Hundreds of Illegal Voters Revealed in Philadelphia
According to a Philadelphia elections official, hundreds of individuals who are not U.S. citizens have registered to vote in Philadelphia and nearly half of them voted in past elections. Since 2006, 317 registered voters have contacted the City Commissioners, which oversees Philadelphia elections, asking that their registrations be canceled because they are not citizens.
Philly.com reported that many of them registered while either applying for or renewing their driver’s licenses. All applicants were offered the option to register to vote even after providing documentation to DMV officials that although they were in the country legally, they were not citizens.
Voter Fraud or Voting “Irregularity”?
Al Schmidt, the lone Republican on the Philadelphia election commission, said that all 317 registrations have been canceled and he has been speaking with the Pennsylvania Department of State about the problem. “For the majority of these people, it’s completely plausible to believe they thought they were eligible to vote,” Schmidt claimed, despite the fact that voter registration applications require an applicant to answer a citizenship question and to swear under oath that he is a U.S. citizen. “All voter fraud is an irregularity; not all voter irregularities are fraud,” Schmidt said, adding that it is still illegal. “Regardless of the intent, the damage is still the same.”
A year before Schmidt stoked these recent concerns about Philadelphia election integrity, he was fighting a federal lawsuit after failing to disclose the same information about noncitizens and his failure to remove felons from the voter roll. Public Interest Legal Foundation later published a report detailing 86 cases of noncitizens whose voter registrations were quietly revoked between 2013 and 2015. Almost half of them had voted at least once. When the commissioner is not busy claiming to find alien voters who actually outed themselves, he still defends the City’s policy of keeping felons registered. Unlike most states, Pennsylvania does not require that someone in prison have his or her record removed or otherwise marked to prevent ineligible voting—a violation of the National Voter Registration Act, an American Civil Rights Union suit argues.
A major component of Philadelphia registering noncitizens involves the National Voter Registration Act or “Motor Voter,” which was passed in 1993. It requires state governments to offer voter registration to any eligible person who is applying for or renewing their driver’s license or registration. This requirement has been misinterpreted by state officials as supposedly prohibiting them from failing to offer everyone who applies for a driver’s license the opportunity to register. This includes cases where the DMV official knows the individual is not a U.S. citizen.
Non-Citizens Voting
Schmidt’s office has obtained data on 220 of the 317 registrations. Of these 220, forty-four voted in one election while forty-six voted in multiple elections. It is unclear how many more noncitizens are registered and voting since Philadelphia election officials take absolutely no steps whatsoever to verify the citizenship status of individuals who register to vote. They only found out about the 317 because these registered noncitizens asked to be removed from the rolls. The Pennsylvania Department of State has a review underway; but has already reported that, since 1972, 1,160 voters statewide have requested their registrations be canceled because they were not citizens. There can be little doubt this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Separately in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, there have been 98 noncitizens who have canceled their voter registration since 2006. Elections Director Mark Wolosik stated that the aliens became aware of the problem when they were asked about their voter registration by the Department of Homeland Security when they applied for citizenship.
Two other cases of noncitizen registration and voting show that this is not solely a Pennsylvania problem. Earlier this month,Public Interest Legal Foundation published a report after a six-month review of New Jersey voter registrations. It found that 616 noncitizens registered to vote, 76 percent of whom admitted their non-citizenship status at the outset. Yet they were registered by election officials anyway. Some noncitizens were even asked if they wanted to register to vote after presenting a “Green Card” to get their driver’s license.
Added to the Pennsylvania and New Jersey cases, Virginia has also faced a multitude of noncitizens registering to vote. This May, Public Interest Legal Foundation published a report showing that between 2011 and May 2017, Virginia removed 5,556 noncitizens from their voter rolls. Those noncitizens cast 7,474 votes in multiple elections. And in the last 12 years in Virginia, there have been two statewide attorney general races that have been decided by fewer than a thousand votes.
Just more evidence of the kind of problems that exist in our voter registration and election process.
Originally published in The Daily Signal September 24, 2017 and is reprinted with their permission https://stream.org/hundreds-illegal-voters/
Philly.com reported that many of them registered while either applying for or renewing their driver’s licenses. All applicants were offered the option to register to vote even after providing documentation to DMV officials that although they were in the country legally, they were not citizens.
Voter Fraud or Voting “Irregularity”?
Al Schmidt, the lone Republican on the Philadelphia election commission, said that all 317 registrations have been canceled and he has been speaking with the Pennsylvania Department of State about the problem. “For the majority of these people, it’s completely plausible to believe they thought they were eligible to vote,” Schmidt claimed, despite the fact that voter registration applications require an applicant to answer a citizenship question and to swear under oath that he is a U.S. citizen. “All voter fraud is an irregularity; not all voter irregularities are fraud,” Schmidt said, adding that it is still illegal. “Regardless of the intent, the damage is still the same.”
A year before Schmidt stoked these recent concerns about Philadelphia election integrity, he was fighting a federal lawsuit after failing to disclose the same information about noncitizens and his failure to remove felons from the voter roll. Public Interest Legal Foundation later published a report detailing 86 cases of noncitizens whose voter registrations were quietly revoked between 2013 and 2015. Almost half of them had voted at least once. When the commissioner is not busy claiming to find alien voters who actually outed themselves, he still defends the City’s policy of keeping felons registered. Unlike most states, Pennsylvania does not require that someone in prison have his or her record removed or otherwise marked to prevent ineligible voting—a violation of the National Voter Registration Act, an American Civil Rights Union suit argues.
A major component of Philadelphia registering noncitizens involves the National Voter Registration Act or “Motor Voter,” which was passed in 1993. It requires state governments to offer voter registration to any eligible person who is applying for or renewing their driver’s license or registration. This requirement has been misinterpreted by state officials as supposedly prohibiting them from failing to offer everyone who applies for a driver’s license the opportunity to register. This includes cases where the DMV official knows the individual is not a U.S. citizen.
Non-Citizens Voting
Schmidt’s office has obtained data on 220 of the 317 registrations. Of these 220, forty-four voted in one election while forty-six voted in multiple elections. It is unclear how many more noncitizens are registered and voting since Philadelphia election officials take absolutely no steps whatsoever to verify the citizenship status of individuals who register to vote. They only found out about the 317 because these registered noncitizens asked to be removed from the rolls. The Pennsylvania Department of State has a review underway; but has already reported that, since 1972, 1,160 voters statewide have requested their registrations be canceled because they were not citizens. There can be little doubt this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Separately in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, there have been 98 noncitizens who have canceled their voter registration since 2006. Elections Director Mark Wolosik stated that the aliens became aware of the problem when they were asked about their voter registration by the Department of Homeland Security when they applied for citizenship.
Two other cases of noncitizen registration and voting show that this is not solely a Pennsylvania problem. Earlier this month,Public Interest Legal Foundation published a report after a six-month review of New Jersey voter registrations. It found that 616 noncitizens registered to vote, 76 percent of whom admitted their non-citizenship status at the outset. Yet they were registered by election officials anyway. Some noncitizens were even asked if they wanted to register to vote after presenting a “Green Card” to get their driver’s license.
Added to the Pennsylvania and New Jersey cases, Virginia has also faced a multitude of noncitizens registering to vote. This May, Public Interest Legal Foundation published a report showing that between 2011 and May 2017, Virginia removed 5,556 noncitizens from their voter rolls. Those noncitizens cast 7,474 votes in multiple elections. And in the last 12 years in Virginia, there have been two statewide attorney general races that have been decided by fewer than a thousand votes.
Just more evidence of the kind of problems that exist in our voter registration and election process.
Originally published in The Daily Signal September 24, 2017 and is reprinted with their permission https://stream.org/hundreds-illegal-voters/
Tags
Who is online
106 visitors
If the Democrats ever gain power again, this won't be a problem any longer. Everyone will be able to vote as long as you can show them a government check written out to you.
And the funny part about all this is you have no clue who these people voted for! Just an ASSumption that they were Democrat. You do realize that the last few people that have actually been caught and convicted of voter fraud have voted Republican right? So I guess those checks with (R) on them pay a whole lot better!
It doesn't matter who they voted for. An illegal vote is one that needs to be prevented from happening.
It matters to the partisan left apparently.
And you automatically assume it's voter fraud huh? Never thought the maybe in most of those districts there were urban areas where voter registration lists show little to no Republican registration kind of like in Philadelphia's 28th ward (one of the districts where Romney got no votes) where it's 94% black and city census showed only 7 white residents in that area and when asked none of them claimed to have voted for Romney. Oh! and if you would have researched a little deeper you would have also confirmed that McCain also got zero votes in those same districts in 2008 and Bush was shut out of 5 districts in 2004.......
Well then if you want to keep that assumption then Utah must be just as rife in corruption because in several districts Obama got zero votes, as well as Wyoming
Please stop regurgitating Trump's idiotic campaign lies, they have been debunked a long time ago
Then why are liberals so worried about voter ID?
All the linked article says is that Wisconsin gave out inaccurate information but doesn't say they did so to suppress votes. You can call any state government office about damn near anything and get inaccurate information all day long. Philadelphia officials registered non citizens to vote just because the person is in the country legally. Were they giving inaccurate information for a nefarious purpose or are they just stupid?
Intentional or otherwise (and we'll likely never know), without recourse on election day, voting for some 200,000 Wisconsin "voters" didn't happen!
On the eve of Election Day, voter suppression is a major concern among Democrats, especially in battleground states where Republican-led legislatures are trying to alter voting laws.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has continuously pointed to widespread voter fraud on the campaign trail, saying several times that the election is “rigged.”
At a time when trust in government is low, Trump and his supporters are fanning fears that U.S. democracy is in peril and that voters can’t trust what happens at the ballot box. If Trump loses on November 8, they say, it will be because of a massive conspiracy and media corruption.
The Trump campaign has called on volunteers to sign up as “election observers,” stoking fears of voter intimidation and violence at the polls. And Trump supporters and trolls on social media are pushing fake “text to vote” campaigns, ads in the style of official Clinton campaign messaging telling voters to demand paper ballots, and videos spreading misinformation .
A supporter at an Ohio rally told the Boston Globe in October that he planned to look for “Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American.”
President Barack Obama countered this narrative during an MSNBC interview with the Rev. Al Sharpton on Friday, reminding registered voters that the “truth of the matter is, if you actually want to vote, then you can vote.”
By our count, incidents constituting voter suppression have been reported in states across the country. Here are just a few examples. (Last updated: Tuesday, November 8, 11:20 a.m.)
ALABAMA
For the first time in a presidential election, voters in the state will be asked to provide a photo ID, such as a driver’s license, a passport, a university student ID, or federal government-issued ID, the Tuscaloosa News reported on Monday.
Residents without these documents can still vote if they are positively identified by at least two election workers as being eligible to vote in a precinct, explained the newspaper. Others will still be able to cast a provisional ballot .
In October 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was called to investigate voter ID issues in the state after it closed 31 part-time driver’s license offices due to budget cuts, NPR reported . That left many rural residents without a place to obtain driver’s licenses that they could use for ID on Election Day.
As Imani Gandy reported for Rewire, the closures disproportionately hurt already-burdened people , particularly the state’s Black residents. Susan Watson, executive director at ACLU of Alabama, said in a statement : “This is all about race and about what communities are most affected by the state of Alabama’s bad choices.”
ARIZONA
When voters head to the polls Tuesday, they will have 212 fewer polling locations available since the last election.
Almost every county reduced polling in the normally red state after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder , according to a recent report .
Voters forced to wait for hours at one of Maricopa County’s 60 polling places, a fraction of the usual number, made news in March. Meanwhile, the top closures include Pima County, which cut 62 sites from 2012, and Cochise County, where the reduction is from 49 to 18.
The vast majority of the closures have gone “unnoticed, unreported and unchallenged,” the Leadership Conference Education Fund Executive Vice President Nancy Zirkin told the Tucson Sentinel . The fund issued a report Friday, which found “that many counties moved swiftly to close polling places after they were freed from the federal oversight that was aimed at protecting voting rights for minority voters,” Adam DeRose reported.
Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson told the newspaper that he is not worried about Election Day issues “because of the large numbers who have voted early.”
In Maricopa County, local news outlets reported that votes for more than 7,000 early-ballot voters may not be counted if their signatures can’t be verified by 7 p.m. Tuesday.
The Maricopa County Recorder’s office told the Arizona Republic that “these voters either forgot to sign their ballots or their signatures didn’t clearly match the signature on the voter rolls.”
Steven Slugocki, chairman of the Maricopa County Democratic Party, has also been tweeting about instances of voter suppression. One woman, he tweeted , received her early mail-in ballot just three days before the election. He also reported that there were four-hour waits for early voters in Tempe, and when he called the office of Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell, Slugocki tweeted that he was told “the voters shouldn’t have waited until the last minute to vote.”
FLORIDA
Florida has seen a surge in voter registrations since a federal judge last month overruled Republican Gov. Rick Scott’s resistance to extending the state’s deadline past October 11 to allow those affected by Hurricane Matthew to access the ballot box.
Democrats felt Scott’s stance was in line with previous Republican-led efforts to suppress the vote among marginalized populations, Spencer Woodman of the Intercept reported on Monday.
The deadline extended to October 18 led to more than 100,000 registrations of new voters who otherwise would have been shut out of the election, explained Woodman.
Meanwhile, in Jacksonville on Saturday, Rev. Jesse Jackson warned Democrats against voter suppression.
MAINE
Republican Gov. Paul LePage alleged that college students are ripe candidates for voter fraud and promised consequences Monday.
“Democrats for decades have encouraged college students from out of state to vote in Maine, even though there is no way to determine whether these college students also voted in their home states,” he said in a press release.
Casting ballots in two different states is voter fraud and Maine law requires voters to establish residency there, LePage said.
“We welcome college students establishing residency in our great state, as long as they follow all laws that regulate voting, motor vehicles and taxes. We cannot tolerate voter fraud in our state,” he said.
His comments contradicted Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, who said that the fundamental right to vote is not tied to a driver’s license or vehicle registration. Claims of fraud are a “phantom menace” and students shouldn’t face any barriers to vote, Duncan said in the Portland Press Herald .
“If we get college students to vote once, we’re doing good,” he said.
LePage’s statement comes after fliers were found at Bates College making similar false claims that students were required to register their cars and get Maine driver’s licenses before they could vote in Maine.
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-1st District) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maine condemned LePage’s attack on the civil liberties of students.
“It’s very clear here that the Governor is trying to keep college students from turning out to vote in Maine,” Pingree said in a statement . “There are already fliers going around giving students false information about their right to vote here—the Governor should be calling out these lies rather than bolstering them.”
Zachary Heiden, ACLU of Maine’s legal director, said in the Press Herald that the governor is using scare tactics. “Many of these young people are voting for the first time in a presidential election. The governor should be encouraging that civic participation, not doing everything in his power to undermine it,” he said.
Maine is currently under divided partisan control , with Republicans controlling the state senate and Democrats the house.
NORTH CAROLINA
Anyone can challenge a vote in many states, and a challenge list compiled by North Carolina Republicans overwhelmingly targeted Black and Democratic early voters in the battleground North Carolina.
Republican leaders celebrated “the significant decrease in Democrat Party performance during Early Voting,” according to a press release issued this week by the state GOP.
On Friday, a federal judge barred three North Carolina counties from revoking the voting rights of about 4,500 registered voters whose eligibility to cast ballots had recently been challenged by Republicans.
In July, a federal appeals court voided much of a sweeping “omnibus” election law enacted by the Republican-run legislature, saying it was created to discourage Black people from voting.
Republicans then used their two-to-one edge on electoral boards to slash early voting options and force long lines at the few early voting locations in urban centers like Charlotte, Raleigh, and Winston-Salem. Almost 9 percent fewer Black voters took advantage of early voting than had in 2012, ThinkProgress reported.
Last week, a judge also ordered provisional ballots for voters who said they tried to register at state motor vehicle offices, public assistance centers, and other agencies, but whose names were not on the rolls.
PENNSYLVANIA
A judge extended the deadline to return ballots last week after hundreds of voters in Montgomery County, outside Philadelphia, complained they did not receive their absentee ballots, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
About 70 percent of the absentee ballots issued in Montgomery County have been completed and returned.
More than 29,000 voters, a record number, asked for absentee ballots for the November 8 election, which were due on Friday. That’s up from 23,069 ballots requested in the 2012 general election, when more than 84 percent voted using them.
By late Monday morning, about 21,000 of the more than 29,000 ballots issued had been returned, the Inquirer reported.
However, a majority of Pennsylvanians vote in-person on Election Day, as there is no early voting in the state and absentee ballots account for a small percentage of voters, according to ProPublica .
TENNESSEE
The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee sent a letter to Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett last week requesting that voters who have been “wrongfully purged” from voter rolls due to inactivity be allowed to cast provisional ballots.
“Federal law is clear: Voters cannot be removed from the rolls simply because they haven’t voted in a few elections,” Hedy Weinberg, ACLU–TN executive director, said in a news release .
The release added: “While Tennessee law allows purging of voters who miss several regular November elections in a row, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently struck down the practice of purging voters from the rolls based on their failure to vote in prior elections as a violation of the National Voter Registration Act.”
A recent NewsChannel 5 investigation found that more than 19,000 people had been purged for inactivity over a three-year period in Davidson County alone, excluding people who have been convicted of a felony or have died.
TEXAS
The DOJ announced Monday it would be placing election monitors in Dallas, Harris, and Waller counties to protect the rights of voters. As Rewire reported, the DOJ plans to send more than 500 personnel to 67 jurisdictions across 28 states to monitor the polls on Election Day.
After early voting problems involving IDs and misleading posters , election officials and civil rights advocates hope Texas has ironed out issues in time for Election Day.
Republican Texas lawmakers adopted the nation’s strictest voter ID law in 2011, claiming it aimed to prevent voter fraud. As the Texas Tribune noted, opponents have argued that the law was intended to suppress voting by Latinx voters and others who lean Democratic and are unlikely to have a qualifying ID.
WISCONSIN
Police officers will periodically check polling locations Tuesday for “disruptions, excessive demonstrations and interference with citizens voting,” according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel .
A stringent voter ID law has hampered some Black residents from voting in the Midwest state, Ari Berman of the Nation reported. In one incident, the DMV failed to issue a state ID to a resident who didn’t have his birth certificate but had several other documents to confirm his identity and residence.
Last month, a Wisconsin city clerk raised concerns about opening an early voting site on the state university’s Green Bay campus, partly because she feared it would encourage more Democratic-leaning students to vote, reported Amanda Hoover of the Christian Science Monitor .
Other infractions reported include DMV workers reportedly giving out the wrong voter ID information and a July lawsuit that found parts of the state’s voter ID law violated residents’ voting rights .
And, remember this
After Signing Law Disenfranchising ID-less Voters, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Closes 10 DMV Offices
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker became one of the many GOP governors to sign a law disenfranchising voters who do not have a photo ID — a law that disproportionately affects elderly voters, young voters, students, minorities and low-income voters. Having disenfranchised tens of thousands of Wisconsin voters, Walker is now making it harder for many of these voters to obtain the ID they need to regain their right to participate in the next election :
What's happening in other states, even if true, doesn't necessarily have any bearing whatsoever on what happened in Wisconsin. The point is that you don't know and concede that you may never know why Wisconsin officials gave inaccurate information. Democrats' "concern" that it may have been to suppress votes is entirely speculative so republican can speculate that the false information was given due to ordinary government stupidity. In fact, the false information could have been given by a bunch of democrat dumbells with government jobs.
And all the information A Mac gave is irrelevant if there's no proof that it's true or has anything to do with Wisconsin. A point doesn't become less speculative simply by piling more speculation on top of it. But you go ahead and fan yourself with the republican conspiracy theory if it makes you feel better.
That is the sad truth my friend they buy constituents at the expense of the entire country.
Cue up the arguments that the problem is a small one percentage wise and isn't worth investigating....
The issue is it's not one percent, it's a fraction of a percent and even in those cases most of them were caught BEFORE they voted......the system is not perfect, but so called slash and burn method of the right is not needed.
Yeah! I think I'm going to like it here!
"A major component of Philadelphia registering noncitizens involves the National Voter Registration Act or “Motor Voter,” which was passed in 1993. It requires state governments to offer voter registration to any eligible person who is applying for or renewing their driver’s license or registration. This requirement has been misinterpreted by state officials as supposedly prohibiting them from failing to offer everyone who applies for a driver’s license the opportunity to register. This includes cases where the DMV official knows the individual is not a U.S. citizen."
And I'm assuming that is the case with the state of California. What happened here in Philadelphia is small potatoes to what I believe is happening with the consent of many elected officials in CA. When are we gonna have a look at the CA voting rolls?
Is there any wonder why they are refusing to release such information? We have the same problem here in Washington.
The registration process has always been the vulnerability in our voting system. Requiring proof of citizenship to register is needed. Retraining DMV workers in Philadelphia is needed as well.
Requiring ID when voting is needed as well.
But.. but... that's racist!
A biometric will do that much better than photo ID. Thumbprints can't be faked.
Requiring ID when voting is needed as well.
Agreed! But the process of acquiring valid ID must not be corrupted by politicians as in Wisconsin!
Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law Suppressed
200,000
Votes in
2016
(Trump Won by 22,748)
A new study shows how voter-ID laws decreased turnout among African-American and Democratic voters.
"Oh! We're sorry for the inconvenience but our system just went down and we wont be able to scan your thumbprint, so you wont be able to vote! Once again sorry for the inconvenience!"
Wait what? You want Voter ID even though it led to massive voter suppression, according to the article you cited?
Does that make sense to you? Seriously!
It wasn't "Voter ID" that led to massive voter suppression, it was the corrupt implementation of a so-called "Voter ID LAW", the logistics of which, was intended to suppress voting … which it did!
" Oh! We're sorry for the inconvenience but our system just went down and we wont be able to scan your thumbprint, so you wont be able to vote! Once again sorry for the inconvenience!"
Office that provides ID for voting in one Wisconsin burg is open 4 days in 2016, John Oliver says
The 4 Most Damning Revelations In Wisconsin’s Voter ID Trial
Actually it makes perfect sense....for anyone that read the article he linked, this is from his link
Somewhat … but let's be realistic. There will always be imperfections in laws and enforcement. Leaving the impossible scenario of literally-zero voter fraud behind …
By all means, a fair, no-bullshit, consistently implemented, single rigorous ID process throughout America -- with easily accessed, regularly-opened registration locations, no costly or other prohibitive impediments …
Each Poll Pad or e-pollbook has the capability of the thumbprint scan. If one goes down there are others to choose from.
I have used both the Poll Pad and e-pollbook for a decade now at the polling places I work as an election judge. None has ever failed. Since polls have more than one in place it wouldn't be a problem if one did.
Does your poll use a e-pollbook or paper?
So basically you're claiming a person would need a birth certificate in order to register to vote?! Ok, then the person would have to go to the health department to get that, but what if that person was not born in that state they are currently residing? Then they would have to send out for said birth certificate at an extra fee. I stay in a suburban area where the health department is in the county seat which is 20 miles away from me, so I would have to drive to get there and then pay 60.00 for said birth certificate, but seeing as though I wasn't born in Florida, I would have to submit a request to Virginia for my birth certificate which would cost me an additional 30.00 so I would have to basically pay a minimum of 90.00 just to register to exercise my constitutional right. Now that's no problem for me, but what about a lot of other people who don't have the means or funds to do that? What about the elderly who probably could get a birth certificate due to some reason....all because some Republican wanted to commit fraud!
Really? Maybe they moved and lost their paperwork, maybe the was a fire, flood, maybe they never had it in the first place, what does it matter? I lost or misplaced my birth certificate several times in my life, what does that matter
Or maybe the law allows for you not have to show your papers either. Why should someone have to prove their citizenship when a simple ID during registration should be enough? But it's not just the 90.00, it's a constitutional right! So you're saying a homeless person with an expired drivers license should not be able to vote even though that clearly proves he's a citizen?
Then I guess we should take away all the rest of their Constitutional rights as well huh? Tax breaks don't pay federal tax no freedom of speech, don't pay federal tax, then forget about protecting yourself right?.....What I'm concerned is the facist rhetoric that just got posted
Really? You do realize blue states pay more in taxes than red states right? So all the free stuff is actually going to the Republican Party platform....but let me guess you all really need it as opposed to anyone else
Comment removed, lack of clarity and offensive. [ph]
That's exactly what I read!
FYI: They still pay nothing, can get back benefits, and can vote on how much I pay in taxes. According to Pew Research : the top 2.7% of earners pay 51.6% of all Federal income taxes collected. While the bottom 62.3% of earners pay a mere 5.6% of all Federal income taxes collected. Letting the poor vote to take from the rich leads to Venezuela.
They "pay" amounts that would necessitate refunds, consequently, the IRS, as a means of efficiency and common sense, does not take what it would subsequently be refunding. Otherwise, they pay state, local and all other taxes.
Wow, that's just disgusting. It also ignores the fact that more White people are on Welfare than there are Black people on these same programs. It isn't a race thing, it is a lazy thing. And laziness is color blind. Your comment sounds like the soft bigotry of low expectations, and is a left-wing, racist dog whistle that implies only Black people can be lazy or poor or on Welfare.
Your comment was …
I'm concerned with people that pay 0 Federal taxes being allowed to vote on how much I pay in taxes. I'm also concerned about politicians offering free stuff to garner votes, which has become the Democratic Party platform.
Were you implying that Republican (generally white) voters were getting free stuff as per a Democratic Party platform?
I said I had two concerns, one was people voting without paying taxes and the other was people being able to vote for free stuff. There might be some overlap in these two groups of people, but they two distinct groups. You conflated them and it is dishonest because a) there are people who pay taxes and still want to vote for free stuff, and b) there are people who don't pay taxes and also choose not to vote.
You implied a cause-and-effect relationship between not paying federal taxes, getting "free stuff from Democrats", and (still) being able to vote (or potentially effect via campaign contributions, election outcomes). They may be two distinct groups, but in terms of not paying federal taxes, they are alike. difference being, the so-called" "free stuff" Democrats don't get to write parts of the tax code that eliminates their federal tax liabilities (which are based on IRS bookkeeping concerns not political pay-to-play).
Corporations account for more "welfare" than actual "people".Source? Last I checked two-thirds of our Federal budget goes to SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Does that go to Corporations or to actual people? I could be wrong, but I think you're wrong. Please treat me better or I will ignore your future replies.
… Good Jobs First report, “ Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent ,” by Philip Mattera, a respected thought leader in our business. It says that three-quarters of all state economic development subsidies went to just 965 corporations since the beginning of the study in 1976. The Fortune 500 corporations alone accounted for more than 16,000 subsidy awards, worth $63 billion – mostly in the form of tax breaks.
Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs
Actually, I can talk about who gets "free stuff" now, then and in the future. It's called Free Speech. And by your logic you can only talk about Corporatism when Corporations actually sign bills into law. I'm still not seeing consistency in your argument.
We're having a debate … the "then you can talk" is rhetorical and metaphorical.
But they don't pay federal income tax. Maybe a flat tax rate, where everyone pays the same 10%, is the only fair way that guarantees everyone pays their fair share. The only people that shouldn't pay income tax are people without income. You call it a tax loophole when a corporation can take advantage of tax law, yet likely will call it a tax deduction when it's a tax loophole that people can take advantage of. Can we agree that the tax law in its current form is bunk, way too complicated and ripe with cheating? I don't think it is the proper place of government to subsidize corn or single parenthood.
I explained why they don't pat federal tax … twice. Like any one who is entitled to a refund after paying taxes, individuals who fall into categories of poverty or near-poverty incomes would receive refunds equating to non-liability!
Do you know that the overwhelming majority of these people avoid income taxes due to a policy fiercely supported by none other than President Ronald Wilson Reagan who deemed the policy to be “the best antipoverty, the best pro- family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."?
I wasn't implying anything based on race or sex, or anything else you'll try to smear me with. This was something you inferred, for which I did not imply. And this is simply more telling about you than it is me. You are attributing motive and meaning, which could have been avoided had you just asked me a question instead of making a comment that can only inflame. It could only inflame. I will only suggest reading the CoC, as I think you were trying to skirt it, and leave it at that.
I inferred that, because you singled out "free stuff" with Democrats, you consequently excluded any Republicans. And I didn't simply infer … there is precedent for my inference …
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush doubled down on his controversial comments last week that Democrats appeal to African-Americans by offering “free stuff,” saying that his comments were taken out of context.
In a pre-taped interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Bush mostly reiterated what he’d said earlier, fueling longstanding, unfounded and stereotypical notions of freeloading black voters beholden to Democrats.
I suggest you stay with point-counter-point debate and not try to make my disagreement with your positions a CoC issue. I never make a point I can't back up.
I did nothing of the sort. You are inferring a cause-and-effect relationship by attributing motive and meaning. You also ignored the part where I said "more White people are on Welfare", A fact that you must have ignored while implying a racist motive in the first place This either means you didn't know more White people are on Welfare, or you think that I think only Black people are on Welfare. I think I'm done with this conversation with you, good bye.
You "report" I infer …
The ratio of whites to blacks on welfare is irrelevant particularly when you break it down to supporters of which party, Democrats (traditionally minority) or Republicans (traditionally white) … get the "free stuff" and the political reasons why.
If you care to debate here, I'm happy to debate with you … but be prepared to encounter disagreement … I respond specifically to specific comments with which I disagree and make that fact clear by quoting the comments with which I disagree along with my rebuttals.
If it's "good bye," sorry to see you go … I consider you a worthy adversary among others on NT with whom I regularly disagree but otherwise like and respect.
No … it's that not only do they not pay federal taxes on their (record) profits, they simultaneously get subsidies as well.
We can argue over which is worse, but can we agree that both are bad? Can we have a cordial conversation?
When a corporation or individual "needs" welfare, as long as the "needs" are legitimate and/or not self-inflicted, I have no problems. Otherwise, yes, we can agree that both are bad!
We are dealing with an inherently hot and emotional topic … I do not mean nor wish you any disrespect or lack of cordiality.
Peace.
Let's try again.
Which has nada to do with constitutional rights….you can lecture personal responsibility on another topic right now this is about trying to suppress someone’s constitutional right to vote which also can’t be hindered by what you call personal responsibility
Ok? So then why were people in North Carolina, Wisconsin and Texas being denied the right to vote when they had simple ID?
That’s never been the question, we’re talking about actual citizens being denied that right due the simple fact of lack of financial means
Let me you in on something, I have very little faith in wikipedia being regarded as a legitimate source of anything besides entertainment, but besides being a minor or a felon (which only one state denies restoration, a red state color me shocked) what restricts or denies for ANYTHING else
No, you brought up financial means, what better example than a homeless person, also if you go back and check your wikipedia source the government has even made concessions for homeless, you claim a person that cant come up with 90.00 basically has no interest in voting, when you yourself said that a simple ID should suffice.
Making a lot of ASSumptions today huh? But a person who insinuates that you have to buy your right to vote has no room to question someone’s seriousness
Gotta love you little rightwing fallacies…….let me burst that bubble using your own little source. facism is historical and ideologically on the RIGHT
or, let me take an a paragraph from your link regarding Italian facism
Oh, the good ol’ California deflection! But no dice based on 2010 federal spending results there are 3 times more red welfare states as there are blue welfare states, you can spin it all you like but there is at least 20 years worth of data that proves me right
3 times more red welfare states than blue, 7 times more revenue from blue states than red…..has that answered your question.
But yet Conneticut is ranked #48 regarding federal dependency.....thanks for making my point
You don't have a copy of your bc? I have mine and I was born at home in a rural part of the state in 1950. My dad born in 1928 at home has a copy of his.
The country should forgive poor planning on the part of people and their parents? My family were all poor dirt farmers but had a birth certificate.
Proof of citizenship is a must at registration.
Excellent point - It is what will probably lead to our downfall
So, according to your argument, only people who make "X" income should be allowed to vote. There is actually an income dollar figure above which taxes are owed, although many people who zero out on taxes do have it taken from their checks and then returned to them when their tax returns show them eligible for various tax deductions.
But let me ask you a question. When the hoo ha was going on over Romney's taxes, experts said that there are extremely wealthy people who pay no federal income tax. Uh, should they vote?
Respect? Worthy Adversary? You'll forgive my confusion when you called me a racist a mere 2 replies ago, and we have had little interaction for you to know my mind.
The debate continues … no problem with that, but we've already disagreed (twice I think) on all the items you have repeated … so, let's debate further … on other issues.
On the "racist" item, I took what you stated and cited a precise parallel, if not synonymous precedent regarding your statement made by Jed Bush.
If one is going to isolate "free stuff" (a right-wing dog whistle phrase alluding to Blacks who take welfare from Democrats in a quid-pro-quo for their votes) … then it's racist …
I'm going to go back and see if I called you a racist, or, placed in quotation marks, what right-wing folks have meant when equating welfare>Democrats>votes-in-exchange.
If I find you are correct and I called you a "racist," you will get my immediate apology … if I did not … we can move on.
I checked …
NO: I did not call you a racist …
My exact comment …
Finally, your "free stuff to garner votes" is a right-wing, racist dog whistle that implies shit like "shiftless niggers get welfare as a payment for voting Democrat".
Brother, I've got to call you on that one. No you didn't directly call him a racist, But you did directly imply that is aligns with racists by using such a statement without directly saying he was one.
As far as payments for voting goes.....
He also said this in defense of his position....
The whole great society, welfare state was created from a racist meme by one of the most powerful racists of all....
IN AND AS PAYMENT FOR THEIR VOTES.
That is the truth of the matter.
Liberals throw the racist slur around so freely that it has lost most of its meaning. The (racebaiting) boy cried wolf too often. The tactic is designed to shut down debate and should be dismissed as the shameless capitulation it is.
You can say whatever you want. I would just say that private charity is not and could never be remotely sufficient to cover the needs of America's poor, and that libertarianism as a governing system for the United States is a ridiculous fantasy.
I wouldn't go that far my friend, he pushed the line a bit as we are all wont to from time to time.
I do not believe he had any specific intent...
Let's not extrapolate away from the reality.
If I say that a "Mr. X has made a same or similar statement as a Mr Y," I have not said that "Mr. X is Mr. Y!"
Far too often I find people on the Left not knowing the person they are talking to and pre-judging them anyway. Does my background sound like the background of a bigot?
i have not pre-judged you … I commented on one of your comments, put your comment in a verifiable and known context … and explained how the comment fits into a specific narrative.
Fourth time; I have not called you a bigot … I HAVE explained how your comment has been used by politicians and others in an unflattering conflation.
If that does not satisfy you, perhaps we should call an IMPASSE and no longer dialogue on this topic.
Flag it then.
IMPASSE.
NOTE: While I disagree with your contention, I do not wish to create a bad feeling … so, if you would prefer, I will delete the comment you flagged, and all of the related conversation between us.
Say the word and I will delete it all, leaving just this comment so that no one will have to wonder about the outcome.
100% agreement brother, just do me a favor, stating it as a conservative phenomenon while leaving out the progressive liberal roots of such, could easily lead one to believe that it is simple brainless racism. When it actuality it was the well thought out position of many progressive liberals at the time the ideal was born....
Stating this without specifically condemning those on your side directly is condemning the behavior and ideal with faint vehemence.
One is either for it or against it, I personally am against it.
It's not a road either side want to go down, cause the record for both political sides is equally dismal.
Can we at least agree on that much?
People:
This comment was flagged and I can see why. What I can't figure out is who said what, since all of you are using the quote function wrong. Please refer to TIG's article of the front page on how to use it correctly. In the meanwhile, I am removing the offending comment anywhere I see it. I hope someone is honest enough to own that comment, since 3 of you seem to be involved.
Well that is up to you two, but I don't see that as necessary or needed. It is much like our first discussions my friend, when we were feeling each other out.
Part of the process that is much needed to be seen around here...
Is this seriously your idea of a reasonable argument? According to these two articles, there were 40 million poor and .5 million homeless in the US in 2015-16.
Which means that 79 out of every 80 poor people were NOT homeless.
1.3% of America's poor are homeless, in good part because we DO have a social safety net. Would you prefer the homeless rate be larger?
You ask why we still have poor? Because poverty is a feature of a capitalist society, not a bug.
What nonsense.
The comment was in quotation marks because it represented a pejorative sentiment that has regularly been posited as a dog whistle for those who have portrayed Blacks as Democrats' bought and paid for welfare queens.
I made the comment initially and thoroughly explained how Jeb Bush and others came damned close to making that very statement on the campaign trail.
The comment was, in fact, offensive, and, was quoted in a context that explained how and why and from which political party it originated, and how it continues to be used.
It serves no purpose to avoid citing verbatim, the ugly rhetoric of those who use it to pander to particular voters. If, in citing an ugly sentiment it appears offensive, it's supposed to appear as such, that, to bring ugly reality to the attention of all lest it be allowed to fester in the shadows!
Whether a particular unkind tenet is stated innocently or naively, because the tenet is inherently unkind, it consequently cannot be deemed innocuous and left to stand without a response.
Mac,
You made a quote that took real but was in fact an amalgamation of what you "have heard" or read conservatives say. That in itself, is not a violation, but it is very misleading and applying it to conservatives in general, could be construed as insulting. Please use actual quotes, so that it is clear to the reader what is actual from what is a composite.
btw. thank you for taking ownership of the comment.
Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]
I agree and......
You can't get stronger by sitting on your ass. You will only get weaker. You won't become self sufficient if someone is determined to take care of you.
And who are the poor? Well there are people who are and will be poor no matter what is done to help them. Some will be poor at no fault of their own and others because they have no desire to help themselves. They have plenty of people counting on them to do just that because they need them in order to have people they can cater to in order to get votes.
There are over 200 organizations in this list below who are totally dedicated for the betterment of American Blacks. What other group of people in this country have so many supposedly helping to make life better for them than these people have?
Black Organizations and Organizations Serving Black Communities
I guess on NT you are not allowed to tell someone their comments are not worth responding to.
1984 is upon us.
Six, find us a time when the US poverty rate was below 10%.
It is a feature of the economic system. It has nothing to do, structurally, with "self-improvement".
You need to get out and see the real world. I see it every day. I see Indians, South Africans, Mexicans, Pakistanis, American Black and other people who are considered poor.
I see some American Blacks who are poor at no fault of their own, but most of them I see are lazy and the only thing they want to do is collect their government check. It's not their fault. It's Liberalism. The American Blacks greatly improved after the Civil War up until Johnson started the Great Society. Since then they have fallen off the wagon.
I'll let a Black man tell you himself.
The difference is one day I see the man and his wife in this store who I believe have been living in there and they introduce me to their daughter who may be the daughter of any one of the people who have come to this country to have a better life and they tell me she is going to school to be a doctor and she's already in Med School.
That's the difference. They don't have all these organizations taking care of them at every moment. They've never had so good even though most of us would not want to live like they have been living, but they have a desire to make life better for themselves and they do.
Your not allowed to tell someone that you disagree with their point by trashing them with innuendo.
Especially when their point completely destroys your faulty premise which engendered the response in the first place.
You had your ass handed to you John, in one post, both logically and factually, a common occurrence. So I would suggest that the proper response is to suck it up and take it like a man.
No it isn't!
We have created a floor that people can't go below unless they choose to. Some are happy with the floor and never reach for the ceiling. That has created an underclass of people who choose to take the government cheeze instead of searching for better.
I have no problem with government helping in time of crisis but it should never become a way of life.
Because only citizens can vote. Proof of identity is very important in the era of identity theft.
What is simple id? A utility bill one can make on a home computer?
The better way of doing registration is to do it when the person enters school. After that "registration" becomes a change of address. Until that happens a person must show proof of citizenship.
Does that mean that the "War on Poverty" was a failure? It was. The war on poverty assumed people were poor because they didn't have money. Instead of looking at why they didn't have money and teaching how to earn money the government just gave them money. That created dependency.
The argument between the parties in DC isn't whether or not but how much. Dems want more money for assistance the reps want less but both want assistance. Assistance is fine until it becomes a way of life.
I decided your comment was worth responding to.
If a comment isn't worth responding to I don't respond. Why do you John? If you tell someone their comment isn't worth responding to by responding you just contradicted yourself.
Font variations are as old as the printed word itself and serve particular purposes.
This ridiculous preoccupation with objections to bold, caps and other variations, only serves to derail the content the letters spell out.
I choose and use the fonts available in the Paragraph option above each field.
To please those who have assimilated the arbitrarily ascribed "shouting" equivalent to ALL CAPS, I stopped using them; for you, I will now minimize the use of bold headline paragraph style.
If/when asked to go to cuneiform instead of this Guttenberg stuff, I will go to the Apple stylus store and continue to accede to the citizenry as a gesture of humble capitulation.
Your wish is granted.
So, these folks will not be able to get a passport, a driver's license, Social Security number/card and so many other things. I was missing my birth certificate many years ago, I contacted the county I was born in (County Clerk, records section) and was able to receive a certified copy with the clerk's official raised stamp on it.
It's not that hard to do. And how many people actually lose theirs?
Will you please shut up before I have to embarrass you again.
We have an underclass of poor people because we always have an underclass of poor people and always will. It is an indelible feature of capitalism.
To act as if by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps all poverty can be eliminated is absurd.
There are older black people who have problems with birth certificates either because they weren't properly recorded or have errors on them (that are, for one reason or another, difficult for them to fix). However, we need to ensure that only citizens are voting and a birth certificate is the best way to do that even if some people have difficulty obtaining one.
We're good! No problem.
How do you know which sick people don't meet your requirements?
Your comment is a "broad brush" . Broad brushes about policies have little practicality.
Agreed … in principle at least.
But beyond what is self-inflicted, is the reality that some who fall into sickness and poverty, are "victims" -- not perpetrators of their own neediness.
The working person who, on the last day of his job, packs up his desk so that his employer can send it and his job to India or China … and, who then, loses his savings, his house, his pension and his health insurance because to some, "The Marketplace is God" … do we "redistribute some wealth" to help him?
What about the homeless, disabled vet … didn't he choose the military to get his college tuition and/or to learn a salable skill with which to subsequently earn a living?
Here is what personally pisses me off; among the most vile hypocrites in America, are the religionists and the politicians who pander to their religiosity, talking "Jesus" for votes while failing to address the real health care and other needs of all human beings.
Exporting good jobs, insourcing illegals to take intentionally-suppressed-wage jobs, allowing the poisining of our environment and our people in order to keep the campaign contributions and abuses-of-power intact … these are not the result of eating fatty foods and smoking cigarettes!
Let us call things what they are … be they the good, the bad or the ugly.
When my "brother" is not the cause of his adversity, in my opinion, to the extent I can manage, I will be his keeper …
… while hoping that one day, I won't need hime to be mine.
Good dialogue, my friend.
Great thought A-Mac!
NO it is not a "Broad Brush" John.
It is a personal philosophy, an individuals philosophy of life. It doesn't say we are not our brothers keeper, what it does say is I am responsible for that which I can control in my life. I cannot control someone else's life choices so I shouldn't have to be forced to pay for said persons choices.
One of your brethren decides to rob the liquor store and and accidently shoots the store salesperson.... And of course in front of dozens of witnesses.
He pulls the full life plus 20 for murder cause his intent to kill follows the intent to rob.
You saying that one of us or even you should do part of his time for him? I mean we should easily be able gather a few thousand people that would each gladly do a day of his sentence for him....
Bullshit, he is responsible to all of us for his actions and must accept the consequences of his choices.
Libertarianism is not about policies, it is a philosophy of life.....
And that is why many people do not and never will understand it. And because they do not understand it, they HAVE to ridicule it, it violates their policy driven government is superior force philosophy where everyone makes decisions for everyone else.
They can be grandfathered in. I have no problem with that. I just find it amazing that those things couldn't be dealt with. States have required record of live birth for over 100 years. Death records almost as long. My dad was born at home in 1928 with a midwife attending. He has a BC. I was born at home with a midwife and Dr. I have a BC.
For younger people there is simply no excuse for not having one's personal documents.
i'm going to disagree with that conclusion; there is a great divide between trying to attain the unattainable goal of "equal," versus that of "equitability".
"Equality"/"equal outcomes" are often tantamount to "pie-in-the-sky," but to reject an objective of (ironically) "fair and balanced" is to promote favoritism, usually for selfish reasons … good for the power-brokers, bad for the viability of humanity.
Being in poverty doesn't mean a lifetime of being in poverty. If that were the case I would have never left the one room shack I was born in. At some point a person makes choices to get into better situation. Some people make choices that will prevent them from being in bad situations.
Bootstraps work better than government cheeze.
I disagree and think it is quite the opposite Equality is not the same thing as equity as we are both well aware. Equality, in this sense, is about fairness of rights and access to public institutions. Equity would be about fairness of outcome, regardless of merit or choices.
And I disagree; equality is an idealistic and therefore, a likely unattainable outcome while equitability is an objective component of process and protocol.
For instance, a case that is going before the Supreme Court soon is about Affirmative Action. The suit is brought by Asian-Americans whom allege there is discrimination based on race. According to Princeton University, an applicant of Asian descent is penalized by 50 SAT points, where as an African-American is given a bonus of 230 SAT points (back when the SATs were out of 1600). The purpose of the policy was to achieve an equality of outcome - when created served a purpose as to prevent the horrid discrimination of Blacks by law and our institutions - but in order to do this they have to put barriers in the way of equal access by, as you said, promoting favoritism. These colleges put racial quotas into their enrollment. So they seek to have +/- 63% White, 13% Black, 17% Hispanic, 5% Asian or Pacific Islander, 2% Jewish and 1% Muslim. The only to achieve this equality of outcome is to create an inequality of access or rights.
I don't believe Affirmative Action is a good example since it has been abused (yes, I, a liberal stated that). Affirmative Action was never intended to create a level of equitability by favoring "unqualified" individuals over "qualified" individuals solely because of historical race and gender inequities.
The golfer given a handicap advantage is assumed to come to to golf course with at least a basic ability level to be "in-the-game" in the first place.
I tried not to use Affirmative Action, to avoid race until we better know each other, but I felt Universal Basic Income, Single Payer Healthcare, and a few others would be too complicated. My posts are long enough as it is.
I think I removed your trepidation; I'm not as tight-assed about race as I must have seemed in our first go round.
I should also qualify some of the terms I use as to avoid confusion. This is what I mean when I say Left, Right and Leftist:
A Leftists is some one entrenched with the principles of the Left. I do not conflate this as to mean Liberal because they are not the same thing. There may be some overlap, as a Leftist could have some Liberal values and a Liberal can be on the Left on some issues, but they are not the same. One Liberal value is Free Speech, the old adage "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it". But that is a Liberal value, not a Leftist value. A Leftist believes that Speech is violence and that "hate speech" is not Free Speech. A perfect example of this is the recent visit to UC Berkeley by Conservative commentator, Ben Shapiro. Liberals attended his speech and waited to the Q&A to ask questions. While all the Leftists were outside protesting and trying to shut down the event, chanting "Speech is Violence" and calling Ben Shapiro a White Supremacist. Even though Ben is an Orthodox Jew that went to UCLA and Harvard Law.
When I say the Left I mean the ideas of the Left Which is Collectivism and equality of outcome
When I say the Right I mean the ideas of the Right. Which is Individualism and equality of rights and access
I'll make it easy … regardless of where I might fit if using the standard of Left, Center, Right either-or, politically and ideologically, I am ultimately and likely to come down on the side of any issue based on what is "fair," "reasonable," and "utilitarian" rather than selfish and self-serving.
The United states is a Collective based on the Individual. This makes politics in the US very complicated, yet simple. And it is why Europe is lost. People think I'm kidding, or stupid, when I say that Europe has no Right. They have Left and Far Left. There is no Individualism there, only collectivism. Their "Far Right" is Authoritarian-Socialism. Their Far Left are a bunch of "former" Communists from the failed Eastern bloc. The rest are all Socialists and Social-Democrats (ie Socialism-lite).
The historical reason for Europe's "centrism" -- until recently -- has been the homogeneity of its populations. Sadly, sometimes tragically, with diversity comes ethnocentrism, theocratic myopia, inculcated prejudices …
Another good debate here!
Not sure why you think any part of your reply cuts the mustard.
Not at all. You are claiming that if people just wouldnt be lazy there would be no more poverty in America. That is nonsense. There has never been a time in America , since they have kept records, that there has been no poverty. In other words, the need for poverty programs to sustain the poor always exists, no matter what level of laziness there is.
We are not responsible for what other countries do, we are responsible for what we do in our economic system. Our economic system creates poverty, through a system that seeks the lowest possible salary for workers in order to create the highest possible profit for nonworkers (shareholders).
Irrelevant to a social safety net.
Again, irrelevant. If people are pulled out of poverty they are replaced in poverty by others. Someone will always be making the lowest salary, or no salary, and those will be the poor people. It is inescapable.
The underclass in America is permanent by design as conceived, constructed and funded by an oligarchy that buys legislators to maintain it!
It's function is to divide and conquer the poor and middle class by propagandizing them to blame one another for the inherent inequities generated by the oligarchic-kleptocracy. Koch Brother, the Salverria Family, from El Salvador and connected to the Romneys, Harold Hamm/Big Oil, Sheldon Adelson, Murcer, et al … understand that "welfare" is not merely big business, it provides a lure for those who would game the system (at the expense of those legitimately entitled and the middle class).
A 19th C. meme of the oligarch class was, "We can always pay half of the poor to kill the other half."
Let us not be naive about the reality!
notice the poverty rate fell with the advent of federal anti-poverty programs
the lowest the poverty rate has been in the past 58 years is 11.1%
NM, describe your way of life however you like as long as the rest of us are not required to take it seriously. Libertarian ism is not a serious system for governing a country. It is good for inconsequential discussions on internet forums.
HofC. Don't waste your time. Not worth it.
(My comment refers to your reply to Tessylo)
As an aside, so you know I'm not a "one-trick-pony," please check out the Photography & Art Forum and the Creative Arts Group.
You might find it as a welcome change-of-pace from the politics.
And brother, it is good to see your libertarianism showing again....
No insult intended.....
Politics aside, I think we have found another good friend who understands what actual debate is about.......
John Said.....
You see this is the beauty of Libertarianism, it doesn't force anyone to agree unlike Egalitarianism, Totalitarianism, Sectarianism or Unitarianism. The only good way of governing a nation is Republicanism, where everyone has a voice through their elected representatives. It is as Libertarian as it comes.
No, Libertarianism is good for conversations with those people that truly have an open mind, and most on internet fora don't have open minds. The whole enlightenment philosophy is based upon having an open mind.
Libertarianism is not about politics and a political Libertarian is an oxymoron. Politics, in fact all government is about violent force, and libertarianism is only agreeable to violent force when there is no other option. Much like Ghandi clearly stated....
Government in and of itself needs to be strong as strong as a nation can make it, but it also needs to be limited, as limited as it can be made to effectuate it's purpose. Otherwise the government begins to use it's force on it's own citizens.
We are not anarchists as I've heard you and others claim, that is Europe as we are definitely not socialist Europe, who views actual liberty as anathema to good governance.
We are not helpless people, we are compassionate people, we help openly when others demand compliance in exchange. We don't give a damn what others believe or who they worship, love or copulate with, as long as they do not attempt to force their beliefs upon us.
We are a stubborn people as freedom to believe the way we do is paramount to being a person. We are individualists, cause all strength comes from the individual will combined with a healthy understanding of truth. Again much like Ghandi said....
Ghandi's position on violent force and non-violence and how they interlate is easily translated into a cute phrase...
Walk softly and carry a big stick.
We don't care that you think libertarianism is not worth talking about, cause we understand and recognize your closed group think. and that a man is only useful if he belongs to something.
What you believe in is slavery of the mind.
And we will NEVER be slaves.
There are some libertarians here that are very serious political liberals, just as there are some very serious political conservatives that are as libertarian as you are.
We are not a political philosophy nor an ideology.
We are freemen, the descendants of those who created this nation, created this government, and there are one hell of a lot more of us than there are of you.
Agreed; what is best for the site and human interaction in general, is the ability and willingness to civily express disparate opinions, ideas.
We have found another articulate good guy with whom to vigorously debate!
I would like to compliment your posting format. It is so much easier to read.
The exchanges have been so informative and thought provoking. That is what it should be my friend.
These conversations remind me of the old Breakfast Club several teacher friends and I had on Friday mornings. Friendly and thought provoking conversation while sipping coffee with a side of eggs and hashbrowns.
Peace my friend!
One of the most brilliant men to ever walk the planet I sure wish he was. I do believe that the founders and builders of Establishment thinking were all classically educated men and were well aware of the philosophies of Aristotle Ptolemy and many of the ancient philosophers. And much of that knowledge was incorporated into their thinking. I know TJ wrote extensively on the Greek and Roman philosophers and regularly passed private notes to Adams in Iambics and Greek longhand written directly into his letters. Both men were classically educated in the best schools of the time.
As far as Ghandi goes, enough is left of his personal habits to call into question his personal practices, although if there actually was direct proof of any perverted sexual behavior it has long since been destroyed. Although his chosen ideas of religious Chasity did seem to suit whatever sense of Chasity he needed to fit.
Personally, I could care less if he bedded 100 virgin boys every night, his personal life was his business and none of mine. His philosophical positions are his greatest contribution to humanity.
Anyway we are all travelers in this world on our own individual paths as the great architect of the universe prescribed.
A long segmented path on the square and level...
No surprise, really.
big cities run by democrats are cesspools of all sorts of corruption.
Yeah they should be more like Colorado.....oh wait, a former Republican Party chairman was charged with voter fraud this year!......oops my bad!
And yet, the mouthpieces here for the Left have always said there is no evidence of voter fraud in the U.S.
Funny that.
Amazing isn't it! No fraud but they accuse reps of fraud. Go figure.
No, the amazing part are the ones who are screaming that it's the Dems that are doing the voter fraud, (see comment 2) but in the very few cases out of billions of votes that have been cast it seems the ones that are doing the fraud are leaning toward the right! Btw NOONE said there is no such thing as voter fraud but 200 votes out of billions does not conflate into the faux panic you all whip yourself up over.
You know what's even funnier.......the same former chair was one of the loudest voices railing about voter fraud just before HE committed voter fraud....Pure comedy!
It is amazing that the left downplays voter fraud! Illegal votes are to be prevented. That can be done without disenfranchising any legal voter. The problem with making those changes is the opposition from the left. Fair, honest elections should be a non partisan issue since fraud is a knife that cuts both ways.
No one is downplaying it, instead the left is giving it the attention it needs, but 1160 votes over the course of probably billions that were cast over the span of 45 years is a case of the slash and burn attempt the right wants.
Those were only what was caught and prosecuted. Unless the election is close there fraud will never be noticed.
What is wrong with better vetting of the voter registration system? The federal law requires that ineligible voters be removed from registration lists. What is wrong with that?
Vote security should never be a partisan issue. It should be one that all embrace.
We are now spending millions on a special prosecutor over Russian meddling but we can't make sure someone is legally entitled to vote?
"No one is downplaying it, instead the left is giving it the attention it needs..."
Lol. What denial!
That would be a lie. Typical, really, from the left.
But but but voter fraud doesn't exist!
But...but.....we need voter rules because liberals are the only ones doing it!
Noone has ever said voter fraud doesn't exist...but 1160 votes over the past 45 years doesn't rate the faux panic you all on the right are claiming
Hey, I love "irony," so don't hog it all for yourself, share what you know about the irony.
I'm one of the "mouthpieces" but I never said "there is no evidence of voter fraud"; what I have said/did, was to post the results of studies regarding voter fraud, that in order to put the right-wing bullshit into proper perspective.
For example:
In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud
WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.
Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.
Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.
In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.
The law also requires it to be simplier and more convenient for eligible voters as well
What happens is places like North Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin happens, where voter suppression is masked in "better vetting"
How much attention does 1160 cases since 1972 does it need? Birth certificates during registration? Biometric scans? State laws pigeon holing exactly what type of ID is eligible. You know it's funny how you all claim that they want to make the system better, but when the left acquiesced and stated that states give out free IDs to make that happen, you all wanted no part of that
Ok...here we go, If you bothered to read the article, the kid was caught making up names to put on a ballot NOT to intentionally commit voter fraud but he was getting paid for a certain amount of registration forms he can bring in....it was about money, not like the illegal immigrant from Texas that has been voting in every election Republican since 2005, or the former Colorado GOP chairperson who just got caught committing voter fraud
I'm sorry to have to correct you, but some of your very own left-siders right her eon Newstalkers have said voter fraud does not exist.
I'm sure you've seen the list of things that require a government issued ID to do, buy or transact business with. It's very simple, a government issued ID. You have no idea if there was fraud and how much fraud there was/is in states that require no identification. I just voted in my primaries in my local community earlier this month. They do not require ID-so anyone can pretty much come in and say I'm so and so and vote. The only way to verify there isn't fraud is to contact each and every voter that voted and ask them if they actually voted.
Oh! And don't forget about "Build the Wall"......I truly believe the right has no idea what identity politics means. Politics at it's core is all about identity, but when they here that dog whistle "black and brown people" "gays" and "nonChristians" is what registers
You know what's the funny part about that.....can you name me 3 things in your daily life that you would need ID for? A birth certificate for? Because in mine I can only name ONE and that's driving just in case I get pulled over, but in your every day life it's rare to require an ID. Hell, to apply for a job or a passport you don't require a valid ID, but yet somehow you expect to have it for voting?! I didn't even have a Florida ID when I applied for my CCW and still got it
LMM,
Although your comment just misses skirting, since you didn't say anything insulting, you should be addressing the discussion and not the person. This is a warning since you are new.
So you want a system vulnerable to fraud. Thanks for the honesty.
Was he voting illegally as a Democrat? Was he using other people's ID dead or alive to go vote
There are? care to cite any that clearly says what party they voted for? Because I can cite you at least two cases of illegal immigrants voting for Republicans.....I guess the Democrats checks must have bounced
Newsflash if you want to live by the semantical sword be prepared to die by it as well, the commentor said VOTING he said nothing about registering......and so far the only persons I have read about voting illegally have been Republicans
Dude! Seriously?! Did you read that article? So to prove your point you had to did up proof from 56 years ago?!.....you want to try something a little from this century?
This isn't about me. Please try to keep on topic.
You mean that conservative ideology that strategy was conceived out of?
But which party picked up and re-implemented the Southern Strategy in their ideology after that?
Gotta love rightwing thought process......conveniently forgetting party affiliation and ideology are not the same!
Nice try but you simply misunderstand the Civil Rights Act Vote.
The opposition to the vote was not Democratic. In fact more Democrats voted for it than Republicans, AND as a percentage, a higher number of "union" ,northern, Democrats than Republicans voted yes, and a higher number of "confederacy", southern, Democrats than Republicans voted yes (though there were precious few of either in the south). In fact , not a single southern Republican in Congress voted yes for the Civil Rights Act.
The idea that the Democratic Party did not change is just nonsense.
Dixie's Long Journey From Democratic Stronghold To Republican Redoubt
The tragic events in Charleston this month have released years of racial and political tension in the South, and the pressure is being felt by Republican officeholders across the region.
Why the Republicans? Because it is increasingly difficult to find officeholders in the region who are not Republicans.
The South was once home to the "yellow dog Democrat" who would vote for a mutt over someone from the party of Abraham Lincoln. Now, the party of the Great Emancipator has made Dixie its bedrock, the base of its Electoral College vote and its majorities in Congress. Many a great-granddaddy buried in rebel gray has been rolling over in his grave for some years now.
The South's rejection of its Democratic DNA began more than 60 years ago with a Supreme Court decision, and significant historic milestones have followed like clockwork in almost every decade since. (The one exception was the 1970s, when Watergate torpedoed the Nixon presidency and led to the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976.)
The late Nelson Polsby, an influential and at times contrarian political scientist, wrote a book arguing that it was air conditioning that made the South competitive. It brought Republicans from other parts of the country into the South — as retirees and as employers — in growing numbers after World War II.
While Polsby's observation clearly applies in states such as Florida and Georgia, many other observers have tended to attribute the Southern shift to Republicanism to changing party alignments on issues. Salient among these are views on race, civil rights and federal power.
Many Southerners have stood by traditional values on social issues as well — including guns, school prayer, abortion and same-sex marriage. And these voters have found their conservative stands more welcome in the Republican Party than in the Democratic.
Here are a few of the major milestones in the migration of these Southern voters.
1954 The Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that "separate but equal" schools were inherently unequal. This became the basis for a school integration effort still bearing fruit and causing conflict today. In parts of the South, "massive resistance" to Brown strained state and federal relations much as the anti-slavery movement had done in the mid-1800s.
1964 The Civil Rights Act was passed despite a months-long filibuster by Southern Democrats. The filibuster was broken by the rest of the Democrats in the Senate in league with most of the chamber's Republicans — but not all. Six Republicans voted with the Dixiecrats, and one was Barry Goldwater of Arizona, who was that year's GOP nominee for president. One of the filibuster leaders was Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who switched his party allegiance to Republican and backed Goldwater for president. President Lyndon Johnson was elected in a landslide that November, but Goldwater carried Thurmond's home state and its Deep South neighbors: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. It was a harbinger of things to come, when these states would help flip all the "Solid South" from D to R in the Electoral College.
Nope. Still a lie. You don't get to make up false facts.
What needs to happen is for voter registration to be like registering for the draft. At 18 all US citizens are registered to vote. After that the registration is transferred to the election board of the registrant's residence if they move.
Registration must be done by sworn workers of the election board or sworn trained volunteers. No more mail in or online registration. No more election day registration. Elections happen far enough apart for a person to tend to registration long before the election.
Instead of photo ID go to biometric ID. A thumbprint can't be forged. NM is exploring that now.
Can you cite conservative sources that support that policy? Most of the GOP controlled states have rejected any attempt at putting that policy into place. The only one I can think of that recently passed this is Illinois and it took over a year to convince the GOP governor to sign it into law.
There are a plethora of sources that indicate that the GOP wants to keep as few young people from voting as practicable.
Why do I need to cite a source for my own opinion?
At one time there were no registration laws in the country. That changed. As the need to respond to the vulnerabilities of the election system increases other things will change as well.
You don't NEED to do anything. I thought that you may have information that I wasn't aware of. Sorry I asked.
Sorry I took it the wrong way. I was reading a partisan attack in your comment and misunderstood.
There are several things going on in several states regarding elections. Since the states control the election process they get to set the rules as long as they don't violate constitutional rights.
One of the biggest changes that has happened in the last ten years is the electronic pollbook systems. Better verification of voter eligibility has happened in some states. At some point the photo of the voter will be included in that data and will eliminate the need for photo ID.
At the beginning of those changes there was political opposition to the change. The same will be true of universal registration. I am an election judge. I am very interested in what NM is doing with biometrics. It's true! Nobody likes change.
Hmmm. You're right - we need to get rid of the Electoral College! Today!
No we don't! There is a lot more country than CA and NY.
The EC is based on the Great Compromise. That has worked for over 200 years and there is no need to change it now.
No. 1
The EC creates the possibility for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote.
No. 2
The EC distorts the presidential campaign, by incentivizing the parties to write off the more than 40 states (plus the District of Columbia) that they know they either can’t win or can’t lose.
No. 3
The EC system further distorts the presidential campaign by causing the candidates to grant extra weight to the parochial needs of the swing states.
No. 4
it distorts governance. A first-term president who expects to have a tough reelection fight (as they all at least expect to) but who wanted to establish diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba (broken in 1960) would have to consider the possibility that such a policy might cost him Florida and therefore a second term.
No. 5
It further distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Every state gets one electoral vote for each member of its delegation to the House of Representatives (this by itself would be a rough measure of its population) and each state also gets two “bonus” electors representing its two senators.
This causes significant overrepresentation of small states in the “College.” In the most extreme case, using 2010 Census figures and the new distribution of House seats based on that census, an individual citizen in Wyoming has more than triple the weight in electoral votes as an individual in California -- closer to quadruple than triple.
No. 6
The Electoral College creates the possibility of a 269-269 tie vote, The rules of the Electoral College system for dealing with a tie are bizarre and scary and create a fairly plausible scenario by which no one would be elected president in time for Inauguration Day.
No. 7
It makes it very hard for third parties to win elections and almost impossible for a third party to win the presidency, and makes it quite possible for a small third-party showing in a single state or two to change the outcome of the whole national election.
Ralph Nader.
No. 8
The Electoral College system would have prevented Dick Cheney from becoming vice president if we had taken the letter and the intention behind the words in the Constitution seriously.
The Constitution says that an elector cannot vote for a presidential and vice presidential candidate both of whom come from the same state as him/herself (the elector, that is).
No. 9
In case of a tie, or if no candidate receives a majority of all electoral votes cast for president, the choice of president is thrown in the House of Representatives but the election is conducted on a one-state one-vote basis. And to win, a candidate must receive the support of an absolute majority of states.
But states that have an even number of House members may deadlock. A deadlocked state cannot vote at all for a presidential candidate … produce a winner, one candidate would still have to win 26 states, even though several states would presumably be deadlocked.
If no presidential candidate can get to 26, there is no constitutional mechanism for producing a winner. The vice president (whose selection in this scenario would be thrown into the Senate) could serve indefinitely as acting president. This has never happened, although it has come close. If we wait long enough, it will happen someday.
No. 10
When the Framers created a system where the presidential election would be thrown from the Electoral College into the House for a one-state one-vote choice of the next president, they believed this would actually happen on a regular basis.
IMO, there is no logical basis for anything but one-person-one-vote; we would not quietly accept in the outcome of a ball game, a winner who had the lowest score.
There two.
California and NY. Without the EC they elect the president and the other states are ignored. Without the vote in CA Trump wins the popular vote as well.
A better way of setting the EC up would be for a candidate to win the most congressional districts and states. NE and ME do that now.
While I understand your reference to California and NY, the more accurate way to reference them in terms of an election outcome, is to reference them as …
… "states in which a reside … large numbers of human beings having the Constitutional right to vote."
Viewing human beings as "states,' "districts," etc., is at the very heart of the inane paradigm known as the Electoral College.
States don't make choices in life, human beings do.
We are a nation of diverse cultures and always have been. The Great Compromise happened because of that. Without that compromise that is the basis of the EC the country wouldn't exist as we know it. We would look more like South America than the US.
To eliminate the EC would take a constitutional amendment. It takes more than CA and NY to amend the constitution. That takes this issue out of the realm of reality.
Proportional allocation of electors on the other hand can be done by state legislators anytime they want.
I would not want our country to become Caliyork.
Admitting my lack of knowledge of the American political system, what I wonder is why has there never been a complaint about the Electoral College system so grandiose as today. Could it be because the Democratic Hillary Clinton did not achieve, as so well predicted, the Presidency? Or putting it another way, because a person so criticized has become President?
The census is used to decide how many electoral college votes each state receives. Unfortunately, each state, no matter how small, receives at least 3 electoral college votes. So as an example, in Wyoming, 143,000 people over 18 are represented by each electoral vote, in NY, that number is 500,000.
So it's clear that states with smaller populations are represented disproportionately in the electoral college.
Funny that you would mention the Federalist Papers. Here are a couple of excerpts from Federalist 68:
Federalist 68 and Hamilton sound sadly naïve now.
Yeah it does sound naive. The first president with the moral/ethical capacity to be President? George Washington. The last person to be elected President with aforesaid capability? George Washington.
The ideal of a morally ethical president fell apart once GW left the office. the election of Adams was the first involving politics. (although Adams was a very moral/ethical man) Then after Adams first term the ideal of a morally ethical president fell completely apart with Jefferson's election. It was the first election decided by the House and Jefferson won decisively.
But that election was marred by politics in the house, at first ballot amongst the membership Aaron Burr had the most votes. (and if such had held he would have been the third president no matter the popular vote or EC even though he was third on the ballot) But James Madison and Alexander Hamilton working behind the scenes got enough votes changed so on the final ballot Jefferson won.
And as a result of all the politicking GW had a very strong argument with TJ about the political arm twisting behind the scenes, (causing Burr to be rejected whom GW supported) which ended in the two great allies of the Declaration of Independence refusing to talk with each other. Which they subsequently never did after that. GW didn't like politics and thought the presidency should be above politics. GW refused to even be seen in public with TJ, and completely cut off Jefferson from even invitations to parties at Mt Vernon.
The presidency has been a political elected office ever since. The real shame of it is that the presidency has devolved over time to being a partisan political office in it's entirety today. Jefferson set the tradition that after the election, the best man for the job got the positions in the cabinet. Politics didn't matter and the government was run non politically. This tradition pretty much held through the Franklin Roosevelt presidency. The jobs were just too damned important for any old political hack to control. After Roosevelt, this slowly began to change with successive administrations with more and more pure political appointments. Finally turning into an entirely political office with the change of power after the election of '92. the Presidency will never go back to being a non-political office.
But until someone comes up with something better, and can get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it. it's the best system we have.
The only way you can improve it is to go to the way the founders envisioned the way it should work, 1 district, 1 vote. Take the states control of the electors out of the picture. (which is actually controlled by the political parties) and create a redistricting system that creates equal districts in population. Districts within 5% of each other and the political parties have no say in how the districts are created. The number of electors is set by the constitution and cannot be changed except by amendment.
This would be the simplest and fairest way to solve the problem.... (would also make any real external influence/fraud on the election a very difficult and expensive proposition, just from the size of the task)
Learned Liberals and Democrats understand this is the only way to solve the current problem, and retain the ideals of a republic.
Anyone else is arguing for either a continuation of the way it is, or scrapping the republic altogether for a democracy.
And when that happens, we have lost our freedom. It will no longer be the United States of America.
whatever we sow, that we will also reap ( Galatians 6:7–8 )
It does not pay to ignore the “handwriting on the wall.”
My best 5,
1. Abraham Lincoln 2. George Washington 3. Ronald Reagan 4. Thomas Jefferson 5 Tossup- Jack Kennedy/Theodore Roosevelt. Mt Rushmore with the two greatest modern presidents.
The worst 5,
1. Barack Obama 2. Andrew Johnson 3. Lyndon Johnson 4. Woodrow Wilson 5. Jimmy Carter
It does not pay to ignore the “handwriting on the wall.”
Some of that handwriting is in cyberspace … there is more and more evidence that Russia, via Facebook, Twitter, et al, has weaponized the Internet to create pro-Trump Rallies in Florida, anti-Muslim rallies in Idaho … is currently posting fake rants regarding the NFL players taking a knee …
The fact that Facebook and Twitter are withholding information is more than troubling.
Because of the Russian interference here, the French, in the course of their election, actively looked for similar interference and found some 50,000 bogus accounts established by Russia!
Regardless of how anyone feels about any candidate, to allow partisan predisposition to accept and even cheer-on, outcomes affected to one degree or another by the foreign weaponization of the internet, is not only a disgrace … it's fucking threatening and dangerous to American democracy.
Fake posts by Russia in which it falsely portrays itself as BLM and Antifa, American Muslims, et al, should create a powerful wariness in the minds of all Americans, especially who think that they have been given "truths" by a hostile foreign power … outrageously and foolishly rationalizing that "it doesn't matter where the 'truth' comes from."
America … We have a Problem!
I presume that you're talking about a Constitutional Amendment. Actually, there is a MUCH easier way, amend the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 which froze the number in the House to 435. That number hasn't changed in almost 150 years while in that time our population has more than doubled. In 1930 a House member represented about 280,000, today it's over 700,000. We could add 150 to the House and they would still represent more that 500,000 each.
The reason this won't happen is the same reason that the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was passed. Rural vs Cosmopolitan.
The first part of your sentence contradicts the second part. Ted Cruz is perhaps THE MOST aggressive persona AND undoubtedly the least liked person in the Senate. Ted is incapable of comity.
150 more congress critters to sit on their asses and do nothing? 150 times staff and perks and that makes millions more to the feds to pay for them.
We have enough.
It's ironic that when asked about how they feel about their Congressman most people give them a thumbs up. If you aren't happy with your Congressman, call him/her or go to his/her local office and speak up.
Either we are a republican form of government or we aren't. It isn't fair to the people or their Representative to have one Congressman representing 300,000 and another representing double that number.
The EC serves the same purpose now as it did when it was created. Our federal government was created by the states (colonies), not the other way around. The bill of rights is actually a bill of state rights, created to keep the federal government from becoming too powerful. But the states didn't want other states to become too powerfull either; the smaller ones had no intention of being dominated by the larger ones through simple majority vote of big state populations. The EC, and our related method for determining congressional representation, is an elegant compromise and can't be changed without a constitutional amendment. The constitution can't be amended without two thirds support of both houses of congress or two thirds support from the legislatures of the very same small states that would be cutting their own throats by supporting it. So it's not going to happen. Democratic candidates will have to continue to stop in places to campaign instead of just flying over them on their way to the coasts. Good.
They actually serve their donors. That means they have even fewer to represent.
The smallest district is in RI and that is just over 526k The largest is MT at just over 994k. The apportionment formula works quite well.
Excellent point Bluestride.....
That is the natural, logical extension of the issue.
Easily overlooked in the deflective call to racism.
While the story is based on a reality, the significant details are absent from the story.
When one gets one's "news" from right-wing rags, that's the way it goes.
The story …
Glitch let ineligible immigrants vote in Philly elections, officials say
Updated: SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 — 5:10 PM EDT
A top Philadelphia elections official said Wednesday that hundreds of legal but otherwise ineligible immigrants registered to vote in the last decade, and nearly half cast ballots they shouldn’t have.
Commissioner Al Schmidt blamed that on what he said was a PennDot glitch that enabled legal permanent residents to register to vote at kiosks when they applied or renewed for driver’s licenses or registrations.
Only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote, but those in the country legally are able to obtain driver’s licenses in Pennsylvania.
It was unclear how many noncitizens might have registered to vote at PennDot offices statewide, or how many of them had cast ballots. A Pennsylvania Department of State review is underway, but the department said late Wednesday it had records indicating 1,160 people statewide since 1972 had requested cancellation of their voter registrations because they were not citizens.
Note: The right-wing rag story fails to mention that the individuals in question are here … legally!
By omitting that fact, by referring to them as "non-citizens" without noting their otherwise legal status , the rags lead the Trump xenophobes to believe they were here as illegal aliens!
No individual should vote illegally in America!
Do not mischaracterize/misrepresent my comment as a defense for, or advocacy of voter fraud/illegal voting!
But do not be misled by the story's intent which, while (correctly) citing a fact, does so in such a way as to toss red meat those who salivate for it incessantly.
FYI: Al Schmidt, V ice Chairman of the Philadelphia City Commissioners, a Republican , in a press conference , said: “The real threat to the integrity of elections in Philadelphia isn't voter fraud, though it does rarely occur… And it isn't even Russian hackers, though they may certainly exist. The real threat to the integrity of elections is irresponsible accusations that undermine confidence in the electoral process.”
The article very clearly says that local government officials registered people to vote when presented with documentation showing that the individual was in the country legally even though the person was not a US citizen and, therefore, not entitled to vote. If government officials are unable or unwilling to make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens why would I believe that they would make a distinction between people in the country legally and those who are not?
The left is consistently conflating legal and illegal immigration to create a narrative that border enforcement is the product of racism and xenophobia instead of a view that illegal aliens shouldn't be able to jump the face any time they feel like it and then declare themselves essentially to be US citizens. Stop issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens and then we won't have this ridiculous problem of them automatically being registered to vote. Deport them as soon as they're discovered just like they do everywhere else on earth (other than places like Mexico who would put their asses in prison).
OK … let's talk "Border Security".
A "wall" is not anything more than a symbolic, pie-in-the-sky visual metaphor for xenophobes who like their "validations" simple, simplistic and which get them past that tedious process called "thinking"!
Certain motivations for illegal immigration exist … like good old American bottom line greed …
Recall the old George W. Bush line about "illegals will do the jobs American workers won't do"?
• Pay a fucking living wage to those particular Americans,
• Fine the employers who knowingly hire illegals (like Corporate Republican farms … the biggest perpetrators)
Motivation: Trump's … "They're brining in illegal drugs"!
Agreed, Mr. POTUS, but that's merely a cursory assessment.
• There'd be a lot less illegal drug traffic if the Americans who buy and use those illegal drugs were surveilled, arrested, indicted, fined heavily, locked up … along with the dealers!
• Legal drugs are an even bigger problem in America; since our President is (rightly) concerned with drug abuse, let him go after his pharmaceutical contributors to the "swamp" … those drug companies literally pushing (for profit) the opioids that have created a health and economic crisis in America.
Not all walls are physically structural … deterrents to the motivations for illegal entry would be far more effective, less costly in the long run … and not involve xenophobic red meat bullshit!
A wall is a barrier for people who think borders have meaning; who think that it's unfair to ask some to go through the legal immigration process while others are allowed to jump the fence for free. The simple process called thinking tells me that we can never get this process under control while democrats openly undermine it with the lure of sanctuary cities and daca. Deport illegal aliens now wherever they are discovered and they'll stop coming here and others will self-deport.
There's the rub. I don't see anything in the article or this seed about holding DMV officials responsible for any of this. They cite multiple states yet not one mention about the Agency head being fired or employees being reprimanded. Has there even been some beefed up training?
It's easy to blame the green card holders but those who are actually RESPONSIBLE for the illegal registrations are getting a pass IMHO.
Thank you for the admission
They later came back & with a legal designation:
"A member of the New Black Panther Party who was charged with voter intimidation in the 2008 election for standing outside a Philadelphia polling site was back Tuesday morning – in an official capacity.
Jerry Jackson, who was charged in the 2008 case along with Minister King Samir Shabazz, but later saw charges dropped by the Department of Justice, was seen early Tuesday outside a North Philadelphia voting site wearing the group’s trademark black beret, combat-style uniform and heavy boots. Fox News confirmed he is a designated poll watcher.
“No comment,” Jackson said when approached by a reporter at 1221 Fairmount Ave., in the city’s 14th Ward, where he lurked on Election Day in 2008."
I could write a book on him, but I'll confine my conversation to the topic of election fraud for today
I have defended it - with facts, even Macarthur has admitted to the facts.
Btw insinuating I'm with David Duke is another code violation
You keep making insinuations. Why dont you refute what I have posted about the black panther members at the polling station? If you want to defend Obama, why not dispute Holders actions?
I've stated my case. It is now on you to dispute what I have posted