Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

although I will show you examples of voter suppression during the Bush administration by Republicans, including a case in New Hampshire that resulted in a guilty plea and prison time for an operative of the Republican National Committee.

Good. I have no stomach for voter fraud from either side.

Originally Posted by ila

Really, Tracy? You should study your country's history. The USA is all about taxation without representation. That is how it all started.

Freedom of speech is in Amendment number 1. That is what I am referring to.

Originally Posted by smc

In 2002, Republican officials in New Hampshire attempted to reduce the number of Democratic voters by jamming phones....

Ok, I stand corrected. It seems that republicans do attempt to influence elections. I still think it's far more rampant on the democrats side.

Originally Posted by smc

I'm glad to hear that. Let's be more specific. Do you therefore support H.R.5175, The DISCLOSE Act, which was introduced in Congress earlier this year? Its official brief description is: "To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes."

Yeah, I still say yes, why not?

Originally Posted by smc

The Republican leadership argued that the Democrats were trying to "rig the system" to their advantage. How can there be an advantage for any one side in mandating full disclosure in a democracy, unless someone wants to keep something a secret?

I don't understand republicans' problem with this. And I suspect it's probably not a valid concern.

Originally Posted by randolph

Its obvious the Repubs are against this. They would lose elections.

Why?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, I stand corrected. It seems that republicans do attempt to influence elections. I still think it's far more rampant on the democrats side.

What is the basis upon which you "think it's far more rampant" among Democrats? Can you cite actual statistics?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

What is the basis upon which you "think it's far more rampant" among Democrats? Can you cite actual statistics?

I don't collect statistics and statistics can be made to show either side, but I do know that ACORN got nailed in 14 states in 2008 for voter fraud on the side of the democrats. And I know that liberals think they can get millions of votes if they can just get illegals to become citizens. And they aren't waiting. They're fighting against attempts to verify the citizenship of potential voters so that illegals can squeak through. These two things alone are not isolated incidents. They are on a multi-state scale.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't collect statistics and statistics can be made to show either side, but I do know that ACORN got nailed in 14 states in 2008 for voter fraud on the side of the democrats. And I know that liberals think they can get millions of votes if they can just get illegals to become citizens. And they aren't waiting. They're fighting against attempts to verify the citizenship of potential voters so that illegals can squeak through. These two things alone are not isolated incidents. They are on a multi-state scale.

The way in which you write about Democratic-related "voter fraud" -- with such anger and vitriol -- and the way in which you acknowledge Republican-related "voter fraud" when presented with the evidence -- with terse, one-line sentences -- I believe speaks volumes.

The problem of those who are either in power or seek to be in power (Democrats and Republicans alike), and who have enormous financial resources at their disposal that people like you and I, Tracy, do not have, is a threat to whatever vestiges of democracy we may enjoy in this country. It should not matter WHO subverts elections as much as THAT they are subverted. So long as you cannot demonstrate equal anger about both "sides" seeking to take away the power of your one vote through some kind of fraud, it is difficult to see that your objections are not grounded in something more insidious. Why should it matter more that one side may be trying to get immigrants to vote than it matters that another side is trying to ensure that minorities (citizens of this country) don't get to vote?

One of the things that polarizes people in the United States on the left and right is that the 24/7 cycle of vituperative commentary from the left and right uses selective information to skew the debate. You, I believe, have been cheated by some of those commentators, because they made sure you knew that ACORN had been accused of voter fraud in 14 states in 2008, but they made sure not to tell you whatever because of those accusations.

I am no supporter of ACORN, but of truth and civil discourse. Did you know, Tracy, that in June of this year the Government Accounting Office (GAO) -- independent of the Obama administration and of the Republicans -- released a report on these accusations in 14 states?

The GAO report found that, in every one of those cases, complaints filed against ACORN with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) were dismissed. The FEC is also not directly affiliated with the Democratic or Republican parties. The report also showed that four of six FBI investigations into alleged voter fraud committed by ACORN employees were closed due to lack of evidence. The two other investigations were also closed and referred to local and state jurisdictions.

The report detailed five cases in which ACORN employees pled guilty to misdemeanor counts of voter registration fraud, but the GAO stated that these cases did not allege any wrongdoing on behalf of ACORN itself or any affiliated organizations -- only the individuals. Did you know that ACORN, in fact, offered materials to local election officials that helped initiate the prosecution of these guilty individuals, because ACORN felt that they had undermined the proper training ACORN had provided them to register voters legally?

Again, I am not defending ACORN, but seeking the truth and encouraging you to direct your anger where it really NEEDS to be directed -- -- at anyone who usurps your democratic rights.

It is only my opinion, but it seems to me that you would want to get the widest possible hearing for your complaints about the government. Direct you anger appropriately, and recognize who is really at fault (hint: it's the people who own the wealth, not their politician lackeys, who are the real enemy, and those people support both sides to keep you thinking you have a choice), and you'll certainly get my ear for anything you want to say.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

The problem of those who are either in power or seek to be in power (Democrats and Republicans alike), and who have enormous financial resources at their disposal that people like you and I, Tracy, do not have, is a threat to whatever vestiges of democracy we may enjoy in this country. It should not matter WHO subverts elections as much as THAT they are subverted. So long as you cannot demonstrate equal anger about both "sides" seeking to take away the power of your one vote through some kind of fraud, it is difficult to see that your objections are not grounded in something more insidious.

As I said before, I do not see a problem with corporate backers in elections. They exist on both sides. And what difference does it make? Liberal leaning billionaires and corporations sunk a fortune into this election for NOTHING because what it comes down to is not their money. It comes down to the voters. They are the ones who go into the voting booth and cast their vote, not the evil corporations.

When the liberals tamper with the voters, THAT's where I have a problem. When you're bringing in illegal aliens, that's tampering with the voter. When you're signing up voters to vote multiple times, that's tampering with the voter. When you're filling out default liberal votes, that's tampering with the voter.

Originally Posted by smc

Why should it matter more that one side may be trying to get immigrants to vote than it matters that another side is trying to ensure that minorities (citizens of this country) don't get to vote?

Give these poor minorities a little credit. If they wanted to vote, no one is stopping them.

Originally Posted by smc

One of the things that polarizes people in the United States on the left and right is that the 24/7 cycle of vituperative commentary from the left and right uses selective information to skew the debate. You, I believe, have been cheated by some of those commentators, because they made sure you knew that ACORN had been accused of voter fraud in 14 states in 2008, but they made sure not to tell you whatever because of those accusations.

I know CNN is biased. And I also know Fox News is biased. I used to watch CNN exclusively. But then when I started to wake up to the liberal lies I started getting my news from several sources. And I noticed more and more that liberal news sources just out and out lie more than anything else I've seen. So pardon me if I don't get my news from there. I think I've had a pretty good track record of telling it like it is, and predicting where things were going on the Obama thread so my news sources are probably not all that bad.

Originally Posted by smc

The GAO report found that, in every one of those cases, complaints filed against ACORN with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) were dismissed.

And why is that? Certainly some pretty damning evidence has been shown so there better be a good reason. I'll look into this when I get some time, but right now I have a computer to rebuild.

[smc]

You can't have it both ways, Tracy. You can't admit there is voter suppression by both sides and then claim that the side you don't like can vote if they want to, no matter what might be done to keep that from happening. That's hypocrisy. And it's also hypocritical to state that adding votes to the mix that are or may be cast illegally is a problem that subverts elections, while implying by omission -- as you do again and again -- that subtracting potential votes does not subvert elections. If someone keeps a voter from voting, and someone else brings a voter to the polls and makes it possible for that person to vote even though not eligible, is that not the same subversion of your vote and how it counts.

Unless you can state unequivocally that anything that subverts elections, be it illegal voters or voter suppression or advertisements that lie but have no traceability as to who funded them, etc., etc. etc. -- then your argument is fallacious. And after many attempts, there is no value in challenging a fallacious argument. It is a waste of time.

I will continue to hold out hope that your interest is in truth and constructive discourse. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not one's own facts.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

You can't have it both ways, Tracy. You can't admit there is voter suppression by both sides and then claim that the side you don't like can vote if they want to

I did not say the voters in New Hampshire were suppressed. Are you saying they were not able to vote?

Originally Posted by smc

And it's also hypocritical to state that adding votes to the mix that are or may be cast illegally is a problem that subverts elections, while implying by omission -- as you do again and again -- that subtracting potential votes does not subvert elections. If someone keeps a voter from voting, and someone else brings a voter to the polls and makes it possible for that person to vote even though not eligible, is that not the same subversion of your vote and how it counts.

Ah I see the problem. You somehow have the idea that there is a block of people who need to be escorted by a political party to the voting booth. I sometimes forget that people have these odd ideas. No that is not part of our right to vote. America assumes that if the people have the responsibility for putting our leaders in office that they can get off their lazy ass and put a check for a party or candidate. And if they are not able to make it there then they call whoever it is that gets their groceries and asks for a ride. The republicans in New Hampshire were not blocking anyone from going out and voting.

Originally Posted by smc

Unless you can state unequivocally that anything that subverts elections, be it illegal voters or voter suppression or advertisements that lie but have no traceability as to who funded them, etc., etc. etc. -- then your argument is fallacious. And after many attempts, there is no value in challenging a fallacious argument. It is a waste of time.

While I have said before I do not support untraceable false advertisements or funds I believe they are canceled out by liberal media bias and lies and equally massive funding on the left which indirectly influence election results. And I'm sticking to my story that elections come down to the voter. You screw with the voter and you're directly tampering with election results.

[randolph]

Wall Street campaign donations to Democrats and Republicans. Something happened in October 2009. Health care bill?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Wall Street campaign donations to Democrats and Republicans. Something happened in October 2009. Health care bill?

How odd... it's exactly inverted.