Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
BigWaaagh wrote: On a side note, apparently after yesterday's POTUS debate, Google reported the top search question last night was "What's Roe v Wade?"...what is being taught, or not taught, in school today?
[snip]
(GC has taken all these classes, the *s are the only she's taking now-decided to just coast this final year I guess)
So go easy on what the kids are being taught today thing. They're being taught more than you were.
Yeah, as a relatively recent high school graduate (2014), my classes were great. Now in the History parts of social studies often varies depending on the teacher how fary you get, but for Civics, you learn all the big cases. And the AP system is great. I got art and chem credits from those.
I imagine this all depends on the quality of your school, no?
jmurph wrote: Sending protestors to try to illustrate the violence seething under the opposition is hardly worthy of condemnation and is pretty much the definition of protected political speech- protestors and counter protestors are meat and potatoes political activities. It is the violent response that should draw ire. If they were sending people to assault Trump supporters, that would cross the line.
Correction:
Sending "mentally ill and psychotic" protesters.
(in the Democrats' own words).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: "Don't be blind and disregard this YouTube video, it's much more valid than all of the independent studies and fact checkers I consistently ignore when you guys bring them up!"
What fact checkers? The last time I posted in this thread was 2 weeks ago. I'm not "ignoring" those fact checkers, I simply haven't seen them. I had at least 5 unread pages in this thread since the last time I read it, the discussion moves too fast for me to keep up.
And again, I'm not even talking about the views expressed by the youtuber in the video. Just ignore him if his views offend you so much. I'm talking about the hidden camera clips of Democrats describing in their own words the dirty tactics they're using. If you can cite a better source of those clips, feel free.
Here is the BBC article on the topic. It lists a number of studies, investigations and cases that refute Trump's claims.
BigWaaagh wrote: On a side note, apparently after yesterday's POTUS debate, Google reported the top search question last night was "What's Roe v Wade?"...what is being taught, or not taught, in school today?
I think it's a good thing that people are trying to get information. The Economist's article about Trump supporters is frightening as it reveals how gullible and delusional a lot of them are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: I didn't see this the other day. Melania defending her gak bag husband's lewd comments as saying that he was "egged on".
"Egged on"? So you talk like a peep show booth perv, insult and objectify women, boast of pursuing a married woman and, let me get this right, it's because you were "egged on"? Holy feth!
I can see this logic now if he becomes POTUS.
"I didn't mean to nuke China, they egged me on."
"I didn't mean to have the military close down liberal news outlets, they egged me on."
"I didn't mean to "disappear" political dissidents, they egged me on."
"I didn't mean to tell NATO to go feth itself and pull all our support, they egged me on."
Trump's a thin-skinned little b*tch. I said it before and his wife just absolutely confirmed it. This is still POTUS material to some people?
Trump's defence that he was a poor weak naive 60-year old tough successful hard-bitten business and media mogul, who simply got led on, is totally convincing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 22:24:23
, and prone to violent they fall for the cheap tricks of the democrats and get played so easily?
So because they fall for it, that absolves the Democrats of any blame?
what exactly are the democrats to be blamed for? they did nothing illegal.
Nothing that they could be realistically charged with. Its still morally wrong to knowingly and intentionally send a vulnerable person into danger.
the trumper clearly did something illegal.
Yes. I'm not saying that the Democrats sending vulnerable people to protest is illegal, I'm saying its wrong and they should be condemned for it. You apparently don't care.
yes my outrage is selective based on the severity of the crime. on the democrats hand, no crime was committed, on the trumpers hand, a crime was committed.
sending someone to disrupt an event is not illegal, assaulting them for it is.
see the difference?
Yes. What the "Trumpers" did was criminal. What the Democrats did was not criminal. Both actions are still morally wrong.
, and prone to violent they fall for the cheap tricks of the democrats and get played so easily?
So because they fall for it, that absolves the Democrats of any blame?
what exactly are the democrats to be blamed for? they did nothing illegal.
Nothing that they could be realistically charged with. Its still morally wrong to knowingly and intentionally send a vulnerable person into danger.
the trumper clearly did something illegal.
Yes. I'm not saying that the Democrats sending vulnerable people to protest is illegal, I'm saying its wrong and they should be condemned for it. You apparently don't care.
yes my outrage is selective based on the severity of the crime. on the democrats hand, no crime was committed, on the trumpers hand, a crime was committed.
sending someone to disrupt an event is not illegal, assaulting them for it is.
see the difference?
Yes. What the "Trumpers" did was criminal. What the Democrats did was not criminal. Both actions are still morally wrong.
See my point yet or shall I restate it yet again?
don't bother, you're just proving my earlier point that two wrongs means trump is right.
all the trumpers had to do is not assault an elderly woman, you don't seem to grasp that concept. it's rather a low bar to hurdle, but clearly to lofty a goal for them.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, the reporter was lying when he edited the video.
To help clarify this point, does anybody remember when Shadow Captain Edithae thought there was nothing wrong with sending old women to get beat up?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
d-usa wrote:Shadow Captain, you don't think there is anything criminal about an old women getting beat up by the Trump crowd because you send her there?
Sending an old woman to be beaten up is merely bad and childish.
d-usa wrote:But she got beat up because you send her there, doesn't that mean you should face some sort of consequences because you send her there?
Beaking the law is OK and not punishable, so long as you didn't intend to break it.
He actually said everything that I quoted, those are his own words. He typed them out on his keyboard and hit the submit button. I'm not doing anything except quoting his own text.
And that's why people don't put any stock in anything that comes from the "journalist" in question.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/20 22:40:39
sirlynchmob wrote: don't bother, you're just proving my earlier point that two wrongs means trump is right.
Are you trolling now, or are you really that oblivious to what I'm saying?
I wrote:
you wrote:but it's criminal to assault a 69 year old woman to the cheering of the crowds?
Of course.
I wrote:Yes, Trump supporters who behave violently towards protesters are despicable. I don't dispute that, I totally agree with you.
I wrote:I agree. The violent assault of a 69 year old woman is objectively worse.
I wrote:My fellow Trumpers? I am not a Trumper. I'm not even American. I actively dislike him and would not vote for him if I were American. I just happen to also dislike Clinton. Talking about the wrong doings of one side does not mean I support the other side.
all the trumpers had to do is not assault an elderly woman, you don't seem to grasp that concept.
No, I do grasp it. I'm just pointing out that TWO wrongs were committed here. I'm condemning both wrongs. You only care about one of them because "Feth the other side".
On what fething planet does "The Democrats did something bad." merit: "But the Trumpers are worse! Feth you for criticizing the Democrats, you must be a Trumper too!" I don't like Trump. I would not vote for him if I were American. I also dislike Clinton. Criticizing Clinton/the Democrats does not mean I support Trump. Your argument is a bs false dichotomy. Do YOU grasp that concept?
it's rather a low bar to hurdle, but clearly to lofty a goal for them.
I agree.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/20 22:47:58
, and prone to violent they fall for the cheap tricks of the democrats and get played so easily?
So because they fall for it, that absolves the Democrats of any blame?
what exactly are the democrats to be blamed for? they did nothing illegal.
Nothing that they could be realistically charged with. Its still morally wrong to knowingly and intentionally send a vulnerable person into danger.
Funny, how the quotes you supplied mentioned that the people they sent in were specially trained. That's kind of the definition of not being a vulnerable person.
To get back to the main topic, has Trump stopped whining and started campaigning yet?
It's good advice from a two-term president who achieved the White House against a very similar Democrat female opponent and also had to deal with a lot of racist opposition and doubts about his birth qualification and came from a relatively humble background
Anyone who can climb that big a mountain is worth listening to. Even if you were born a billionaire.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It occurs to me that based on his business career so far, Trump would be a great success in the wine industry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/20 22:53:28
sirlynchmob wrote: don't bother, you're just proving my earlier point that two wrongs means trump is right.
Are you trolling now, or are you really that oblivious to what I'm saying?
I wrote:
you wrote:but it's criminal to assault a 69 year old woman to the cheering of the crowds?
Of course.
I wrote:Yes, Trump supporters who behave violently towards protesters are despicable. I don't dispute that, I totally agree with you.
I wrote:I agree. The violent assault of a 69 year old woman is objectively worse.
I wrote:My fellow Trumpers? I am not a Trumper. I'm not even American. I actively dislike him and would not vote for him if I were American. I just happen to also dislike Clinton. Talking about the wrong doings of one side does not mean I support the other side.
all the trumpers had to do is not assault an elderly woman, you don't seem to grasp that concept.
No, I do grasp it. I'm just pointing out that TWO wrongs were committed here. I'm condemning both wrongs. You only care about one of them because "Feth the other side".
On what fething planet does "The Democrats did something bad." merit: "But the Trumpers are worse! Feth you for criticizing the Democrats, you must be a Trumper too!" I don't like Trump. I would not vote for him if I were American. I also dislike Clinton. Criticizing Clinton/the Democrats does not mean I support Trump. Your argument is a bs false dichotomy. Do YOU grasp that concept?
it's rather a low bar to hurdle, but clearly to lofty a goal for them.
I agree.
But I have quote boxes showing actual real words you typed admitting that you don't think there is anything wrong with sending old women to get beat up.
So if you don't believe your own quotes then you have confirmation bias.
Vaktathi wrote: Constitutionally, Trump has no leg to stand on if he doesnt like the election. The danger is in some of his supporters buying into his rhetoric and taking it upon themselves to do something regrettable with the passions this election has roused.
Which would only further prove the FBI reports right.
Wishing I was back at the South Atlantic, closer to ice than the sun
On a semi related note, from this windy vantage, Trump has sunk any possible pretence at being a credible politician, but will this hurt his business persona?
As I see it, this level of scrutiny would never have been levelled at a successful businessman, but as he has now found out as a politician it is a completely different degree of intrusion.
In Scotland, Trump is viewed with a great deal of scepticism after his debacle at Aberdeen and his reversal at Turnberry on his promise not to rename.
Has he destroyed his own business?
I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!
Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
Singh Khalsa runs “Sikhs PAC,” a political action committee dedicated to educating people that Sikhs aren’t Muslim, according to the report.
stellar work indeed.
Trump sucks, obviously, but that article also shows some pretty clear evidence that Mr Khalsa's PAC isn't doing a very good job
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: Your actual inclusion of Dr. Stein in a "serious" political discussion is adorable. I think the Easter Bunny is a big politics by faith guy too, what with the whole Easter thing.
Yep, and that's the issue with US politics right now. Both the left and right have their fair share of crazies, same as anywhere. On the left the crazies are pushed to the fringes, but on the right the crazies have taken over the Republican party, and now control most of its most powerful positions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Anybody who dismisses the video I posted because "hur, he's a youtuber with political views I disagree with so I'm going to dismiss it outright and not even bother to watch it and assess the evidence prestented in the video" is missing the point. I posted it not to share the Youtuber's thoughts on the matter, but because it has a compilation of hidden camera clips of Democrat affiliates/campaigners/Super PAC officials etc admitting and outright boasting about the dirty tactics they use.
Please, just get over your own fething confirmation bias long enough to watch those clips.
If anyone knows another source of those clips, please, feel free to link it. And can anyone answer my question - is this typical for American Politics? Do the Republicans use similar tactics?
The videos are from Project Veritas, they are the work of James O'Keefe. He's the guy famous for secretly recording ACORN and releasing video that later turned out to be highly edited and completely misleading, and secretly recording NPR and releasing video that turned out to be highly edited and completely misleading, and secretly recording Planned Parenthood and releasing video that turned out to be highly edited and completely misleading.
To date I believe there's been no complete effort to debunk this video, and there probably won't be before the election. It's release hasn't allowed enough time for a proper review. Funny that.
I guess it is possible that this time O'Keefe actually has some video that is real and he is honestly showing it. I guess it's also possible that Uwe Boll's next movie might be good. But it'd be pretty crazy to take O'Keefe or Boll's word for it, because the pattern at this point is pretty clear.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/21 01:57:59
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Election officials in 27 states, most of them Republicans, have launched a program that threatens a massive purge of voters from the rolls. Millions, especially black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters, are at risk. Already, tens of thousands have been removed in at least one battleground state, and the numbers are expected to climb, according to a six-month-long, nationwide investigation by Al Jazeera America.
At the heart of this voter-roll scrub is the Interstate Crosscheck program, which has generated a master list of nearly 7 million names. Officials say that these names represent legions of fraudsters who are not only registered but have actually voted in two or more states in the same election — a felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison.
Until now, state elections officials have refused to turn over their Crosscheck lists, some on grounds that these voters are subject to criminal investigation. Now, for the first time, three states — Georgia, Virginia and Washington — have released their lists to Al Jazeera America, providing a total of just over 2 million names.
The Crosscheck list of suspected double voters has been compiled by matching names from roughly 110 million voter records from participating states. Interstate Crosscheck is the pet project of Kansas’ controversial Republican secretary of state, Kris Kobach, known for his crusade against voter fraud.
The three states’ lists are heavily weighted with names such as Jackson, Garcia, Patel and Kim — ones common among minorities, who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, fully 1 in 7 African-Americans in those 27 states, plus the state of Washington (which enrolled in Crosscheck but has decided not to utilize the results), are listed as under suspicion of having voted twice. This also applies to 1 in 8 Asian-Americans and 1 in 8 Hispanic voters. White voters too — 1 in 11 — are at risk of having their names scrubbed from the voter rolls, though not as vulnerable as minorities.
If even a fraction of those names are blocked from voting or purged from voter rolls, it could alter the outcome of next week’s electoral battle for control of the U.S. Senate — and perhaps prove decisive in the 2016 presidential vote count.
“It’s Jim Crow all over again,” says the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who cofounded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King, Jr. Lowery, now 93, says he recognizes in the list of threatened voters a sophisticated new form of an old and tired tactic. “I think [the Republicans] would use anything they can find. Their desperation is rising.”
For more on the efforts to challenge Interstate Crosscheck, read Al Jazeera America’s on-the-ground update from North Carolina and post-election analysis.
Watch America Tonight's coverage of this story:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
The Interstate Crosscheck list, as viewed on a mobile device, left. Parishioners at the historically black Ebenezer Baptist Church register to vote, right. (Click to enlarge images)
Though Kobach declined to be interviewed, Roger Bonds, the chairman of the Republican Party in Georgia’s Fulton County, responds, “This is how we have successfully prevented voter fraud.”
Based on the Crosscheck lists, officials have begun the process of removing names from the rolls — beginning with 41,637 in Virginia alone. Yet the criteria used for matching these double voters are disturbingly inadequate.
Is your state in the Crosscheck program?
See a table of participating states and the election officials responsible for running Crosscheck.
Millions of mismatches
There are 6,951,484 names on the target list of the 28 states in the Crosscheck group; each of them represents a suspected double voter whose registration has now become subject to challenge and removal. According to a 2013 presentation by Kobach to the National Association of State Election Directors, the program is a highly sophisticated voter-fraud-detection system. The sample matches he showed his audience included the following criteria: first, last and middle name or initial; date of birth; suffixes; and Social Security number, or at least its last four digits.
Election officials in 27 states, most of them Republicans, have launched a program that threatens a massive purge of voters from the rolls. Millions, especially black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters, are at risk. Already, tens of thousands have been removed in at least one battleground state, and the numbers are expected to climb, according to a six-month-long, nationwide investigation by Al Jazeera America.
At the heart of this voter-roll scrub is the Interstate Crosscheck program, which has generated a master list of nearly 7 million names. Officials say that these names represent legions of fraudsters who are not only registered but have actually voted in two or more states in the same election — a felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison.
Until now, state elections officials have refused to turn over their Crosscheck lists, some on grounds that these voters are subject to criminal investigation. Now, for the first time, three states — Georgia, Virginia and Washington — have released their lists to Al Jazeera America, providing a total of just over 2 million names.
The Crosscheck list of suspected double voters has been compiled by matching names from roughly 110 million voter records from participating states. Interstate Crosscheck is the pet project of Kansas’ controversial Republican secretary of state, Kris Kobach, known for his crusade against voter fraud.
The three states’ lists are heavily weighted with names such as Jackson, Garcia, Patel and Kim — ones common among minorities, who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, fully 1 in 7 African-Americans in those 27 states, plus the state of Washington (which enrolled in Crosscheck but has decided not to utilize the results), are listed as under suspicion of having voted twice. This also applies to 1 in 8 Asian-Americans and 1 in 8 Hispanic voters. White voters too — 1 in 11 — are at risk of having their names scrubbed from the voter rolls, though not as vulnerable as minorities.
If even a fraction of those names are blocked from voting or purged from voter rolls, it could alter the outcome of next week’s electoral battle for control of the U.S. Senate — and perhaps prove decisive in the 2016 presidential vote count.
“It’s Jim Crow all over again,” says the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who cofounded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King, Jr. Lowery, now 93, says he recognizes in the list of threatened voters a sophisticated new form of an old and tired tactic. “I think [the Republicans] would use anything they can find. Their desperation is rising.”
For more on the efforts to challenge Interstate Crosscheck, read Al Jazeera America’s on-the-ground update from North Carolina and post-election analysis.
Watch America Tonight's coverage of this story:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
The Interstate Crosscheck list, as viewed on a mobile device, left. Parishioners at the historically black Ebenezer Baptist Church register to vote, right. (Click to enlarge images)
Though Kobach declined to be interviewed, Roger Bonds, the chairman of the Republican Party in Georgia’s Fulton County, responds, “This is how we have successfully prevented voter fraud.”
Based on the Crosscheck lists, officials have begun the process of removing names from the rolls — beginning with 41,637 in Virginia alone. Yet the criteria used for matching these double voters are disturbingly inadequate.
Is your state in the Crosscheck program?
See a table of participating states and the election officials responsible for running Crosscheck.
Millions of mismatches
There are 6,951,484 names on the target list of the 28 states in the Crosscheck group; each of them represents a suspected double voter whose registration has now become subject to challenge and removal. According to a 2013 presentation by Kobach to the National Association of State Election Directors, the program is a highly sophisticated voter-fraud-detection system. The sample matches he showed his audience included the following criteria: first, last and middle name or initial; date of birth; suffixes; and Social Security number, or at least its last four digits.
and a video for the shortened version:
Spoiler:
This is seriously messed up.
States purge/update voter rolls all the time. The only thing that would make this bad would be if they were purging people who still lived in the states they were registered in. Lots of people move all the time and while it's easy to register to vote in a new state it's not easy to unregistered yourself in your old state. I moved to NC over a decade ago and I have no idea if I'm still on the voter rolls in the state I grew up in. I did nothing to remove myself from the rolls in my old home state and registering in NC doesn't trigger any notification to other states to remove me. Purging voter rolls of names of people that don't live there anymore is perfectly normal and common sense bookkeeping. If there is evidence of states purging people from voter rolls who shouldn't be purged it's not in that article.
This thread is getting pretty intense, so how about a note of levity:
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Election officials in 27 states, most of them Republicans, have launched a program that threatens a massive purge of voters from the rolls. Millions, especially black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters, are at risk. Already, tens of thousands have been removed in at least one battleground state, and the numbers are expected to climb, according to a six-month-long, nationwide investigation by Al Jazeera America.
At the heart of this voter-roll scrub is the Interstate Crosscheck program, which has generated a master list of nearly 7 million names. Officials say that these names represent legions of fraudsters who are not only registered but have actually voted in two or more states in the same election — a felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison.
Until now, state elections officials have refused to turn over their Crosscheck lists, some on grounds that these voters are subject to criminal investigation. Now, for the first time, three states — Georgia, Virginia and Washington — have released their lists to Al Jazeera America, providing a total of just over 2 million names.
The Crosscheck list of suspected double voters has been compiled by matching names from roughly 110 million voter records from participating states. Interstate Crosscheck is the pet project of Kansas’ controversial Republican secretary of state, Kris Kobach, known for his crusade against voter fraud.
The three states’ lists are heavily weighted with names such as Jackson, Garcia, Patel and Kim — ones common among minorities, who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, fully 1 in 7 African-Americans in those 27 states, plus the state of Washington (which enrolled in Crosscheck but has decided not to utilize the results), are listed as under suspicion of having voted twice. This also applies to 1 in 8 Asian-Americans and 1 in 8 Hispanic voters. White voters too — 1 in 11 — are at risk of having their names scrubbed from the voter rolls, though not as vulnerable as minorities.
If even a fraction of those names are blocked from voting or purged from voter rolls, it could alter the outcome of next week’s electoral battle for control of the U.S. Senate — and perhaps prove decisive in the 2016 presidential vote count.
“It’s Jim Crow all over again,” says the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who cofounded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King, Jr. Lowery, now 93, says he recognizes in the list of threatened voters a sophisticated new form of an old and tired tactic. “I think [the Republicans] would use anything they can find. Their desperation is rising.”
For more on the efforts to challenge Interstate Crosscheck, read Al Jazeera America’s on-the-ground update from North Carolina and post-election analysis.
Watch America Tonight's coverage of this story:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
The Interstate Crosscheck list, as viewed on a mobile device, left. Parishioners at the historically black Ebenezer Baptist Church register to vote, right. (Click to enlarge images)
Though Kobach declined to be interviewed, Roger Bonds, the chairman of the Republican Party in Georgia’s Fulton County, responds, “This is how we have successfully prevented voter fraud.”
Based on the Crosscheck lists, officials have begun the process of removing names from the rolls — beginning with 41,637 in Virginia alone. Yet the criteria used for matching these double voters are disturbingly inadequate.
Is your state in the Crosscheck program?
See a table of participating states and the election officials responsible for running Crosscheck.
Millions of mismatches
There are 6,951,484 names on the target list of the 28 states in the Crosscheck group; each of them represents a suspected double voter whose registration has now become subject to challenge and removal. According to a 2013 presentation by Kobach to the National Association of State Election Directors, the program is a highly sophisticated voter-fraud-detection system. The sample matches he showed his audience included the following criteria: first, last and middle name or initial; date of birth; suffixes; and Social Security number, or at least its last four digits.
and a video for the shortened version:
Spoiler:
This is seriously messed up.
States purge/update voter rolls all the time. The only thing that would make this bad would be if they were purging people who still lived in the states they were registered in. Lots of people move all the time and while it's easy to register to vote in a new state it's not easy to unregistered yourself in your old state. I moved to NC over a decade ago and I have no idea if I'm still on the voter rolls in the state I grew up in. I did nothing to remove myself from the rolls in my old home state and registering in NC doesn't trigger any notification to other states to remove me. Purging voter rolls of names of people that don't live there anymore is perfectly normal and common sense bookkeeping. If there is evidence of states purging people from voter rolls who shouldn't be purged it's not in that article.
like I said it's a long article, from the link further down:
Abrams, in her second role as founder of New Georgia Project, a nonpartisan voter registration group, has, in coordination with the NAACP, already sued Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, Brian Kemp, on behalf of 56,001 voters who filled out registration forms but have yet to see their names appear on voter rolls.
d-usa wrote: Does anybody remember when Shadow Captain Edithae thought there was nothing wrong with sending old women to get beat up?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Are you trolling now, or are you really that oblivious to what I'm saying?
d-usa wrote:Shadow Captain, you don't think there is anything criminal about an old women getting beat up by the Trump crowd because you send her there?
Sending an old woman to be beaten up is merely bad and childish.
d-usa wrote:But she got beat up because you send her there, doesn't that mean you should face some sort of consequences because you send her there?
Beaking the law is OK and not punishable, so long as you didn't intend to break it. Your argument is a bs false dichotomy. Do YOU grasp that concept?
Shadow, you should really speak up for why you think this sort of assault is ok. Insulting/belittling posters who feel that such actions should carry consequences is similarly not ok.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/21 02:54:36
BigWaaagh wrote: On a side note, apparently after yesterday's POTUS debate, Google reported the top search question last night was "What's Roe v Wade?"...what is being taught, or not taught, in school today?
Judging from my kids:
*college level English
*college level Literature*
*college level Physics
*college level Chemistry*
*college level Calculus*
*college level Statistics*
*micro and macro economics*
*psychology
*college level world history
*anthropolgy
*speech and debate
(GC has taken all these classes, the *s are the only she's taking now-decided to just coast this final year I guess)
So go easy on what the kids are being taught today thing. They're being taught more than you were.
Impressive as your kids' curriculums...curriculi?...may be, it doesn't alter the reality of my statement at all or the little factoid therein. It rang out to me as memory served that after the vote to leave the EU, "What is Brexit?" was the trending Google search in the UK.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/21 03:10:45
BigWaaagh wrote: On a side note, apparently after yesterday's POTUS debate, Google reported the top search question last night was "What's Roe v Wade?"...what is being taught, or not taught, in school today?
Judging from my kids:
*college level English
*college level Literature*
*college level Physics
*college level Chemistry*
*college level Calculus*
*college level Statistics*
*micro and macro economics*
*psychology
*college level world history
*anthropolgy
*speech and debate
(GC has taken all these classes, the *s are the only she's taking now-decided to just coast this final year I guess)
So go easy on what the kids are being taught today thing. They're being taught more than you were.
Impressive as your kids' curriculums...curriculi?...may be, it doesn't alter the reality of my statement at all or the little factoid therein. It rang out to me as memory served that after the vote to leave the EU, "What is Brexit?" was the trending Google search in the UK.
In siding with Frazz, I think we should cut a little bit of slack for some of the younger generations... I tend to be more of an age with my professors than I am with most of the students in class with me. My English professor with make obvious Python references, and I'll be the only git laughing.
I think we may have gotten to a point where the rhetoric surrounding abortion rights has moved (ish) well beyond a single supreme court case. Plus, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't a subject that normally fits into many courses offered in an academic setting. Just about the only time I can recall it being covered in any manner, is when I was in political science courses.
BigWaaagh wrote: On a side note, apparently after yesterday's POTUS debate, Google reported the top search question last night was "What's Roe v Wade?"...what is being taught, or not taught, in school today?
Judging from my kids:
*college level English
*college level Literature*
*college level Physics
*college level Chemistry*
*college level Calculus*
*college level Statistics*
*micro and macro economics*
*psychology
*college level world history
*anthropolgy
*speech and debate
(GC has taken all these classes, the *s are the only she's taking now-decided to just coast this final year I guess)
So go easy on what the kids are being taught today thing. They're being taught more than you were.
Impressive as your kids' curriculums...curriculi?...may be, it doesn't alter the reality of my statement at all or the little factoid therein. It rang out to me as memory served that after the vote to leave the EU, "What is Brexit?" was the trending Google search in the UK.
In siding with Frazz, I think we should cut a little bit of slack for some of the younger generations... I tend to be more of an age with my professors than I am with most of the students in class with me. My English professor with make obvious Python references, and I'll be the only git laughing.
I think we may have gotten to a point where the rhetoric surrounding abortion rights has moved (ish) well beyond a single supreme court case. Plus, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't a subject that normally fits into many courses offered in an academic setting. Just about the only time I can recall it being covered in any manner, is when I was in political science courses.
This isn't a slam on kids...or younger generation as you put it...I'm a dad myself with a high school aged son and Fraz is right about one thing, the lad's a hell of a lot more educated than I was at his age. Most of that comes from the schools he's been sent to, but that's another topic altogether. Ahem, my critique, rather, is aimed at the institutions responsible for educating said grasshoppers. I remember Roe v Wade when it happened, albeit I was in Middle School, but it was a topic of conversation and my mom walked me through it. In Upper School...High School...we discussed it in US History when covering current events. I just think there are seminal moments in one's life, or in this case a country's history, that should be some part of core material and covered, sensitivity be damned. If a moment as touchstone as RvW is that much of an unknown to Americans...as kinda supported by Google factoid...then yeah, I'm throwing a flag.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thin skinned, whiny little...well, you know how I feel by now. Can you imagine him as POTUS and having a "real" problem? He's can't even handle a reporter's question without throwing a hissy fit and stomping away like a petulant child. What happens when North Korea decides to swarm across the border towards Seoul? How can someone who supports this individual read this and just not shudder? I just don't know what to say.
So, the Al Gore thing was initiated by someone outside of his campaign??? I know we have avenues for recounts and whatnot, and I asked about it a few pages ago (with no response), just who gets to call for a recount of votes? Is there a threshold percentage? Like, if the election is 80/20 split, could the 20% holder theoretically call for a recount? or is it more like 55/45 split?
The laws vary by state, but it's usually on the line of 'results are within the realm of statistical error' causing either an automatic recount, or allowing the candidates to request one. In the case of 2000, there were multiple counties in Florida that came in with that slim of a margin. It's like one of those times in whatever sport where a call is so difficult, that it automatically goes to video review.
There are also time limits on the whole thing to make sure it gets done in a timely manner. The recounts ended in 2000 because the legal challenge on whether the recounts could even go ahead in the first place ate up the time. The supreme court decision was delivered on the final day of the recount limit for Florida. After that, no matter how they turned out, the state was under no obligation to aknowledge them over the original results.
So Trump can whine, scream, cry, and refuse to concede all he wants, but it won't matter what he does or doesn't do if the margins are as wide as current numbers are predicting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/21 04:13:49
"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..." Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe.
