Voting Rights and Presidential Hyperbole...
Straight from the President's mouth, in code.
President Barack Obama struck hard at restrictive voting rights laws Friday, calling them a Republican political tactic conceived to address a made-up problem.
Pretending that there’s widespread impropriety, he said, is just about keeping Democrats from winning.
Yeppers, damn right! Only if Democrats win is the right to vote safeguarded! Only if Democrats win has the will of the people been served! Evil yet lawful Republicans, Libertarians, and Conservatives everywhere are lurking behind every corner, and in the shadows to subvert the will of the people and preserve the the righteous vision that only democrats and progressives have for America.
This BS is getting so GD sickening it makes the sane want to puke. But whatever, things are so politicized, rancorous, and driven by hyperbole it is becomomg almost impossible to believe we'll ever become one nation again.
it's good to be old...
Read the full article BELOW THE FOLD.
Via: Memeorandum
How is democracy served by making it harder for citizens to vote? Are you not aware that some states run by the GOP have curtailed voting hours, ended voting on weekends, early voting, and in Florida, the nuts down there have made it unlawful to go to the bathroom while waiting in line to vote?
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with "only Democrats winning." This has to do with making sure every citizen has the opportunity to vote. And it is the GOP in GOP states that are making it more difficult to do that.
Why do you suppose this is happening. Can you or anyone tell me how democracy is served by limiting the hours for citizens to vote? I'd like a rational answer to that.
This is politically motivated and politically timed.
ReplyDeleteI am aware of quite a bit. I am also not naive.
Tired of the BS, platitudes, and hyperbole from both sides. Truth is no longer the goal. Winning so as to hold power for the sake of wielding total control is.
How far we are willing to go for power and control. Hut two three four.
I think in this instance you will find the only people working to make it harder for citizens to vote is the GOP. Can you name any state run by the Democrats that has curtailed voting hours or shut down voting places so that citizens have fewer places to vote, and therefore, will have to wait in longer lines. Both sides in this case are not doing this. When you make it difficult to vote, fewer people will vote. It's as simple as that. How is democracy served by having fewer people vote?
ReplyDeleteAs for "winning," of course one side is going to want to win. That's been the case since George Washington left office!
The better question is "How far is the GOP willing to go for power and control?" since it is that party putting up all sorts of impediments to voting in our democracy.
President Obama was perfectly within reason to call out the GOP in their unAmerican attempts to interfere with Americans trying to vote.
Shaw, would you be willing to accept the Rhode Island voter ID law which was passed by a Democratic House and Senate and signed into law by an Independent Governor? It provides multiple ways in which a person can get a photo ID, allows for provisional ballots, and does none of the restrictive stuff which you have quite rightfully criticized.
DeleteTo be balanced the president should address democratic voter fraud, which is disenfranchising legitimate voters. But he won't, he's from Chicago.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP is as guilty of going as far as Democrats have gone to gain Control and Power. It is why I remain neither Republican or Democrat. Truth will set you free. Therefore, oh nevermind.
BTW, I'm pulling for Bundy and the Nevada ranchers.
.
DeleteWaaaaaaaayyyyyyy........offfffffffffff.......topic,
"BTW, I'm pulling for Bundy and the Nevada ranchers. "
Colour me surprised! Willingly allowing oneself to be manipulated by Murdoch Media/Fox Networks over a manufactured "story"; who would of thought? Going off half-cocked and having to defend blatant illegal acts of pure stupidity are traits one clearly does not expect from Rational Nation USA.
Ya.
So go head, I'll bite. The Nevada rancher does not own the land where he is grazing his live-stock. Please explain why the Nevada rancher does not have to obey laws, regulations, and rules when using publicly owned lands for his own private profit?
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Sorry Ema, didn't get my info from FOX News. However I've noted your progressive twaddle.
DeleteLes, technically Ema is correct but I'm totally with you. a) The family has been grazing on that land for well over a century. b) The endangered turtle hasn't been harmed. And c) wouldn't you think that the feds would have a lot more important things to to than to hassle this poor bastard (you know, stuff like fighting ACTUAL CRIME)? I mean, talk about an over-reach.
Delete16,000 western ranchers run cattle on BLM land and 15,999 of them pay a minimal lease for the right. Nevada Dudley has refused to pay since 1993. He is feeding at the government trough, and the people that hate those that feed at the government trough (TP and militias) are out under arms to protect him. What am I missing here?
DeleteApproximately 80% of Neveda is "federal land" if I understand it correctly. What astounds me more than anything is that this exist and what confounds me is why it was allowed to happen.
DeleteBut maybe that's just me. Bravo with how it turned out. The Feds caved.
Yes Will. Like maybe Voter Fraud and Voter Supression, which should be a felony.
DeleteIf and where it exists.
DeleteMuch land in the western states is Federal. We note that the Sagebrush Rebellion is an ongoing process, probably going back to the arguments about fences between ranchers and farmers. Clearly, Nevada's 80% BLM lands
Delete(mostly scrubland) was originally 100% US owned, and prior ownership claimed by the
native tribes of that area. If the dude wants to run cattle on that land, he should pay the fee as all 16,000 other western ranchers do. But, admittedly, it is a sore spot: in my state,
those lands are put up for bid when leases run out. Several environmental groups put in
bids and even though they offered 3x as much as ranchers, the state let them to ranchers:
a livelihood vs environmental concerns paradigm, involving water rights vs fishermen, destruction of native habitat vs restoration. Ultimately those lands are owned by the public, (that's us as well as the ranchers) and constitutionally, the congress has to deal with the issue....not some half-cocked mob waving the flag of the country they love to hate. Just the way I see it..
How 'bout this, fellas. Have the federal government sell off some of that 80% (Wikipedia has it at 86%) and use the money to help pay down the debt. It sounds like a win-win to me.
DeleteAs it does me. Perhaps the only problem (for the feds anyway) is that at the point of sale it ceases to be the cash cow that keeps on giving. Or perhaps better put the cash cow they could no longer milk.
DeleteReagan
Deletetried that -
-nothing new under the sun-
"To be balanced the president should address democratic voter fraud,"
ReplyDeleteOkay. Fair enough. Could you tell us what the percentage of voter fraud is? We have approximately 100 million eligible voters. What is the percentage of voter fraud, say over the last 30 years, and how has it affected presidential elections. If you and the GOP say this is a serious problem, we need to see the evidence that it IS a serious problem.
My posistion has always been clear, voter fraud, regardless of how prevalent must be addressed. Fraud is like a cancer, left untreated it spreads and becomes more pervasive. Even accepted in some, perhaps many circles.
DeleteI'm getting too old and too tired to care much anymore. Besides, nothing you, I, or any other average American thinks or does will make a difference. The corruption in both political parties is slowly destroying our national character.
Time to hit the gym where on can forget the BS while working on the really importan things. Things we can actually change for the better.
Happy Exercising...!
Ya' know, it's all well and fine to be "above it all" and "non-partisan" but if all it does is put blinders on to keep you from seeing any differences whatsoever, then you're probably taking it a little too far.
DeleteI don't know what "Democratic voter fraud" you're talking about, but the GOP is actively and right out in the open doing anything they can to make it harder for Democratic voters to vote and you are morally equivocating that with what? Nothing.
Here you are not non-partisan at all, but pro-Republican poll rigging.
JMJ
@ jmj, BUL**HIT!
DeleteSo you just don't see it at all, huh?
DeleteJMJ
Yeah jmj, I'm stupid, right?
DeleteIt is really partisan to speak of "Democratic voter fraud." A quick google of voter fraud and GOP confirms that:
ReplyDeleteVirginia Republican pleads guilty to dozens of counts of voter fraud
By Stephen C. Webster
Wednesday, June 19, 2013 15:50 EDT
Republican officials, who have used hysteria about alleged voter fraud as an excuse to support measures that disproportionately block Democratic voters, are furiously trying to distance themselves from a growing number of GOP voter registration drives that either submitted false applications or threw away authentic ones.
The incidents might have been overlooked if not for the GOP's clamorous campaign to restrict registration drives, purge voter rolls, roll back early voting, and pass voter ID laws that opponents point out have the effect of depressing the vote among minorities, the poor and other generally Democratic constituencies.
As one Southern California alt-weekly put it, it's turning into a story of "The Wolf Who Cried Wolf."
Wisconsin Republican aide charged with felony voter fraud
The Associated Press
POSTED: 01/29/2014 10:13:33 AM CST
And then there's this:
As his own party pushed through the Wisconsin Senate the latest in a series of measures to make it harder to vote in the state, Sen. Dale Schultz (R) blasted the efforts as “trying to suppress the vote” last week.
Schultz, who is not seeking re-election and was the lone Republican to oppose a bill last week to limit the hours of early voting in every jurisdiction in the state, was a guest on The Devil’s Advocates radio program on Madison’s 92.1 FM last Wednesday. Asked why his party pushed the bill, Schultz responded, “I am not willing to defend them anymore. I’m just not and I’m embarrassed by this.”
Schultz argued that this and dozens of similar bills before the Senate this were based on “mythology” that voter fraud is a serious concern: “I began this session thinking that there was some lack of faith in our voting process and we maybe needed to address it. But I have come to the conclusion that this is far less noble.”
Noting that Republican President Dwight Eisenhower championed the 1957 civil rights law, Schultz said that he could not “find any real reason” for his party’s effort to make it harder to vote:
Considerable overkill for a negligible problem . IMO, a boogyman rallying point for the GOP. If, or when the number of legitimate voters disenfranchised goes up past those guilty of fraud (almost every case was mistaken paperwork) (estimates run as high as 11% among elderly and students)such laws are an affront to our democracy.
ReplyDeleteI have completed the process of explaining my views on the unethical/illegal voter fraud reality and why I view it is important.
ReplyDeleteI have also stated that suppressing the vote is unethical and should be illegal, as should gerrymandering.
I have also expressed support for Voter ID, I will not move off center on this and one of my favorite New England states, Rhode Isaland had figured out how to do it right.
I'd be most interested in your views on the Rhode Island solution.