US Politics: Election Day 2014

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

With all due respect, this sounds like a thing that a stupid person would think sounded smart and profound though it provided no actual insight.

What are you even talking about? There's been tons of admission that there was an asswhooping tonight on the part of the board lefites.

Oh...

Not before two days ago

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I voted today. I woke up this morning with my grandmother telling me to get up so we can "make sure the Republicans don't stay in office"; you see, Grandma Liberal Bigot has no idea that I'm not a liberal nor a democrat. I then proceeded to vote for the candidates that my research, conscience and anecdotes told me to vote for. The parties of those individuals were irrelevant in my sampling. I feel accomplished.

That's responsible voting!

[Starkess]

Not a suprise but that was an absolute ass whooping. Looks like negativity can pay.

Exactly. No one has any idea what the Republicans are going to do with the Senate because they haven't put forth any sort of agenda besides "anti-Obama". I wasn't a fan of it when Democrats did that with Bush and I'm not a fan of it now. I mean, look at CO. You have Gardner attacking Udall for not accomplishing XYZ even while he distances himself from his own agenda, the result being that he wins his chance to do...nothing?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Going by your post, I'd say your reading comprehension is woefully out of touch with reality. The results are surprising to no one.

The math on this year was never in the Democrats favor.

Maybe it was just wishful thinking then. It seems most didn't think it would be this bad. Hell, I didn't

[Starkess]

Nor should you.

But….

People that are happy about it shouldn't be made to feel like crazy, bigoted, racist assholes. The treatment that folks that lean right get on this board is less than… hospitable.

To reiterate what I said on Twitter tonight: I know plenty of amazing conservative and Republican people, including my own boyfriend. However, I find the Republican Party official platform to be abhorrent. And so I will not support anything that furthers that platform.

Also, having been a conservative Republican on this board, I'm familiar with the "inhospitable" treatment, which mostly amounts to ideological arguments. Sure, it's frustrating to be in the minority, but I don't think anyone is going around calling right-leaning people crazy bigoted assholes. And if they are you should report them.

[Red Hermit]

Brownback wins in Kansas.

Well this will satisfy my morbid curiosity at least. Gotta think positive.

[Suttree]

We don't have to have this relationship you know.

What an odd statement. You get called out by numerous posters on this board for not knowing what you're talking about and dodging any and all meaningful discussion. Your last post is a perfect example. Either you are trolling or you shouldn't be joining the discussion. There really isn't a middle ground at this point.

1. With zombie voters if you don't see how the below is a debunked the "allegations" I really can't help you.

The State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) conducted an extensive probe, which was completed May 11, 2012. But the final report was just made public this month after a 13-month review by Wilson’s office. In fact, the report was only released after Corey Hutchins of the Columbia (S.C.) Free Times submitted an open records request under the Freedom of Information Act. He received the report the day before the 4th of July holiday — perfect timing for news designed to be buried.

It turns out the claims of 953 votes by dead people actually involved not one election but 74 elections over a seven-year period.

So SLED’s investigation centered on 207 votes that allegedly were made by dead people in the Nov. 2, 2010 election — when a total of 1,365,480 votes were cast — after officials concluded that that batch constituted a “representative sampling” of the alleged voting irregularities. (Note that the number of alleged dead votes was less than 2/10,000th of all of the votes cast in that election.)

The report confirms what the State Election Commission had found after preliminarily examining some of the allegations: The so-called votes by dead people were the result of clerical errors or mistaken identities.

For instance, sometimes a son had the same name as a deceased father, and poll workers mixed up a dead father with a living son. (This happened 92 times in the initial probe, and then further investigation found seven more examples.)

In 56 cases, there was “bad data matching,” in which the DMV records had the Social Security of a dead person associated with a living voter. The living voter — with a different name and birth date — properly cast a ballot. Thirty-two votes attributed to dead people were simply the result of too-sensitive scanners.

In one case, someone cast an absentee ballot before dying; their vote still counts under the law. In two other cases, people requested an absentee ballot, but died before returning it, so no harm was done. In other cases, the wrong voter was marked as having cast a vote, and then the marks were not completely erased. There were several other types of clerical errors, too numerous to mention. In the end, just five votes remained unresolved after extensive investigation.

2. With you NRLA link(you didn't take everyones advice and study up on the source did you?) again you are either unclear around the distinction between "allegations" and what the results are once they have been followed up on. Some fun reading for your beloved NRLA's own research.

Viewing the data for the period 2000-2010, the report by its own account shows there is no link between voter fraud in states and the need for stricter voter ID laws. The data shows that during the entire 10 year period, 21 states had only 1 or 2 convictions for some form of voter irregularity. And some of these 21 states have the strictest form of voter ID laws based on a finding of 2 or less convictions in ten years. Five states had a total of three convictions over a ten year period. Rhode Island had 4 convictions for the same 10 years. Taking a close look at the RNLA data shows 30 states, including the District of Columbia had 3 or less voter fraud convictions for a 10 year period.

Voter ID laws enacted now in over half the states, require voters to present some form of identification as a requirement to vote. Fourteen states require a government issued photo ID when voting in person. At the time of registering to vote, other states like Kansas and Alabama further demand proof of citizenship beyond the federal legal requirement that citizens swear they are citizens. Kansas had one conviction for voter fraud in ten years; Alabama had three convictions in the same time period. During the 2011 legislative session, five states -- Wisconsin, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama and South Carolina -- joined Georgia and Indiana by enacting the strictest form of photo ID requirement for voters, and most of these newest changes will first come into effect for the 2012 elections.

The RNLA says the voter ID laws are needed to prevent against double voting, non-citizen voting, fictitious voter registration and voter impersonation. To hear Republicans tell the tale, one would think there has been massive voter/election fraud necessitating the need for stricter voter ID laws across the country. Now the Republicans' own data dispels their rampant voter fraud myth. A closer scrutiny of the RNLA data shows voter fraud has no correlation to needing strict voter ID laws.

In the states with higher convictions of improper voting, most involved voters improperly filling out registration forms, vote buying or a person with a felony conviction attempting to vote. Vote buying occurs when a voter is paid or offered money for their vote. Neither of these issues would be prevented by state photo ID requirement.

People that are happy about it shouldn't be made to feel like crazy, bigoted, racist assholes. The treatment that folks that lean right get on this board is less than… hospitable.

Lol. Indeed.

for a group of people that claim to be granted some insight into the inner workings of the evil that is our government, the heralds of the coming doom, and the holders of the holy constitutional knowledge, you guys sure are gullible.

Tolerance? Forgiveness? Please, only when it suits you, and props up your mouth pieces.

As for the media. The man is preaching to the choir, rousing the base. He's effective in your inbreed circles, little else. He can be immune to 'media' because he's ineffective outside of your little clan. Do you think the endorsement of Rush somehow does something for candidates (and let's be honest, those are bought and paid for my conservative lobby groups)? He hurts your party, and the splintering that he has caused, and will continue to cause drives away voters (like myself). He, or his like (Crazy ass Beck, and douche bag Hannity), will continue to spread your new brand of hate, ignorance, and vitriol, only making the GOP look more like the outdated, uninformed, and bigoted fools that they are.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Exactly. No one has any idea what the Republicans are going to do with the Senate because they haven't put forth any sort of agenda besides "anti-Obama". I wasn't a fan of it when Democrats did that with Bush and I'm not a fan of it now. I mean, look at CO. You have Gardner attacking Udall for not accomplishing XYZ even while he distances himself from his own agenda, the result being that he wins his chance to do...nothing?

I think the bigger question is how does Obama handle being the odd man out know? Will he veto everything or work through the bills that comes his way. I'm no Obama supporter and I know he has a party to represent, but I think he could really do well for himself and his party if he tries to work with his opponents as best he can.

[Starkess]

I think the bigger question is how does Obama handle being the odd man out know? Will he veto everything or work through the bills that comes his way. I'm no Obama supporter and I know he has a party to represent, but I think he could really do well for himself and his party if he tries to work with his opponents as best he can.

I don't see Obama going obstructionist just for the sake of it. If Congress passes reasonable legislation (eg not smashing on extreme riders tied in to basic gov't functions), I don't see him vetoing just to keep Rs from getting anything done. Which on the one hand is good, because things might actually get done (assuming Congress can pass reasonable legislation which I am not convinced), but on the other is bad IMO because I am far more liberal than Obama. So I could see him signing things that I would rather he vetoed.

But maybe he says fuck it and spends his last two years rubber stamping NOs. Or maybe the Rs say fuck it and spend the next two years passing outrageous legislation and then acting all innocent when it doesn't get signed.

[karaddin]

Do the Dems filibuster the shit out of things to save Obama from having to veto everything? That seems like a bad option to me, but that's because the filibuster is absurd to me.

[peterbound]

What an odd statement. You get called out by numerous posters on this board for not knowing what you're talking about and dodging any and all meaningful discussion. Your last post is a perfect example. Either you are trolling or you shouldn't be joining the discussion. There really isn't a middle ground at this point.

1. With zombie voters if you don't see how the below is a debunked the "allegations" I really can't help you.

2. With you NRLA link(you didn't take everyones advice and study up on the source did you?) again you are either unclear around the distinction between "allegations" and what the results are once they have been followed up on. Some fun reading for your beloved NRLA's own research.

Lol. Indeed.

Oh sutty, You're so cute. It's good to know that you care.

There's a shit ton of context lost in this post. Thanks for remembering though.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Oh sutty, You're so cute. It's good to know that you care.

There's a shit ton of context lost in this post. Thanks for remembering though.

Yeah he's context challenged for sure. But I kind of like him

[Starkess]

Do the Dems filibuster the shit out of things to save Obama from having to veto everything? That seems like a bad option to me, but that's because the filibuster is absurd to me.

I hope not. Both because I hate filibustering in its current form and because I don't think the Dem senators would gain much from that. Obama is already pretty reviled and on his way out--they are going to have to face re-election. Ultimately I think being obstructionist as senators would be more harmful to the party politically than Obama vetoes. Maybe if they think that Obama is going to cave and sign.

[peterbound]

Yeah he's context challenged for sure. But I kind of like him

Ya, he's a mess.

He's fun to have around though. He tries to fight the good fight, but just comes off sounding kinda silly.

Also, I love reading my old posts. It appeals to some deep narcissism. I'm going to to have to go back and do some more of that.

[fuseprime]

Do the Dems filibuster the shit out of things to save Obama from having to veto everything? That seems like a bad option to me, but that's because the filibuster is absurd to me.

Didn't Reid and the Dems lift filibuster rules last year? I could be wrong on this though.

[Starkess]

Didn't Reid and the Dems lift filibuster rules last year? I could be wrong on this though.

Not all of them. The "nuclear option" last year was to eliminate filibusters for (most) Presidential nominees.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Issue 35 was passed in Cleveland, meaning traffic cameras will be removed from the city. Oh lord.

[Falstaff_Stark]

Didn't Reid and the Dems lift filibuster rules last year? I could be wrong on this though.

Limited to certain approval of appointments.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I don't see Obama going obstructionist just for the sake of it. If Congress passes reasonable legislation (eg not smashing on extreme riders tied in to basic gov't functions), I don't see him vetoing just to keep Rs from getting anything done. Which on the one hand is good, because things might actually get done (assuming Congress can pass reasonable legislation which I am not convinced), but on the other is bad IMO because I am far more liberal than Obama. So I could see him signing things that I would rather he vetoed.

But maybe he says fuck it and spends his last two years rubber stamping NOs. Or maybe the Rs say fuck it and spend the next two years passing outrageous legislation and then acting all innocent when it doesn't get signed.

I don't think the GOP shits the bed this time, for some reason I just don't. But yeah, I absolutely understand there are things the pres can do. But if the GOP doesn't get ridiculous like you said, will Obama try to salvage some legacy bipartisanship or obstruct? I guess we'll find out.

[TrueMetis]

Yeah he's context challenged for sure. But I kind of like him

You're using context as a defence? :rofl: