What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

ScoobyDoo said:
1. I never said it was the Republican Parties fault. I blamed Ted Cruz. Two different things.
2. Rachel Maddow doesn't write those articles.

There is bipartisan blame to go around. I think the majority of the blame goes to a system where no one can get appointed to anything because no one can get support from both sides anymore. In fact I can't think of a single person in government who is bipartisan.

The President should be able to get his appointments through. Bush did. Supreme Court cause it's for life is a little different.
Click to expand...

From the article you cited "Republicans own this. "

What did Ted Cruz do, kidnap Harry's puppy? The Dems have 55 Senate seats, they don't need the Repubs to agree in order to appoint anyone, they just need a palatable enough candidate to get 51 of their 55 members to vote yes. If they can't get 51 votes behind the Pres's appointment, maybe there is something wrong with the appointee.
 
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

goldy_331 said:
From the article you cited "Republicans own this. "

What did Ted Cruz do, kidnap Harry's puppy? The Dems have 55 Senate seats, they don't need the Repubs to agree in order to appoint anyone, they just need a palatable enough candidate to get 51 of their 55 members to vote yes. If they can't get 51 votes behind the Pres's appointment, maybe there is something wrong with the appointee.
Click to expand...
It's a little more complicated than that. Consider that a number of Democrats do not want the President in their state campaigning for them and extrapolate from there. The candidate is highly qualified and his position on one issue is keeping him out of office. We have so many litmus tests on issues right now any candidate is going to have an impossible time getting through a split Senate even with the new rules.

My guess is after the election the Democrats will ram rod it through, but if the Republicans do take over the Senate (90% chance of that happening) then we will not have a Surgeon General the rest of Obama's term.

It's staggering how many positions are unfilled.
 
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

If nothing else, this guy could not have been anything else in life but a Young Republican. Central Casting, your d0uchebag has broken loose.
 
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Joe Stalin offers this insight on elections
“What matters is not who votes; what matters is who counts votes.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Take a couple of minute to read this primer on Chicago voter fraud. In the 1982 governor's race the machine ginned up 100,000 fraudulent votes and very nearly made Adlai Stevenson III the governor. Over 60 political thugs convicted. Anyone who thinks these abuses (and many others) have somehow magically been eliminated in Chicago in the intervening years is huffing "Texas Shine." It will continue to go on forever. It's going on this year with election rules changes designed to help Governor Quinn be re-elected. Rules changes which expire after November because they might work against Rahm. Oh yes, "The Chicago Way."

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ke-theres-fire-100000-stolen-votes-in-chicago
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Craig P. said:
Indeed.

I happen to think that the people who push voter ID are well aware of that.
Click to expand...

In inner cities (or 3 populous Florida counties) it's Democrats who count the votes.
 
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Old Pio said:
Take a couple of minute to read this primer on Chicago voter fraud. In the 1982 governor's race the machine ginned up 100,000 fraudulent votes and very nearly made Adlai Stevenson III the governor. Over 60 political thugs convicted. Anyone who thinks these abuses (and many others) have somehow magically been eliminated in Chicago in the intervening years is huffing "Texas Shine." It will continue to go on forever. It's going on this year with election rules changes designed to help Governor Quinn be re-elected. Rules changes which expire after November because they might work against Rahm. Oh yes, "The Chicago Way."

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ke-theres-fire-100000-stolen-votes-in-chicago
Click to expand...

But assuming those facts, Pio, it takes us back to my earlier question whether the legality of voter ID fraud laws depends on a fact-based, jurisdiction specific analysis. If there was no real evidence of voter ID fraud in Wisconsin, as Judge Posner stated, then your example is inapplicable or, at best, of little value. It seems to me.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Chicago Politics are being called out a bit early this election cycle.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/calibration-error-changes-gop-votes-to-dem-in-illinois-county/

CHICAGO — Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats.

Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote Monday at the Schaumburg Public Library.

“I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan said. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

burd said:
But assuming those facts, Pio, it takes us back to my earlier question whether the legality of voter ID fraud laws depends on a fact-based, jurisdiction specific analysis. If there was no real evidence of voter ID fraud in Wisconsin, as Judge Posner stated, then your example is inapplicable or, at best, of little value. It seems to me.
Click to expand...

Just because the judge is unaware of it doesn't mean it doesn't occur. Or hadn't that occurred to you? Voter fraud is a way of life in Chicago. This morning the New York Post reports about nearly 900 voters listed in the Bronx as being 164. Nah, nothing to see here. Move along.

http://nypost.com/2014/10/22/850-pe...y Signups&utm_campaign=NY%20Post%20Newsletter


BTW, judges don't make the laws in this country (even the soon to be sainted Judge Posner). And they don't get to whistle up criteria by which the legality of laws are judged. It's been in all the papers.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Old Pio said:
Just because the judge is unaware of it doesn't mean it doesn't occur. Or hadn't that occurred to you?
Click to expand...

:) I'm sure it has occurred to you that if the court was "unaware" of voter ID fraud, it probably wasn't put into evidence. I'm sure there was all kinds of evidence of that sort that the State of Wisconsin just, I don't know, forgot to introduce. Or, as you would say, it didn't occur to them.

But you keep dodging the question. Should the outcome of these cases depend on the evidence of voter ID fraud in the jurisdiction in which the challenge is occurring? This is not a set-up question. Since the right to vote is a constitutional one, there are obviously some broad principles that apply in all cases, but it seems that each jurisdiction is likely to be different insofar as the balance between the identifiable frequency of voter fraud and the identifiable amount of voter suppression. I mean, if you can't prove a meaningful amount of voter ID fraud in your jurisdiction, then I doubt even you would say a voter ID law should be given minimal scrutiny.

Since you keep replaying the tape on voter ID fraud evidence in Chicago, I have to think you feel that the proofs are important in determining the legal outcome of these cases.
 
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

burd said:
:) I'm sure it has occurred to you that if the court was "unaware" of voter ID fraud, it probably wasn't put into evidence. I'm sure there was all kinds of evidence of that sort that the State of Wisconsin just, I don't know, forgot to introduce. Or, as you would say, it didn't occur to them.

But you keep dodging the question. Should the outcome of these cases depend on the evidence of voter ID fraud in the jurisdiction in which the challenge is occurring? This is not a set-up question. Since the right to vote is a constitutional one, there are obviously some broad principles that apply in all cases, but it seems that each jurisdiction is likely to be different insofar as the balance between the identifiable frequency of voter fraud and the identifiable amount of voter suppression. I mean, if you can't prove a meaningful amount of voter ID fraud in your jurisdiction, then I doubt even you would say a voter ID law should be given minimal scrutiny.

Since you keep replaying the tape on voter ID fraud evidence in Chicago, I have to think you feel that the proofs are important in determining the legal outcome of these cases.
Click to expand...

Your argument is a strawman. It doesn't matter whether there's "proof" of voter fraud or not. The legislature has the right to pass reasonable laws concerning the conduct of elections. And requiring folks to identify themselves before casting a ballot is certainly reasonable.

I present mountains of evidence of historical and continuing voter fraud in Chicago not as justification for voter ID. Rather in rebuttal to the pathetic efforts by you and others to suggest voter fraud doesn't occur. Your bottom line argument continues to be: black folks are too lazy, stupid and helpless to get their ID's and therefore should be relieved of any requirement to do so.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Old Pio said:
Your argument is a strawman. It doesn't matter whether there's "proof" of voter fraud or not. The legislature has the right to pass reasonable laws concerning the conduct of elections. And requiring folks to identify themselves before casting a ballot is certainly reasonable.

I present mountains of evidence of historical and continuing voter fraud in Chicago not as justification for voter ID. Rather in rebuttal to the pathetic efforts by you and others to suggest voter fraud doesn't occur. Your bottom line argument continues to be: black folks are too lazy, stupid and helpless to get their ID's and therefore should be relieved of any requirement to do so.
Click to expand...

Too bad 99.9% of these laws include much more than identification.

You provide no evidence that matters.
 
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

ScoobyDoo said:
Too bad 99.9% of these laws include much more than identification.

You provide no evidence that matters.
Click to expand...

"Feets, don't fail me now." Are all of you guys condescending racists?
 
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Old Pio said:
Your argument is a strawman. It doesn't matter whether there's "proof" of voter fraud or not. The legislature has the right to pass reasonable laws concerning the conduct of elections. And requiring folks to identify themselves before casting a ballot is certainly reasonable.
Click to expand...

In the law, the word "reasonable" is usually paired with three others: "under the circumstances."

Circumstances you repeat over and over as it relates to Chicago yet are willing to completely ignore in any other venue to confirm your bias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top