spend policies, and make some drastic spending cuts in every item in the budget.
O wait a minute, I forgot, we don’t have a budget!

phx8
There’s an epic fail coming this second term, but it ain’t gonna be Obama.

Obama has already failed.
He’s failed to cut spending.
He’s failed to get a balanced budget passed.
He’s failed to pay down the national debt.
He’s failed to secure our borders.
He’s failed to improve public education.
He’s failed to work with the Republicans like he ‘promised’.
He’s failed to implement policies that would speed economic recovery.
He’s failed to protect our diplomats.
He’s failed to go after the terrorist that murdered our diplomats.
Obama ain’t got to fail in his second term. He’s starting it a failure.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 23, 2013 4:27 PM
Comment #360818

phx8, thanks for the link which said nothing about putting SS in the hands of Wall Street. Please try to find something pertinent.

He also admonishes me by writing…”The stock market is not the same as Wall Street…” but he wrote earlier…

“In 2004, Bush declared a crisis, to be solved ASAP by putting Social Security in the hands of Wall Street.

Who’s confused here? Certainly not me.

PSA’s managed by the “financial sector” could be just about anyone or anything. It certainly doesn’t mean “Wall Street”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2013 5:22 PM
Comment #360820

RF,
The Bush proposals for SS went through several iterations, starting in the 2000 campaign (which I have to admit, I didn’t know was part of the platform back then), to the better known proposals of 2004. Obviously it never went beyond the planning stage… but in one plan, the Social Security Administration would have administered five different funds, similar to mutual funds, with management fees of .3% What happened from that point? We’ll never know. If you’re interested, there are a lot of links, including articles in Forbes and Money. There are plenty of partisan pieces in those magazines, and elsewhere.

Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2013 5:40 PM
Comment #360822

phx8 should perhaps be more careful what he writes in order that he wouldn’t have to backtrack and parse his words so much.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2013 5:48 PM
Comment #360823

j2t2

Yeah, I know you guys believe this stuff. My aunt used to believe in vampires. She claimed to see signs of them all over the places. No bodies ever turned up, but she explained that away by saying that the bodies themselves turned in to vampires. After I got old enough to understand numbers, I figured out that if each vampire turned two people to vampires every month, it would set up a geometric rise. 2,4,8,16,64 … In one year there would be 4,096 vampires and in less than three years the population of the undead would exceed that of the earth’s population.

Facts like this didn’t convince my aunt because she chose to believe and be frightened by those old stories.

Phx8 & Royal

Democrats said that Bush wanted to put it into the hand of Wall Street. What Bush wanted to do was allow Americans to make choices. I have a retirement account, which I can reasonably expect to pay me more per month than SS. Unless the Democrats figure out a way to steal it from me, it is mine and I have flexibility. All I want to do is give more Americans the opportunity to have this kind of freedom.

The income we earn from our own wealth is different than the money granted to us by government because we control it. This independence from government is the basis of freedom and what enables us to properly pursue happiness.

Re home ownership - this is a good thing IF people can afford it. Everybody was on board. The problem was with the owners who could not support the payments. Liberals pushed this group, which is always poorer than average and often more minority.

There is a difference between helping people be able to own a home and mandating that they have the right. Bush wanted to make it possible; liberals wanted to call it a right.

Adam

This is what I believe will be the result of Obama’s policy overreach. I may be wrong. It seems to me, however, that Obama is making mostly the wrong moves. He is seeking equality at the sacrifice of growth.

Posted by: C&J at January 23, 2013 6:13 PM
Comment #360824

C&J: “He is seeking equality at the sacrifice of growth.”

Can you expand on that? I’m not sure what you mean.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 23, 2013 6:58 PM
Comment #360825

Vampires equated with repub/conservative voter suppression attempts, C&J? Is that because you equate repubs with vampires?

“Floridians endured election chaos and marathon voting lines this year, largely thanks to reduced early voting hours, voter purges, and voter registration restrictions pushed by Republican legislators. In an exclusive report by the Palm Beach Post, several prominent Florida Republicans are now admitting that these election law changes were geared toward suppressing minority and Democratic votes.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/26/1234171/florida-republicans-admit-voter-suppression-was-the-goal-of-new-election-laws/

Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2013 7:02 PM
Comment #360827

“Liberals pushed this group, which is always poorer than average and often more minority.”

C&J,

Blaming liberals for what conservatives did when they had control of both the executive and congressional branches is nonsensical and simply untrue.

The truth is that the Bush administration pushed minority home ownership hard during his terms in office. He pressured the GSEs to make more funds available for purchase of minority originations. He proposed and a Republican Congress passed the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 to assist minorities obtain mortgages. He pressured the private sector to make available loans to minorities. It was the cornerstone of his 2004 “Ownership Society” campaign.

Why? Because minorities were the only game in town to fuel the only performing economic engine: housing mortgages and construction. The vast majority of jobs created in the 2000s were in the construction and FIRE industry and were directly related to the mortgage and housing industry.

It was an illusion. It produced an economic bubble (private sector debt) of immense proportions.

Today, conservatives are all askance at the federal deficits and debt. Yet, seem to have no understanding or concern over the enormous unsustainable private sector debt that brought the economy down, which continues to impede recovery and is the primary cause of the federal deficits.

Posted by: Rich at January 23, 2013 7:40 PM
Comment #360830

Adam

He is always talking about fairness and almost never about growth. Growth helps produce inequality.

Look at Reagan speeches and compare with Obama. Reagan talked about growth. Obama talks about fairness.

J2t2

We have been over this too many times. According to you guys, liberal voters are too stupid to know where to vote and too lazy to actually go if it gets hard.

Sometimes lines happen. If they happen in primarily Democratic districts, it is probably the fault of Democrats running the show.

I have been a poll watcher. I worked well with my Democratic counterpart. There are always Democratic reps. Are they all blind or stupid?

I don’t believe you can change your mind. You are like my superstitious aunt with vampires. You will believe what you want and no logic will sway you.

Rich

Democrats specifically blocked reforms to Freddie and Fannie. You guys blame Republicans when Democrats are in control and you blame Republicans when they are in control.

How many liberals voted against those dream acts?

Posted by: C&J at January 23, 2013 8:35 PM
Comment #360833

C&J you do yourself a disservice when you try this crap on us. First of all stupid has nothing to do with it. The repubs in FLA at least had the integrity to admit their motives. You on the other hand cannot do this. Instead you resort to some foolish vampire analogy and name calling. A waste of time IMHO.

It is about power and control, the tool of the authoritarian conservatives who have plotted to suppress the vote.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2013 11:29 PM
Comment #360839

j2
It wouldn’t make sense for the Republicans to try to suppress voters. If they did mange to do that, which I don’t think they’re smart enough to pull it off if they tried, they could just very well be suppressing folks that would be voting for them. They ain’t that stupid.

It is about power and control, the tool of the authoritarian conservatives who have plotted to suppress the vote.

Power, control,and suppressing votes are a Democrat and Republican thing j2. Conservatives ain’t authoritarian and don’t plot to suppress the votes.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 24, 2013 12:33 AM
Comment #360843
It wouldn’t make sense for the Republicans to try to suppress voters. If they did mange to do that, which I don’t think they’re smart enough to pull it off if they tried, they could just very well be suppressing folks that would be voting for them. They ain’t that stupid.

Ron you are hiding behind stupid and the “well he did it to” “logic” used by the guilty, but the facts remain. In many states the repubs intentionally planned to suppress the vote because they understood the more people that voted the more people voted against them. The repubs/conservatives have taken over state legislatures and made laws that targeted minority voters.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/22/1477891/colin-powell-gop-should-not-have-tried-to-suppress-minority-votes/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/04/opinion/hogue-voter-suppression/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/the-last-refuge-of-scound_b_2079941.html

http://www.thenation.com/article/171404/gops-voter-suppression-strategy#

Of course being smart enough is a huge hurdle for conservatives/repubs Ron but it doesn’t mean that by using the power they gained in state offices that they can’t continue to control the people by suppressing the vote. Remember they are part of a movement, a cause and it doesn’t have to be intelligent to be forced through. Look at the repub led Virginia legislature and their sneaking around to gerrymander the state.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/22/virginia-gop-sneaks-gerrymandering-bill-in-during-inauguration/

Posted by: j2t2 at January 24, 2013 9:33 AM
Comment #360851

Since when is asking for an ID voter supression? Is it supressing my right to buy beer when I’m asked to show proff of age, Is it supressing my right to cash a check when I’m asked to show proff of my identity? Is it supressing my right to a job when asked for an ID. Is it supressing my right to drive when I need a permit to drive? Is it supression when I go to a doctor and asked for ID and proff of insurance? You need an ID for most every service known to man yet the left leaning people think it’s wrong to ask for Id. when voting HOW STUPID IS THAT!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2013 2:47 PM
Comment #360852

KAP,
Hundreds of thousands of legally registered voters do not have photo ID. People who do not own drivers licenses are typically the very young, the very old, people too poor to own a car, and a disproportionate number of those people are minorities.

Eighteen Republican state legislatures attempted to pass voter ID laws, despite the fact that there was no evidence of fraud occurring in the first place. It was a blatant attempt to steal the election, a particularly ugly episode in what it means to be a Republican.

There’s a good reason so many people hate Republicans. People react badly when they realize there’s an attempt to stop them for voting. They’ll stand in line for hours. And they’ll be angry. And they’ll remember those Republicans, and they’ll remember that anger.

The voter ID issue is an excellent example explaining why minorities overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

Posted by: phx8 at January 24, 2013 3:57 PM
Comment #360854

phx8, I vote by mail yet I have to put SS# or drivers license# on the envelope when I mail my ballot. As I stated you need ID to do everything known to man, get a job, cash a check, apply for welfare, buy booze and smokes. The very young DO NOT VOTE. Your left wing DUMBA** statements are just that DUMBA**. No one is stopping anyone from voting, reguiring ID helps both Democrat and Republican. We’ll see how you scream when Republicans win an election such as Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry.

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2013 4:32 PM
Comment #360855

phx8, It’s freebees why minorities vote Democrat. Your side promisses all sorts of handouts.

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2013 4:34 PM
Comment #360859

j2t2

With all the options of early voting, voting by mail, voting in person, I do not believe that anybody who is not an idiot or a felon could be prevented from voting is he was motivated to do so. It certainly could not happen often enough to be statistically significant.

The left makes up and believes lots of stories. Yet nobody ever gets convicted of these crimes AND most of the stories come from jurisdictions controlled by Democrats.

These stories are exactly like ghost stories. They are believed by the credulous and cannot be disproved by the intelligent to the satisfaction of the credulous.

You can believe what you want and cite as many of the left wing fellow travelers are you want.

The only case of actual voter suppression I saw was when tow Black Panthers stood menacingly outside the polls in Pennsylvania. Eric Holder chose not to follow up on that case.

We have made voting as easy as it can be. I think it is too easy. I would ask my fellow Americans to value their vote at least as much as they do a free beer. But many evidently do not. That is their problem.

Posted by: C&J at January 24, 2013 5:25 PM
Comment #360860

It ain’t just the Republicans that lack in the smarts department j2. For proof of that ya only have to go no further than the Senate, White House, and ranking Democrats in the House.
How smart is it not to pass a budget?
How smart is it to borrow and spend?
How smart is it not to pay down the national debt?
How smart is it not to try to improve an educational system that’s failing our youngins?
How smart is it to leave our borders wide open to illegals?
How smart is it to implement policies that have slowed what little recovery there is to a crawl?
How smart is it to claim they have to pass a bill before they can ‘know what’s in it’? [Pelosi on Obamacare]
How smart is it to leave our diplomats unprotected?
How smart is it to try to lie about an attack on the US?
How smart is it to not go after the folks that attacked the US and murdered our diplomats?
The Republicans don’t have the corner on stupid. For all the bonehead stupid things that they do there’s one that the Democrats do.

Look at the repub led Virginia legislature and their sneaking around to gerrymander the state.

The only time y’all don’t like gerrymandering is when y’all don’t control the state. Other than that is perfectly OK. And don’t come to me with the BS that the Democrats are above that. I know better, and so do you.
How much gerrymandering do you think goes on in California, Oregon, New York, Washington, and Illinois?
If either party didn’t like gerrymandering and wanted an equal chance for all candidates to be elected they’d have ended it a long time ago.
There’s a very simple way to end gerrymandering. Make all the Representatives elected at large. Just like the Senators. But neither party wants to do that. They want to be able to draw district that insure they will control the House.

Well golly gee phx, I reckon that none of them folks can get the free IDs that the Republicans in these states have made available to them. I reckon it’s just to much of a bother to stop by the drivers license office with a birth certificate [something everyone has], show it to them, and get the free ID.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 24, 2013 6:54 PM
Comment #360863

Voting is a RIGHT, Ron. Once legally registered, no one should have to go get anything in order to cast their ballot.

Posted by: phx8 at January 24, 2013 7:42 PM
Comment #360865

Exactly phx8, THEIR ballot, and how are election officials supposed to be sure you are you say you are. Take their word for it? Would you cash a strangers check? Would your local Jobs and family services office just give you food stamps without first checking your ID? There are 3 reasons why a person won’t get a free ID, 1 They’re to lazy, 2 They’re to damn lazy, and 3 They’re to F’n lazy.

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2013 8:03 PM
Comment #360866
With all the options of early voting, voting by mail, voting in person, I do not believe that anybody who is not an idiot or a felon could be prevented from voting is he was motivated to do so. It certainly could not happen often enough to be statistically significant.

C&J what you believe is for your convenience, perhaps to justify the actions of the repubs/conservatives in your mind, but when those involved in Florida republican politics tell the truth your “beliefs” pale in comparison. They purposely directed the law at minority and dems voters based upon their own telling of events. You can rationalize all you want but you are supporting an organized group that intentionally brought forth laws using the power of their majority in state legislatures to suppress the vote. How on earth do you justify that?

Ron you to seem to be using many different rationalizations to justify the repubs/conservatives as they use the fraudulent claim of voter fraud to justify stripping fellow Americans from their duty as citizens to vote. These voter suppression laws are just one more step towards an authoritarian fascist take over of the country by the far right conservative movement leaders. Yes the conservative movement. The same movement you support. Waving a flag and a cross they take away right for all but the aristocracy and you and other movement followers march in lock step.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 24, 2013 10:33 PM
Comment #360868

j2, Please tell us how asking for ID. is supression?

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2013 10:48 PM
Comment #360869

What’s so funny about the our friends on the left arguing against voter ID is that the folks they claim it’s discriminating against have to have IDs to signup for welfare. That means they already have IDs. So just where is the problem with them taking their Ids to the poles?

phx8
We do agree on one thing. Voting is a right. And keeping someone from it because of race, sex, sexual preference, physical handicap, financial status, religion, or lack of it, is dead wrong.
Requiring someone to show ID, something they can get for free, isn’t suppressing anyone’s right to vote. It’s protecting yours.

j2
I don’t follow any movements. Those are for mind numbed robots that belong to political parties.
I support voter ID because I don’t want someone to vote using your name and cheating you out of your right to vote.

All y’all that’s against voter ID, would y’all be willing to drive someone to the drivers license office to get a free ID? Or is that beneath your dignity?
How many of y’all would drive someone to the polls so they could vote? Even if ya knew they weren’t going to vote for your candidate?
I’ve done both. It’s the right of every American citizen over 18 to vote. I won’t stand in their way. Just as long as they can prove they are who they say they are.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 24, 2013 11:10 PM
Comment #360870

KAP,
Voting is a right. It doesn’t matter if a person is lazy, stupid, uninformed, or illiterate. That person still has the right to vote.

In the South, they used to prevent blacks from voting by giving literacy tests. That is a violation of an American’s rights. They also used to charge a poll tax. That’s also a violation of a person’s right to vote. Doesn’t matter if a voter is poor or illiterate. They still have the right to vote.

Voter ID laws were brought up in Republican state legislatures with the intent of suppressing voter turnout. The Majority Leader of the Republicans in the PA House, Mike Tarzai, openly said the Voter ID law would deliver the state to Romney.

I’ve already explained, in detail, how voter ID requirements work to suppress voting. It’s a shameful tactic, and anyone who cares about the right to vote should oppose such requirements.

Posted by: phx8 at January 24, 2013 11:18 PM
Comment #360871

phx8, I know everyone has the right to vote, I don’t need a history lesson of black voter supression. So explain to me how needing an ID to prove who you are is voter supression when even the people who are on welfare need an ID to get those benefits and also an ID is needed for banking, driving, cashing checks, or are you telling us those people you are refering to don’t recieve a check or food stamps and please tell us how these so called supressed voters are supporting themselves if not on public assistance? If you tell me they are on public assistance then they already have an ID and your arguement is pure BULLS**T.

Posted by: KAP at January 24, 2013 11:32 PM
Comment #360872

KAP,
No impediments, no extra steps, no tests, and no fees can be thrown in the way of a person voting.

Furthermore, cases of people showing up in person to vote under another name are unheard of. In PA, there have been no convinctions for voter fraud in the past decade. The existing system- the initial registration, along with the deterrence of stiff penalties for voter fraud- makes this a practically non-existent problem.

“A recent study funded by the Knight Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation, which surveyed all 50 states, found that instances of voter fraud across the country are “infinitesimal” - about one instance of voter impersonation fraud for every 15 million registered voters in the United States.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515218/pa-voter-id-law-returns-to-lower-court-for-review/

There are other ways to commit vote fraud, of course, but they do not depend on a photo ID.

Republican legislatures push voter ID laws that would disenfranchise thousands and thousands of Americans nationwide.

Posted by: phx8 at January 24, 2013 11:56 PM
Comment #360873

phx8, Like I said your argument is pure liberal BULLS**T. To even get basic government services you need ID. I know a ID is not perfect but it’s a start. When you can get an ID for free and use it for other things beside proving who you are at the voting booth, your arguement is dumb, stupid and ignorant. Like I asked if these persons are supressed because they don’t have an ID, then how do they exist when even basic things require ID? ANSWER THAT phx8. Do they live under a bridge? If so they can’t legally vote anyway.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2013 12:10 AM
Comment #360874

KAP,
Again, voting is a right. It’s not a government service. There’s no quid pro quo. A person needs to have enough to legally register in the first place. That’s it.

And to be clear, the voting ID laws are looking for photo ID’s, not just any old ID. Many people possess driver licenses and passports, but some do not. Requiring people to obtain a ‘free ID’ after they have already registered throws an unnecessary inconvenience into the way of voting, which should have been ensured by registering in the first place.

Furthermore, obtaining that ‘free ID’ poses a hardship for some people. It means a trip to a government office at the voter’s expense. For the working poor, people without cars, people too old to drive, people to young to have obtained their first license, and people with other physical hardships, that unnecessary trip can make the difference.

Posted by: phx8 at January 25, 2013 12:57 AM
Comment #360875
j2, Please tell us how asking for ID. is supression?

KAP you act as if the repubs have passed laws that require no more than ID and nothing else, which of course is nonsense. The intent of asking for ID’s is to intimidate those without a government issued ID, to keep them from the polls. It doesn’t serve the stated purpose which is the nonexistent voter fraud that repubs/conservatives claim is the reason for requiring the ID’s to vote.

IMHO the question should be why all of a sudden do repubs/conservatives think an ID is necessary to vote. In Florida repub operatives have been honest enough to admit the intention of the laws they passed were to suppress votes. Why do you think the rest of this babbling by repub/conservative apologist is anything more than a smokescreen?

http://www.aclu.org/voter-suppression-america

“But citizens who lack such documents will now be obliged to assemble various other pieces of paper (birth certificates, naturalization forms, proof of residence, etc.) and make their way (presumably without a car) to a government office that can issue an official photo ID.”

http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/voter-suppression-returns

Posted by: j2t2 at January 25, 2013 1:27 AM
Comment #360876

phx8 When I say ID, I do mean photo ID. Is it an inconvenience to those people to get to the welfare office to apply for food stamps or financial help? Which requires a photo ID. Is it an inconvience to go to the bank to get a check cashed? Also which requires Photo ID. Phx8 you keep talking about how inconvienced these people will be to get the ID, or hardshiped, but you don’t say how these same inconvienced people get to the polls to vote, if in fact they can get to the polls with no problem then they can get to the BMV to get a free photo ID. Requiring a photo ID to vote is NOT supression, it is voter PROTECTION.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2013 1:30 AM
Comment #360877

j2, Your full of crap. You will cry a different tune if republicans get into office. Such as Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry you all kept saying Bush stole those elections. Maybe having to show an ID would have been a good idea then.

Posted by: KAP at January 25, 2013 1:34 AM
Comment #360878
I support voter ID because I don’t want someone to vote using your name and cheating you out of your right to vote.

Spoken like a true “mind numbed robots” Ron. The fact is you are in favor of something that is practically nonexistent. It is a smokescreen used by movement leaders to fool the movement followers into submission.

“There are more UFO and Bigfoot sightings than documented cases of voter impersonation,” quipped one Texas Democrat.

” Often working from a template provided by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Republican state legislators have insisted that the threat of election fraud is compelling and widespread;”

“The only type of fraud that a strict photo ID rule would actually prevent is voter impersonation fraud (I go to the polls pretending to be you), and, in fact, voter impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare. In Indiana, where the Republican-dominated legislature passed one of the first new ID laws in 2005 (on a straight party-line vote), there had been no known instances of voter impersonation in the state’s history.”


http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/voter-suppression-returns

Posted by: j2t2 at January 25, 2013 1:38 AM
Comment #360879

phx8
Furthermore, obtaining that ‘free ID’ poses a hardship for some people. It means a trip to a government office at the voter’s expense.

Well golly gee phx8, most the folks your so worried about having to make a trip to a government office at their expense have no problem getting to the welfare office, free health clinics, soup kitchens, and food lockers at their own expense.

For the working poor,

Most the working poor have cars, that means they have a drivers license. And if they don’t they can always take off work a little early to go get an ID.

people without cars,

If your so worried about folks without cars offer to take them in yours.

people too old to drive,

Again offer to take someone to old to drive in your car.

people to young to have obtained their first license,

If they’re to young to get a drivers license, they’re to young to vote. NJ has the oldest driving age of 18.

and people with other physical hardships,

Again offer to take them in your car.

that unnecessary trip can make the difference.

All the folks to mentioned have very little problems getting any other place. I don’t really see a problem with them going to a drivers license office.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 25, 2013 2:04 AM
Comment #360882

j2t2

You mention lack of voter fraud. Yet each year there are actual conviction for voter fraud. In 2008, in Minnesota alone, 113 people were CONVICTED of voter fraud. Minnesota is a Democratically controlled state with a long tradition of clean government.

Interestingly, you believe in suppression. Yet we find few convictions and charges include things like telling that they should not go to the polls because it was too much trouble.

So if you think voter fraud is not a problem, certainly voter suppression is less of one.

Both fraud and suppression steal votes and so we should takes steps to avoid both. Voter fraud is counters by simple measures, such as confirming ID. I understand that in theory it is possible for a diligent voter not to have access to identification, although we wonder how this person gets around without driving, never going to an airport, not cashing checks, not picking up food stamps, not borrowing books at a library, not taking out any loans … but I suppose it is possible in the way that it is possible for a man to be killed by a polar bear on a Florida street.

But we have to balance their nearly impossible case of a person who could produce no acceptable form of identification with the very real change that someone would steal a vote by means of voter fraud.

Ron - you are right. These poor friends of J2t2 cannot pick up their welfare checks w/o ID.

Posted by: C&J at January 25, 2013 5:14 AM
Comment #360885

Not so fast C&J. As usual you have chosen to use information created to give the illusion of widespread voter fraud.

http://www.ceimn.org/files/Facts%20about%20Ineligible%20Voting%20and%20Voter%20Fraud%20in%20Minnesota_with%20appendix.pdf

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” or as C&J would say “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” so we can demonize them for political gain.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 25, 2013 9:02 AM
Comment #360889

Anyone else notice that the same people who say that Voting Rights can’t be limited are the ones saying that the Right to Bear Arms and Right to Free Speech can?

Just curious if anyone else saw that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2013 12:29 PM
Comment #360890

BTW, it’s a great hoax we play on people these days, saying that you should come to the US if you are yearning to be free… Then shackle them, and their children, the minute they get here. :/

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2013 12:31 PM
Comment #360891

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/03/minnesota_major_uncovers_evidence_of_voter_impersonation_claims_aclu_bounty.php

​Last month, the ACLU of Minnesota announced they’d give $1,000 to anyone who could produce proof of a voter impersonation conviction from the last decade.

The idea, of course, was to illustrate the pointlessness of the Minnesota Majority-led Voter ID amendment drive, which would require all state voters to provide photo identification at the polls come election time.

At the time, the ACLU expressed confidence that nobody would be able to collect their bounty, but today, Minnesota Majority announced that it has uncovered evidence of a voter impersonation conviction from 2008.

There are several instances of voter impersonation being perpetrated in the US, however their number is comparably low. Debate still goes on as to whether it is low because it doesn’t happen much OR if it is low because it is very hard to catch voter impersonation without the requirement of an ID. In those states where an ID is required, few people will attempt it, though some most likely do with forged IDs. And as a result, how effective are ID laws if those IDs are easily forged?

It’s not as easy of a topic as both sides would have you believe, or as those posting on here want you to think.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2013 12:40 PM
Comment #360894

You’re doing exactly what I said you would: trying to equate Obama with Bush, so that Bush’s failures won’t be seen as part of the dysfunction of the modern GOP.

Republicans try to turn every disaster into Katrina. They try to scapegoat Obama for what are still mainly the results of their own fiscal policies. They suggest the same old tired Bush-Era policies for trying to improve the economy, when trying to come up with some ideas to replace the Democratic measures they’ve blocked and bottled up.

You know, the sooner you admit things are going wrong on your side, the sooner you can fix them. Otherwise, you will continue to see dumbasses all over the country and in Washington embarrassing your party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 25, 2013 1:25 PM
Comment #360895

All Y’all Liberals
I reckon 53,000 dead voters in Florida ain’t voter fraud. I reckon that Chicago has the cleanest reputation when it comes voting. I reckon ACORN has never engaged in voter fraud by registering the same folks more than once. What about them Dieblod ballot machines? Y’all know, the ones y’all just spent 8 years claiming were rigged. In December 2010, 12 Brooks County, GA officials were arrested by the GBI and indicted for voter fraud. Voter fraud exist even though y’all liberals don’t want to admit it. And it exist in all forms. Voter ID is just one way of stopping some of it. Other measures need to be taken to eliminate the rest. But I reckon y’all would oppose them too claiming that they would somehow discriminate against minorities.
I’m not just blaming the Democrats for voter fraud. I’m not naive enough to believe that the Republicans don’t engage in it either. But I place most the blame on the party faithful of both parties who are very willing to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn’t happen. If they’d start holding their parties accountable for their actions they could stop most if not all of the fraud.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 25, 2013 1:26 PM
Comment #360896

Rhinehold
Anyone else notice that the same people who say that Voting Rights can’t be limited are the ones saying that the Right to Bear Arms and Right to Free Speech can?

I’ve noticed alright. It’s just more hypocrisy from the left.
Voting is a right, even for illegals, that should never be violated.
Bearing arms is a questionable right that needs to be taken away.
Free speech only applies when it’s in total agreement with the left.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 25, 2013 1:35 PM
Comment #360897

C&J-
113 people convicted out of something like three million. Do the math. More people are being disenfranchised by voter ID laws who have no disqualifications otherwise, than are being neutralized in their vote by voter impersonation fraud.

The cure is worse than the disease. When it comes to voting, the motto should be primum non nocere- First, do no harm.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 25, 2013 1:46 PM
Comment #360898

Stephen, requiring a no-cost photo ID to vote may be a reasonable requirement to voting, just as requiring a photo ID before purchasing a weapon may be a reasonable requirement to owning that weapon.

How do you differentiate between the two in your mind, other than your party tells you to support one and oppose the other?

Since owning a gun is a right, just like voting, why is requiring a photo ID ok with one and not the other?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2013 1:55 PM
Comment #360899

BTW, Stephen, many are calling this term the 4th term of George Bush, not just Republicans. Pretty much anyone who is interested at all with civil rights will agree with that. It just seems to be the Democrats who try to point out differences so that they can feel comfortable with doing the same, or worse, things as Bush did…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2013 1:57 PM
Comment #360904

Rhinehold-
If you are a citizen with no real disqualifications, if you have enough identifying information to qualify to register to vote, you should be able to vote. The evidence that there is a significant problem in voter impersonation fraud is tremendously weak.

You of all people should be averse to applying a restriction on people’s rights where no real problem has arisen to show there’s a problem. That should be anathema to a civil libertarian.

You can’t even prove that there are significant levels of voter impersonation fraud, enough people attempting to pass themselves off as another voter, or a voter that doesn’t exist, to justify laws that may prevent many otherwise qualified people from voting. How does this unjust exclusion line up with the notion that this is being done to protect the integrity of the vote?

I don’t believe in regulating behavior where people are doing just fine regulating themselves.

Voter impersonation fraud is a high cost, low reward way to steal an election. Imagine having to pay all those voters, get all of them assigned their false identities, and having nobody expose your operation.

The real shenanigans tend to be what the Republicans are committing, vote caging, suppression of voter registration, limits on voting opportunities, and laws like these, which create additional overhead for people attempting to exercise their franchise.

If you are at all interested in preserving civil rights, the vote has to be available to those who are of age, and have not committed any crime, or fallen into any state of mental incompetence that would otherwise naturally invalidate their right.

If you could show me prevalent voter fraud, you coudl persuade me that the impersonation of voters was a common problem. But so far, even the most zealous pursuit of these cases has yet to really demonstrate that there’s an actual problem to be solved.

As a libertarian, you should be ashamed to support looking for fake problems to solve with laws that reduce people’s rights.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 25, 2013 3:07 PM
Comment #360906
You of all people should be averse to applying a restriction on people’s rights where no real problem has arisen to show there’s a problem. That should be anathema to a civil libertarian.

Who says I don’t? I don’t think I’ve discussed my personal views on the issue at all…

You can’t even prove that there are significant levels of voter impersonation fraud, enough people attempting to pass themselves off as another voter, or a voter that doesn’t exist, to justify laws that may prevent many otherwise qualified people from voting.

And how would we measure or detect this is happening? This is a fallacy that you are using, not anything related to critical thought or reason.

and have not committed any crime

Why do people who have committed a crime not get a say in our country, do they not have to live in it as well?

If a person at age 17 or 18 gets caught with a joint and is prosecuted by this administration harshly (as they would) and are given a felony on their record, does that mean that they should lose, for the rest of their lives, the right to make their vote heard?

If you could show me prevalent voter fraud, you coudl persuade me that the impersonation of voters was a common problem.

Interesting, because over 99% of all guns in the US are not used to harm anyone, do you think that we should not be spending the money we do on gun control, because it is not a ‘prevalent’ problem? Over 99% of the people who smoke pot harm no one, do you think we should not be spending the money we do on the war on drugs?

As a libertarian, you should be ashamed to support looking for fake problems to solve with laws that reduce people’s rights.

Again, when you show a single bit of evidence that you understand what ‘a libertarian’ should believe, I’ll take your criticism to heart. Having said that, I once again have never said I personally SUPPORT Voter ID laws, I just don’t see that everyone who is supporting them is trying to do anything nefarious, nor do I think since the IDs are given freely to the individual that it is not the same as a poll tax, as you have tried to equate. And the Supreme Court has agreed. The states who have implemented it are doing just fine AND it should really be left up to the states, shouldn’t it?

PERSONALLY, I would not push for or support a voter ID law, nor would I limit the 1st or 2nd amendments, or indeed the 10th, or any of them. But it seems that civil rights only becomes a concern when you think it might hurt your party’s chances of winning elections, and then decry what you see as the other party’s attempts to do the same in your post in the blue column. That is what gets my panties in a bunch.

If civil rights are a concern of yours, you must be supporting the CITIZENS UNITED decision, aghast at the Feinstein bill, against body scanners and other 4th amendment overreaches, drone spying, warrantless wiretapping, use of SS number, etc. Yet, you seem to be ok with all of those things, since Obama is (now).

BTW, the ‘voting is a rights’ thing is another topic for another day, but it does show a lack of understanding of the difference for most people between natural rights and assigned privilege…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2013 3:34 PM
Comment #360908
I reckon 53,000 dead voters in Florida ain’t voter fraud.

No Ron it isn’t. How many of them actually voted? Just because they weren’t taken off the voter registration rolls when they died doesn’t mean fraud was committed. The fact is using another person’s name to vote is practically nonexistent.

If we all believe C&J’s 113 people in Minnesota claim then it works out to .0009 percent of the eligible voters in Minnesota. But even then the 28 that were actually guilty were guilty of being a felon and voting not impersonating a dead or another voter. So no your mistaken belief that 53,000 dead on the rolls mean something is just nonsense. In fact in FLA only 53,000 tells us the state officials are doing a decent job on the rolls.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 25, 2013 4:16 PM
Comment #360910
Anyone else notice that the same people who say that Voting Rights can’t be limited are the ones saying that the Right to Bear Arms and Right to Free Speech can?

Has anyone else noticed the difference between the non issue of voter fraud and the issue of the growing numbers of children shot in school massacres. Why would the far right expect us to compare apples and oranges and get the same results? It seems to me the far right is telling us it is alright to limit voting rights for no apparent reason other than it is a plan to help them take power in this country away from the voters by crook because they cannot do it by being smart.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 25, 2013 4:21 PM
Comment #360914

j2t2 & Stephen

If you were going to get a loan and a guy showed up to meet you. You had no idea who he was but he said he was there to get information needed for you loan. He asked you for your SS # and bank accounts. Do you just had it over?

Actually, I am reasonable sure that Stephen would indeed hand it over, but it is not a good idea.

It is simply reasonable to ask for identification when a stranger shows up and wants something valuable. I consider a vote valuable.

Stephen

113 are convicted. Convicted is a very difficult standard to meet. Compared with no convictions for voter fraud.

With our current safeguards, voter fraud may be a small problem. But with our current safeguard, voter suppression is not a problem at all.

But let’s consider the small problem of fraud. In Minnesota, at least 113 people were disenfranchised. We don’t know the real number, but it was higher. Democrats may not care about those 113+ people but I do.

Posted by: C&J at January 25, 2013 5:25 PM
Comment #360917
the growing numbers of children shot in school massacres.

Um, wow… You are going to have to show your work here, how is it ‘increasing’?

The deadliest school killing of children was almost 100 years ago (admittedly not with a gun, but hey). The list of school shootings can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

One event does not make a trend, btw…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2013 5:40 PM
Comment #360918

BTW, the 3rd most deadliest decade for school shootings was 1900-1909. The 70s were the second.

According to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, in the United States, from September 1986 to September 1990:
At least 71 people (65 students and 6 school employees) had been killed with guns at school.

201 were severely wounded by gun fire.

242 individuals were held hostage at gunpoint.

This ‘increasing violence’ in the schools is going to have to be proven, not just emotionally leapt at, in fact our schools are safer now than they ever have been considering the larger number of children attending the schools and the very small number of children harmed at them comparatively.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2013 5:47 PM
Comment #360919
According to the National School Safety Center, since the 1992-1993 U.S. school year there has been a significant decline in school-associated violent deaths (deaths on private or public school property for kindergarten through grade 12 and resulting from schools functions or activities)

http://www.schoolsafety.us/media-resources/school-associated-violent-deaths

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2013 5:48 PM
Comment #360928

Rhinehold in the first 12 years of this century 119 people have died in school shootings. According to you this is a downturn but the numbers do not show that. The 70’s numbers include the Kent State and Jackson State killings by the police and national guard. Kinda skews the numbers.

From your Wiki link-
“Prior to 1989, there were only a handful of incidents in which two or more victims were killed by firearms at a school,”

So when I say “the growing numbers of children shot in school massacres” it seems I am factual not emotional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States


If you were going to get a loan and a guy showed up to meet you. You had no idea who he was but he said he was there to get information needed for you loan. He asked you for your SS # and bank accounts. Do you just had it over?

hahahaha really! C&J Do you wonder if the repub/conservatives in Florida who have publicly stated that the intentions of the new ALEC initiated voter suppression laws was to suppress votes are laughing at you guys for actually going to this extent to defend your nonsensical positions and by extension the repubs/conservatives who are continuing to do this around the country. They have admitted it guys what does it take? The intent is to suppress votes. Convictions of politicians who pass laws to do this is your talking point. This kind of blind allegiance to a movement is just plain scary.

C&J Do you wonder why you are defending these guys at any cost? What has happened to you?

If a guy came to the street corner to give me a loan, what!!!! Hell C&J we, millions of people, get home loans over the internet now with people we never meet, who you kidding? We send them all our financials and such.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 25, 2013 10:40 PM
Comment #360929

LOL @ Republican’s claim that photo ID is required to prevent people from risking jail to cast a fraudulent vote. Heck, we can’t even get citizens who are legally registered out of the house to vote. What’s the average turnout? 30% Maybe 40? Much lower for local races and in non-presidential election years.

Get real. You really aren’t doing your party any favors by taking the position that you are saving our society from evil illegal voters out to defraud the righteous. I believe citizens heard you loud and clear this past election… and responded. Whether or not you are willing to accept it, you have painted yourselves as the rich, manipulative frat boys in today’s teenager movie of American politics. In other words, not only are you not winning the popularity contest, you are seen as sniveling brats trying to rig the rules so that you cannot lose despite your unpopularity.

All the talk of new gerrymandering plans don’t help either.

Come to think of it… keep talking!

Posted by: LibRick at January 25, 2013 11:08 PM
Comment #360931

“Come to think of it… keep talking!”

Well said, Librick. Bobby Jindahl was right when he said the Republican Party “must stop being the stupid party.”

Posted by: Rich at January 25, 2013 11:42 PM
Comment #360932

What other reason would there be for not removing them 53,000 dead voters j2? I’ll bet it’s the same reason dead voters ain’t removed from Chicago’s voter rolls. And of course we all know that’s just a clerical oversight. Yeah! Right!
Elections have been stolen before. What makes y’all think they can’t be stolen now? Just because a Democrat is President? All the more reason to require ID before voting.
Sense y’all are set against voter ID, what’s your plan to prevent election fraud. And it does happen. Don’t claim it doesn’t after y’all spent 8 years claiming that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen.
I admit that ID won’t stop all fraud. But it can stop some. There are a lot more areas that need to be addressed. I’m open to suggestions as to how we can make sure voting machines ain’t fixed, ALL ballots are counted, and counted correctly, or chads don’t hang.
Maybe someone should write about this.

Stephen
Republicans try to turn every disaster into Katrina. They try to scapegoat Obama for what are still mainly the results of their own fiscal policies.

Obama has been if office for 4 years now. Just when the hell is something going to be his fault? This is important information. We need to know it so when it is we can get your permission to criticize Obama and gang.

Democrat Blame Score Board
It’s all Bush’s fault: 9,258
It might be Obama’s fault but doubtful: 0

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 26, 2013 12:04 AM
Comment #360933

Rich
Bobby Jindahl is right. The Republicans do need to quit being the stupid party. And so do the Democrats.
If all y’all party faithful of both parties would take off the blinders and take a good look at the stupid coming from your party, like y’all do the other party, y’all would run from your parties as fast as ya can.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 26, 2013 12:15 AM
Comment #360934
What other reason would there be for not removing them 53,000 dead voters j2? I’ll bet it’s the same reason dead voters ain’t removed from Chicago’s voter rolls. And of course we all know that’s just a clerical oversight. Yeah! Right!

OK Ron ask yourself this- who keeps them on the rolls when they are dead? Is it the local election board or a conspiracy of dems telling the local election officials to keep them on the rolls? Ron just how many of those 53,000 dead people voted? Zero, what does that tell you? Think smokescreen Ron, that is what is confusing you, these movement leaders have put up a smokescreen and are blowing smoke up your ass.

Read the link above that shows repubs admitted the purpose of the new Florida laws was to suppress votes, they admitted it Ron. You have helped these people Ron with the movement propaganda you have been spouting about the normal purging of the voter rolls. Voters die every year. Despite having 53,000 dead not one of their names were used for voter impersonation. Yet you are demanding a stop to the “widespread fraud” that doesn’t exist.

Ron voter fraud is not widespread, get over it. In fact the numbers are miniscule. The biggest improvement to prevent fraud is to create a laws that requires electronic voting machines to have a paper trail Ron. Stop the intimidation and make voting easier. People standing in long lines for hours is 3rd world we deserve better.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 26, 2013 1:31 AM
Comment #360937

j2t2

” voter fraud is not widespread, get over it. In fact the numbers are miniscule.”

And voter suppression is even less common. But we need to take steps to protect against both. Actually, they are very similar. Every fraudulent vote steals a vote from an honest person.

Re loans over the internet - I have done it. But I am careful about it. And they are careful about me.

It is just plain stupid not to ask for a form of identification. A person cannot live a normal life w/o identification. if there is that rare person who possesses none and still wants to vote, we would actually be doing him a favor by getting him some proof of identity.

What I am defending is common sense. In fact, a good system of identification would protect against suppression too. Making rules simpler helps defeat all sorts of cheating.

I do wish Eric Holder had done against voter suppression in the case of the Black Panthers, but instead he chose the racist route.

Posted by: C&J at January 26, 2013 8:04 AM
Comment #360939
And voter suppression is even less common. But we need to take steps to protect against both. Actually, they are very similar. Every fraudulent vote steals a vote from an honest person.

C&J what we are witnessing here is a concerted effort at the state level to rig elections at the national level. The stated intent is to discourage minorities and poor people from voting. The intent is to suppress the vote. Because no charges are brought against those who pushed the legislation through the state houses doesn’t mean it is less common. It means the powerful have corrupted the governments of many states. The estimate of suppressed votes is 5 million nationwide.

So the same people who thought the purple finger in Iraq was cool now want to give the driving finger to the American people who do not vote the way the power hungered movement driven conservatives would like. Some of the guys you are protecting have admitted this, why can’t you?

Re loans over the internet - I have done it. But I am careful about it. And they are careful about me.

I have registered to vote. The local officials are careful and competent before they send my registration card, I vote by mail. In the bigger cities they stand in long lines because the voting machines are not available, just like a 3rd world dictatorship, are you happy you are defending this?

Making rules simpler helps defeat all sorts of cheating.

Shades of 1984 C&J. “War is peace” “complicated is simple”. Suppression is an attack on the American system. Don’t defend it because your side benefits because in the long run we all lose.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 26, 2013 11:05 AM
Comment #360940

j2t2

You consider reasonable precautions such as requiring identification and making sure voter lists are kept current as suppression. I consider them a type of due diligence. The same thing I would expect any honest person to do in any line of business.

We disagree about such things. If they are passed into law and upheld by the courts, they are by definition no suppression. If they are overturned by the courts, they are illegal and subject to the criminal penalties mentioned above that apply to fraud too.

“I have registered to vote. The local officials are careful and competent before they send my registration card, I vote by mail.” Good. Everybody obeyed the law and you had no troubles. Nor would anybody else obeying the laws as you did.

Re big cities - these are almost Always in Democratic districts controlled by Democrats. Yes, I think it is terrible that these Democratic clowns cannot get their acts together.Liberals often have such organizational problems. Perhaps you should look up the mayors etc and address your complaint to them. I don’t defend them, but I suspect you do.

Re making rules simple - this works in my real world. Liberals often lack the practical experience to understand that simple rules encourage honesty and complicated ones allow and encourage corruption.

I suggest you reread “1984” since you seem to have missed the point.

Posted by: C&J at January 26, 2013 11:35 AM
Comment #360944

“A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.”

“In 2011 Republicans, who had super majorities in both chambers of the legislature, passed HB 1355, which curtailed early voting days from 14 to eight; greatly proscribed the activities of voter registration organizations like the League of Women Voters; and made it harder for voters who had changed counties since the last election to cast ballots, a move that affected minorities proportionately more than whites.”

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/

The simple fact is C&J that repubs have admitted the intent of the ALEC laws were to keep voters from voting. The laws were overturned by the courts because they were in fact suppression laws despite your claim to the contrary. Because these voter suppression laws at the state levels are done with super majorities, always repub super majorities, it is fairly simple to see the repubs are using the laws to suppress the vote.

Simple or complex laws that complicate the voting process do not encourage honesty C&J. In fact just the opposite as we see here. You guys on the right have come up with many different rationalizations which are dishonest when we see that repubs involved in the planning of the laws admit the reason for passing the laws along partisan lines. Yet here on WB you guys just keep going on with rationalizations including the “simple law” theory that has nothing to do with the ALEC laws passed to suppress the vote.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 26, 2013 6:58 PM
Comment #360945

j2t2

As I wrote, we disagree about the definition of suppression. I go with what the legislatures pass and what the court uphold.


If they are upheld, they are valid; if not, they are not. I believe in enforcing the laws regarding fraud and suppression. When that is done, we don’t find much of either, but we find more fraud.

We also disagree about the proactive responsibility toward voters. To me, the right to vote does not imply any proactive responsibility to particular voters. We make the polling places available to all voters, enforce the same registration laws with all eligible voters, prevent violence or the threat of violence (which are illegal in other circumstances) and that is all that is required.

Re simply laws - we should have rules that ordinary people can understand. People cannot obey laws if they do not understand them. It is difficult to make things simple. It requires more intelligence than many officials and politicians possess.

I would assume Democrats would be in favor of simpler laws, since it is mostly their voters who have trouble figuring out how to vote.

There are numerous safeguards to prevent suppression. That is probably why we find almost no cases of it actually proved. The only serious one I recall was in my native city of Milwaukee in 2004 when Democratic activists slashed tires of some vans Republicans rented to take people to the polls.

Posted by: C&J at January 26, 2013 7:49 PM
Comment #360947

Whilst you say we disagree with the meaning of the word suppression C&J we can agree that the Florida repubs were party to the ALEC attack on minority voters can’t we?

Instead of diverting to simple versus complex laws lets deal instead with the subject at hand, shall we? The fact that you are still rationalizing after the repubs in Florida came forth with the truth is quite telling C&J. The intent of the repub super majorities in the 12 states that passed the ALEC legislation prior to the 2012 elections was to suppress the vote in for minorities. Can there be any other conclusion? The continued use of the ID issue as if the issue was the only thing these fascist did is appalling.

We have admissions from key repubs in Florida C&J that tells us the intent of the repubs. Why would you continue to support this kind of fascist activity? Why would a conservative like yourself continue to rationalize the schemes of the movement leaders? Certainly you cannot support this type of activity as a liberty loving conservative, as a constitutional conservative this must make make you sick to your stomach. Why defend this?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 26, 2013 11:03 PM
Comment #360950

j2t2

If the courts uphold it, good. If not, also good.

I think this would be something like President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Board. They were recently found unconstitutional, but we assume he was not trying to illegally grab power away from duly elected officials.

Or when President Obama wanted to make it more difficult for military to vote, we assume he was not simply trying to cheat our men and women in uniform.

All politicians try to write rules to their favor. Democrats are interested in getting people to the polls who may not have thought much about voting before. Republicans want a more thoughtful electorate. Democrats are more willing to risk fraud to get more of their people to the polls. Republicans are not.

Personally, I think we make it too easy to vote. I think of it as much as a duty as a right and I really don’t want to help some clown who doesn’t take it seriously. People have a right to vote. Exactly how that will be done is a matter of how the laws are written.

Posted by: C&J at January 27, 2013 12:33 AM
Comment #360952
Prior to 1989, there were only a handful of incidents in which two or more victims were killed by firearms at a school

And since then there are only a handful of incidents in which two or more victims were killed by firearms at a school.

I’ll quote again:

According to the National School Safety Center, since the 1992-1993 U.S. school year there has been a significant decline in school-associated violent deaths (deaths on private or public school property for kindergarten through grade 12 and resulting from schools functions or activities)

This was a report from 2010…

119 in 12 years. How many children were in and out of school in that 12 years?

Let’s take the data I can find from 2000…

In the year 2000, there were 76.6 million students enrolled in schools from kindergarten through graduate schools

SO, 76.6 million in school, let’s not even get into the number of different students and leave that number as is (it should be much higher for the purposes I am about to demonstrate).

Now, that means that of the 76.6 million students in school, 119 of them died because of firearm deaths. That means that around 0.00000015% of students have died from firearm deaths in school…

Is any death good? No. Does this display a SYSTEMATIC problem that needs draconian measures? No. It displays outlying fringe idiots with mental issues doing horrible things that we are not going to be able to prevent.

Instead of dealing with the real problems surrounding the issue or violence and increased narcissism that we should be dealing with, our ‘leaders’ want to limit the rights of the other 99.999999% of the people in the United States who are not the problem.

It’s typical ‘do something so we feel better about the fact we live in a world of chaos’ because people have trouble wrapping their head around the fact that not everything is orderly or with purpose. It is why religions still exist…

And that was my point before, when people are saying we shouldn’t deal with one issue because the incidents of it happening are infinitesimal, why isn’t that argument applied to all issues then?

BTW, the proposed bill going through congress designed to prevent another Sandy Hook would have done NOTHING to have prevented it. Is that good legislating? Passing a law that would do nothing to stop what it is supposed to stop?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 27, 2013 2:23 AM
Comment #360953

BTW, during these times that j2t2 says were pretty minor for gun deaths at schools, students routinely brought guns to school. Now they are gun free zones and according to him, the incidents are increasing… So, the answer is to let the students arm themselves?

No, the real issue is finding out why some very small number of people have thought it ok to do what was done at Sandy Hook and fix that problem. Not to demonize the way he chose to do it.

“Boys and Pistols Yesterday at noon a boy sixteen years of age shot himself, or was shot by his brother. It matters not who fired the fatal shot. No criminal act was intended or committed, and the boy is dead. He was a member of the High School of this city and was, we are told, something over the average good boy of Los Angeles. This boy lost his life through the too common habit among boys of carrying deadly weapons. We do not know that this habit can be broken up. We do not know that school teachers have the right, or would exercise it if they had, of searching the pockets of their pupils, but it seems almost a necessity that some such rule be enforced. The hills west of town are not safe for pedestrians after school hours. Nearly every school-boy carries a pistol, and the power of these pistols range from the harmless six-bit auction concern to the deadly Colt’s six-shooter…”

LA Herald September 11, 1874.

The 70’s numbers include the Kent State and Jackson State killings by the police and national guard. Kinda skews the numbers.

Actually, not the numbers do not include those, go back and check again. They are mentioned but not listed in the counts. And that was only 6 students total.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 27, 2013 2:34 AM
Comment #360962
Or when President Obama wanted to make it more difficult for military to vote, we assume he was not simply trying to cheat our men and women in uniform.

This is why it is so difficult to have rational discussions here. Some people don’t understand the difference between fact and fiction… reality and fantasy.

Truth
Truth again
Truth one more time

Posted by: LibRick at January 27, 2013 1:52 PM
Comment #360965

Librick

Exactly. Stories of “suppression” on left and right are usually exaggerations or untrue.

You see how hard it is to have a discussion with you guys when you see the other side. Ghost stories on the left are similarly wrong.

We all play that game. The fact is that suppression of the military vote is not a big push by Democrats. The suppression accusations about Republicans are equally wrong.

Let’s agree that we need to take reasonable precautions against fraud and suppression, but neither is currently a widespread problem.

Posted by: C&J at January 27, 2013 3:25 PM
Comment #360969
Exactly. Stories of “suppression” on left and right are usually exaggerations or untrue.

C&J were this true would you not be able to link to something (other than a far right propagandist piece without any facts) that had some factual information to prove your “well they did it to” fallacy?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 28, 2013 12:44 AM
Comment #360974

After reading the links provided by LibRick it seems that not only is “that suppression of the military vote is not a big push by Democrats” it is not even a small push, it is nothing but a bit of far right propaganda with no basis in fact at all.


But what it does not do by any stretch is prove “The suppression accusations about Republicans are equally wrong”. The fact is in 12 states the repub super majority led general assemblies, using ALEC laws, intentionally used the laws to suppress votes. There is no comparison in reality, only in the minds of delusional followers of the conservative movement.

Recently these same repub/conservatives have doubled down on dirty tricks because they know they cannot win on the issues alone. They have been discovered by their followers to be wrong.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 28, 2013 12:13 PM
Comment #360977

Republican FAIL! LOL

How timely :-)

This tells the whole story of the Republican Faux News voter fraud propaganda

Posted by: LibRick at January 28, 2013 4:41 PM
Comment #360978
Unfortunately, extremely well doesn’t mean 100% of the vote, which is what 16 of the precincts in Cleveland came back with - that’s right 100%. 25 precincts Obama got all but one vote, 35 precincts Obama got all but two-votes. In another 52 precincts Obama got 99% of the votes. So, in well over 100 precincts Obama received well over 99% of the votes.

Things that make you say hmmmm

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 28, 2013 4:45 PM
Comment #360983

j2t2

I didn’t link to any right wing sources. You, however, gave us left wing ones.

As I wrote, we differ on what we call suppression. I law passed by a legislature and upheld by courts is not suppression. If it meets those criteria, I support. If not, I am against.

States have the right to create laws re voting. The courts decide if they are Constitutional. Your opinion on this doesn’t make much difference and neither does mine.

J2t2 & Rhinhold

It does seem statistically odd to have nearly 100% Obama vote. Even the Soviet Union didn’t strive for such high rates.

Posted by: C&J at January 28, 2013 5:53 PM
Comment #360987

Jack & Rhinehold, I live in a suburb of Cleveland and I know alot of people that didn’t vote for Obama, and I know my wife and I didn’t. Something seems fishy!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2013 6:23 PM
Comment #360990

Could one of you spouting the 100% in 16 Cleveland precincts results give us a link?

Here’s what I find.

Ohio results

Posted by: LibRick at January 28, 2013 6:55 PM
Comment #360995

LibRick. I’m not spouting the 100% thing, but in your link it does have where the blue in the map is darker is an area that is predominitly Black, so in those precints it could very well be 100%. As I said I live in a western suburb of Cleveland.

Posted by: KAP at January 28, 2013 7:44 PM
Comment #361002
I law passed by a legislature and upheld by courts is not suppression. If it meets those criteria, I support. If not, I am against.

So it seems to me C&J you are telling me the government cannot suppress people with laws but if they could with the courts approval you are all for the suppression. Yet I should read 1984 again?

And that was my point before, when people are saying we shouldn’t deal with one issue because the incidents of it happening are infinitesimal, why isn’t that argument applied to all issues then?

Rhinehold comparing the deaths of children killed whilst sitting in school with the much less serious voter fraud negates both issues,IMHO. The voter fraud is a non-issue repubs/conservatives have used to suppress the vote, by their own admission. Using the millions that go to school, or to malls or to movie theaters for that matter, that have not been killed as reasoning to allow the carnage to continue just seems to me to say “yes we do eat our young”.


during these times that j2t2 says were pretty minor for gun deaths at schools, students routinely brought guns to school. Now they are gun free zones and according to him, the incidents are increasing… So, the answer is to let the students arm themselves?

Rhinehold I don’t recall saying “pretty minor” are you sure? When I went to school guns were not allowed, But them there wasn’t any massacres with semi-auto weapons either so perhaps arming the students is as wise as you make it seem. Eight year old kids with guns Rhinehold really! Against semi auto weapons!

Passing a law that would do nothing to stop what it is supposed to stop?

I would have to agree with you Rhinehold , the only deterrent, in the proposed changes, is the limited clips sizes IMHO. Even then there are so many of the high volume clips out there today that it is a long shot to slowing down these guys intent on mass killings. We need to look at the overall mental health of not only individuals but our society as well. Lot of people on a lot of meds.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 28, 2013 11:10 PM
Comment #361003

After looking at the election results the most Obama votes in the precincts where Romney didn’t get a vote was in the 300 ranger. One precinct had only 5 Obama votes to zero for Romney. Why is this so hard to believe, what smells fishy? The Secretary of State Jon Husted is a conservative republican who was responsible for the voting machines in Cleveland as well as the rest of Ohio.

What’s fishy is Husted’s vote rigging for the next election. Seems he is part of another national trend by the voter suppression repubs/conservatives to rig electoral college votes.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 28, 2013 11:39 PM
Comment #361004

Explain to me, j2t2, how would limiting clip sizes have changed Sandy Hook? We already know the shooter reloaded more than once while he was there, making hum reload more would accomplish what?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 29, 2013 12:35 AM
Comment #361005

Rhinehold are you assuming that each and every school massacre will be the same? Or that each and every shooter has the skills of a well trained special forces?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 29, 2013 1:05 AM
Comment #361009

j2t2,

1) This legislation was supposed to ‘prevent another Sandy Hook’. You said you agreed it wouldn’t except for the round limitation. Since you said that the round limitation would have possibly prevented Sandy Hook, please explain how.

2) Please explain how cartridge size could prevent ANY ‘school massacre’?

3) What does having the skills of a well trained special forces have to do with anything?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 29, 2013 2:56 AM
Comment #361021
Could one of you spouting reporting the 100% in 16 Cleveland precincts results give us a link?


http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov2012/amended/11062012FinalAmendedofficialResultsbyPrecinctElectionTotals.HTM

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 29, 2013 11:38 AM
Comment #361023

As stated in an earlier post the precincts that 100% of the vote that went to Obama were in areas that are all Black or all Hispanic populations.

Posted by: KAP at January 29, 2013 1:19 PM
Comment #361030
In a 2004 study for the Department of Justice linked on Mrs. Feinstein’s own website, Christopher S. Koper, a professor of criminology, reported that “assailants fire less than four shots on average, a number well within the 10-round magazine limit” of the “assault weapons” ban. “Studies prove that the arbitrary magazine capacity restriction that was in place for a decade did not reduce crime,” Lawrence Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s senior vice president and general counsel, told The Washington Times. “In searching for effective means to reduce violence, we should not repeat failed policies, especially when they infringe on the constitutional rights of the law-abiding.”

Violent crime has decreased 17 percent since the assault weapons ban expired.

In the latest incarnation of Mrs. Feinstein’s ban, we would see the return of an ammunition limit that had no proven impact on crime while it was in effect from 1994-2004. The proposal outlaws all ammunition feeding devices — magazines, strips and drums — capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/the-high-capacity-magazine-myth/#ixzz2JP2gcatJ
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 29, 2013 4:43 PM
Comment #361044

J2
I could go along with voting machines having a paper trail.
Actually I’m surprised that the Republicans are for voter ID. They like stuffing the ballot box as much as y’all do.
I don’t know anything about any movement of any kind. Like I’ve told ya before, I’ll leave movements up to the liberals, that’s y’all’s bag. Not mine.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 30, 2013 12:39 AM
Post a comment