American Politics

[Vhale]

I've tried finding it again a couple times but I haven't had luck. Maybe someone here can help. It was an older gentleman who I believe used to work with Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. I used to watch that show with my Grandfather so it sticks in my mind. But I think the documentary was on bbc.

 

As far as long waits fyi, I can confirm Americans see plenty of those. For example, I had a boil on my back early this year. I got it taken care of, but it wiped out my insurance deductible. I've since had an issue with my left foot, but since my deductible is out, I'm waiting until next year to get it taken care of. That ends up being a 7 month wait. It was the same getting my teeth worked on. I needed two crowns. They did half the work then I was out of insurance so I have to wait for the next year to get them finished. Then work on one final tooth. So, 2.5 years to get everything done. 3 months sounds great to me.

[Fuzzbucket]

I think this may be the guy - though I can't find the whole documentary ?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36813750/ns/he...care-thousands/

Edited November 2, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[Vhale]

That has to be the same guy, yes <3

[CrossingStar]

http://www.pbs.org/programs/money-medicine/

This link doesn't work for me - probably my stupid old computer - but I get your point.

 

And Vhale, I hope your treatments are successful. It sucks that you've been put in that position by the government.

[Haloclimb]

Every single time this comes up on the news I can't help but wonder how a person like Romney even got into office. And then I'm even more confused as to why people would vote for him.

But then again, I'm not American so I'm not the one who would have to suffer if he got voted in, so *shrug*

 

Plus republicans apparently like to tamper with votes, which is actually scary even for people outside of america

Edited November 3, 2012 by Haloclimb

[Awdz]

Every single time this comes up on the news I can't help but wonder how a person like Romney even got into office. And then I'm even more confused as to why people would vote for him.

But then again, I'm not American so I'm not the one who would have to suffer if he got voted in, so *shrug*

 

Plus republicans apparently like to tamper with votes, which is actually scary even for people outside of america

It's been pretty obvious Republicans tamper with votes, the Florida fiasco in 2000 was when I first realized it. News of Republicans "helping" folks register for the vote by discarding forms from all who tried to register as Democrats and pushing to prevent non-existent voter fraud (which would limit populations that tend to vote Democrat) makes me totally disgusted with them.

 

I find it interesting in the article you linked that they only adjust it by 10% or less. To me, that means what the general public needs to do is get out and vote!! to prevent the manipulative b@$!@&*$ from pushing their stick-it-to-the-99%ers agenda on us.

[CrossingStar]

Every single time this comes up on the news I can't help but wonder how a person like Romney even got into office. And then I'm even more confused as to why people would vote for him.

But then again, I'm not American so I'm not the one who would have to suffer if he got voted in, so *shrug*

 

Plus republicans apparently like to tamper with votes, which is actually scary even for people outside of america

 

Seriously? Darn, that's nasty.

 

My parents have plans to go over to Canada if Romney gets in , which I think is actually a very good idea.

[brairtrainer]

Every single time this comes up on the news I can't help but wonder how a person like Romney even got into office. And then I'm even more confused as to why people would vote for him.

But then again, I'm not American so I'm not the one who would have to suffer if he got voted in, so *shrug*

 

Plus republicans apparently like to tamper with votes, which is actually scary even for people outside of america

I have just gained and lost respect for the GOP. On one side I dislike Santorum more than Romney and the GOP went in and stopped him from being nominated, but you should never mess with votes.

[Fuzzbucket]

I have just gained and lost respect for the GOP. On one side I dislike Santorum more than Romney and the GOP went in and stopped him from being nominated, but you should never mess with votes.

Holy bleep ! Even after the Bush thing way back when, I didn't see that coming !

[CrossingStar]

Holy bleep ! Even after the Bush thing way back when, I didn't see that coming !

that's the point. They don't want you to expect things like that, do they?

[skauble]

So they say that 6 billion dollars has been spent on this election cycle. And when I hear that, all I could think was - I need to get into an election related business.

 

Maybe I'll write campaign commercials:

 

In a world of chaos and corruption, where everyday is a brutal battle with those who would strip away our very liberty, a candidate arises. One man stands before you, prepared to fight the filthy hoards who would bring upon us an apocalyptic era of anarchy from which we might never recover. If you value your life, and the lives of your loved ones, then you must be willing to stand along side him - think of the children...

 

Mike Anderson for Delaware State Treasurer 2014

 

And then maybe a bunch of explosions.

 

But seriously, 6 billion dollars and they say that it's very possible that, at the federal level, there may be almost no power shift. It's kind of weird because, for that huge amount money, you'd think that something correspondingly huge would have to result.

[brairtrainer]

But seriously, 6 billion dollars and they say that it's very possible that, at the federal level, there may be almost no power shift. It's kind of weird because, for that huge amount money, you'd think that something correspondingly huge would have to result.

There is one major thing but it isn't change, its keeping the little guys out and fighting a power struggle battle between an elephant and a donkey.

[CrossingStar]

There is one major thing but it isn't change, its keeping the little guys out and fighting a power struggle battle between an elephant and a donkey.

Yeah. You don't get any people running for president that don't have lots of money. It's a shame really, because these big money-makers just don't get what the people want and need.

[skauble]

Well, if it helps any, it looks like the presidential election is going to come down to ground game - people in communities getting out the vote.

 

They say that all of the advertising was just about at the point of diminishing returns, and that a lot of it was cancelled out by ads from the other side. Frankly, I think it will be kind of nice if the whole thing rises and falls on local efforts to get voters to the polls.

 

It will be much less nice...as in not nice at all, if the race is decided by people being blocked from voting.

[Slaskia]

Couple of articles on voter fraud and intimidation. First is the online version of an article from my local newspaper.

 

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/how-many-nonci...-177141441.html

 

I have to give props to the two illegals interviewed, whom where honest enough to know that since they were not citizens they were not elegable to vote and refused to do so under 'threat of deportation'. How many other's tricked into registering like this by the unions caved in?

 

Anyway, second is about the NAACP invading a polling station and trying to 'encourage' people to vote for Obama. Mind you, trying to 'encourage' a vote either way is illegal at a polling station.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-naa...olling-station/

[brairtrainer]

Couple of articles on voter fraud and intimidation. First is the online version of an article from my local newspaper.

 

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/how-many-nonci...-177141441.html

 

I have to give props to the two illegals interviewed, whom where honest enough to know that since they were not citizens they were not elegable to vote and refused to do so under 'threat of deportation'. How many other's tricked into registering like this by the unions caved in?

 

Anyway, second is about the NAACP invading a polling station and trying to 'encourage' people to vote for Obama. Mind you, trying to 'encourage' a vote either way is illegal at a polling station.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-naa...olling-station/

disgusting.

 

This is why I'm glad you have to show some id in Ohio, now immigrants can get away with it if they use bills from home but most people use ss cards.

 

As for the second article, the elections officers should have shown up the first time there was a complaint. I judged an election a couple of years ago (got bonus points in class for it ^.^) and saw a guy leaving the polling place with a massive campaign sign. Now he could techneically have parked the vehicle 100ft from the building but when I called the elections place two things happened. #1 the other polling places in our county and in neighboring countys were alerted. #2 We had a guy come and talk to me about what exactly I saw. Turns out the guy was supposed to drive past polling places to try to influence peoples vote. But because the only he parked outside of was his own, and we didn't know where he parked nothing could legally be done.

[skauble]

Anyway, second is about the NAACP invading a polling station and trying to 'encourage' people to vote for Obama.  Mind you, trying to 'encourage' a vote either way is illegal at a polling station.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-naa...olling-station/

Just wondering, do you have a link for this somewhere outside of the far right sites and blogs? I've tried looking for one and I can't find any and I tend to treat stories from there like I do those from liberal sources like MSNBC - always check for corroboration from less biased sites.

 

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/how-many-nonci...-177141441.html

 

I have to give props to the two illegals interviewed, whom where honest enough to know that since they were not citizens they were not elegable to vote and refused to do so under 'threat of deportation'.  How many other's tricked into registering like this by the unions caved in?

I would actually be very interested in seeing an investigation into this because it really does need to be addressed if it's a wide spread problem.

 

But the fact is that it wasn't really things like this that prompted many of the voter ID laws. You can see that in Pennsylvania. When that case went to the State Supreme Court, it was the perfect opportunity to pull out the evidence that convinced them that this was a problem that demanded immediate action. So what was it they submitted? An affidavit where they swore under oath that they had no knowledge of any cases of past voter fraud or any potential future cases.

 

See, here's where the noble fight for voting integrity falls apart - it wasn't necessarily the IDs, it was the fact that they were being pushed immediately, even when it was absolutely demonstrated that doing so would prevent legitimate voters from voting.

 

And that's very clear when you look at the court cases, because the ID laws weren't all overturned, but there was a postponement. Courts were saying, "Yeah, it may be okay to require the IDs, but it's not okay to do it when you A. haven't provided a reasonable amount of time for compliance, B. haven't set in place a reasonable and accommodating system to allow those who can't afford the cost associated with the IDs to still get them, and C. haven't allowed widespread, easy access to the places that voters need to go to acquire the IDs."

 

It was this rush to implement a system before it could possibly be done correctly that concerned courts in many states, and it's what demonstrates that this wasn't about protecting the vote. Because you can't protect the vote by denying people their chance to vote, and that's what was happening by forcing implementation of programs that were nowhere near ready to be fully implemented.

 

Of course, the blatant attempts to curtail early voting, limit hours in democratic heavy areas, etc. kind of gave it away, too.

 

Although the rush is understandable from a political point of view, because there was really only one shot at this. The Republicans have expended a huge amount of their political capital on this and they desperately need one of two things to happen:

 

1. Romney has to win.

 

2. If he doesn't, the economy has to tank in the next four years under Obama.

 

Most economists agree that the economy is getting better (even if it's slowly), and that ending the election and resolving the whole fiscal cliff matter will probably speed that up, because it will alleviate much of the uncertainty that businesses have had during this holding period.

 

If Romney wins, and catches that wave, the Republicans are in a fantastic position. But if Obama wins and rides it, then that's disastrous for them.

 

See, all of these voting laws have pushed the Democrats into taking their ground game network from 2008 (which has actually remained active in some states during the last four years) and greatly expanding it. And, knowing that the ID laws were just postponed, they're not only going to keep expanding it, they're going to use it to do massive outreach and registration programs. And if the economy is improving, that will not be all that difficult to do. That will give them an edge in clearing out a lot of the state officials who are currently running elections.

 

The other thing the Dems will use their momentum and ground game for is a large scale play for Latinos. And the right hasn't exactly been welcoming, so the left has a good chance of securing a large swath of those voters if they're willing to prioritize some of their concerns, which I think that they're willing to do.

 

So, while it would most definitely wound the Democrats to lose the presidency, it would be a huge blow to the Republicans.

 

What I find truly fascinating is that it's actually the Tea Party that will decide the outcome of this election. That's really where the “enthusiasm gap” has been created that has benefited the Republicans. It's also what helped sweep them into power and position them for this election.

 

On the other hand, if Obama wins, that will be because of them, too. They did three pretty major things that could give him a second term: A. They made it necessary for the primary candidates to shift to the far, far right in order to win. B. They got congressional candidates into the elections, some of whom seem too ultra-right to win, and have actually hurt other Republican candidates. For instance, everyone agrees that Dick Lugar would be easily winning the race for his former senate seat if he hadn't been knocked out in the primary by Richard Mourdock. And Claire McCaskill was a complete write off until Todd Akin became her competition. C. True the Vote and the voter ID laws are what propelled the massive registration push that the Dems have made. If they have the numbers to win, the TP will be why.

 

Honestly, I think that the Republican party will swing back to the middle if they lose the election, but I don't think it will be enough to fix things quickly. The only thing I can see that might forestall that is if Romney loses the EC but wins the popular vote. However, I think that a large percentage of the country would be willing to see that as a product of hurricane Sandy's disruption of the vote, which would make it a non-issue, except on the right.

 

Mostly, I predict the following – 65% chance that this election ends up in a court challenge by Wednesday.

 

Holy cow, I practically wrote a book.

[brairtrainer]

I can only see that if affected areas don't get permission or don't seek permission to increase voting deadlines, but we'll just have to wait and see. I think most likely the republican's will be the ones to take it to court if it happens

[skauble]

I can only see that if affected areas don't get permission or don't seek permission to increase voting deadlines, but we'll just have to wait and see. I think most likely the republican's will be the ones to take it to court if it happens

Both sides are at a huge amount of polls across the country documenting problems with voting. No one's saying it loudly, but they've been told, on both sides, what types of things to look for in what is almost certainly the groundwork for legal challenges.

[Fuzzbucket]

Are there going to be international observers ? If not, why not ? You'd think it would be routine everywhere these days...

[Slaskia]

Just wondering, do you have a link for this somewhere outside of the far right sites and blogs?  I've tried looking for one and I can't find any and I tend to treat stories from there like I do those from liberal sources like MSNBC - always check for corroboration from less biased sites.

 

Unfortunately, I am very poor at figuring out the bias of a particular site...and my own quick search seems to show most of the other sites referencing the Blaze article. I did find this one, which seems to have the 'official' statement of the volunteer involved. (I found that link through here).

 

I would actually be very interested in seeing an investigation into this because it really does need to be addressed if it's a wide spread problem.

 

25% (roughly) of my state's population is reported to be Latino. How many of those are illegal? I have no idea....(and I only singled them out because the vast majority of illegals are Latino: I am against illegals of any nationality being here).

 

See, here's where the noble fight for voting integrity falls apart - it wasn't necessarily the IDs, it was the fact that they were being pushed immediately, even when it was absolutely demonstrated that doing so would prevent legitimate voters from voting.

 

I can agree on that statement. As I stated before in this thread, I 'want' some from of photo ID to be required to vote and I do understand that some have difficultly getting them (for one reason or another).

 

Even if there is really only 2% of votes that are fraudulant, that 2% can be enough to throw the election to a candidate whom otherwise wouldn't have won (like if it happened in a key state in a close race). Thus in my opinion, 2% of votes being fraudulant is too much. Voter ID requirements would help cut that down, along with a sort of national database to help curb fraud via voting in multiple states (absentee voter fraud): though on that I admit may cause problems with the 'big brother' fears....

 

Ensuring the timely removal of dead registered voters from the roll would help as well (example: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/0...000-dead.html): there's an old saying about how the 'dead always vote democrat'. Hell, I would not be surprised if some ass has used my departed mother's identity to vote since she died.

[LascielsShadow]

JSKY, Breitbart is a right-wing site, too, and that blog is taking its info directly from The American Thinker, another well-know RW site. (And I'm not inclined to give much credit to a blog that talks about things like how someone allegedly admitted that the president's birth certificate is fake. :/) And The Blaze is created/owned by Glenn Beck.

 

The idea that even 2% of voters are doing so fraudulently is ludicrous. The reality is that there is only a fraction of a percent of fraud occurring, and no amount of legislation will change that tiny, tiny number. Someone will always find a way to do it if they're really determined.

Edited November 4, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[Slaskia]

So you would completely ignore the story because it's only being covered by RW sites? Ever think that the LW won't cover some stories because it would hurt their side, while certain RW sites have covered stories that hurt themselves (like the recent Rape gaffes)? Just because something is only covered by one side of the political fence doesn't mean it can't be true (I can't think of any specifc examples right now though).

 

Plus, there's always a little bit of bias no matter what site you use...so finding a completley unbiased site would be next to impossible AFAIK.

 

On the 2% thing, that was in reference what another user posted via a link to a study earlier in this topic. Even if it isn't really a problem right now, shouldn't we have measures in place to ensure it never becomes one?

[Obscure_Trash]

Are there going to be international observers ? If not, why not ? You'd think it would be routine everywhere these days...

Was it here it was posted - hm, maybe it was the other site I'm on?

 

Welp. Found it on the other site.

 

Texas Attorney General Threatens to Arrest International Election Monitors

Liberal groups = NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union

Even though this goes against established cooperation in the USA

 

I have not done any follow up on this, though, so not sure if there are any updates.

[skauble]

Are there going to be international observers ? If not, why not ? You'd think it would be routine everywhere these days...

Yes, but...*sigh*

 

Iowa Secretary of State: International election observers could face arrest at Iowa polls

 

Texas, international election monitors face off

 

I will, of course, be cringing in shame the next time the U.S. emphatically states the elections in the country of _____ should be observed.

 

sock ninja'd!

 

Unfortunately, I am very poor at figuring out the bias of a particular site...and my own quick search seems to show most of the other sites referencing the Blaze article.  I did find this one, which seems to have the 'official' statement of the volunteer involved. (I found that link through here).

 

I have that problem, too, sometimes. One of the reasons I know the Blaze is conservative oriented is because Glenn Beck owns it.

 

But, just to be clear, I'm not dismissing it because it was on a right wing site. Everyone's tense about voting, so I can see flare ups happening on both sides (although I didn't get that bit about flying people to Ohio). I just like to double check with anything I read on the left or right parts of the spectrum.

 

I can agree on that statement.  As I stated before in this thread, I 'want' some from of photo ID to be required to vote and I do understand that some have difficultly getting them (for one reason or another).

 

Even if there is really only 2% of votes that are fraudulant, that 2% can be enough to throw the election to a candidate whom otherwise wouldn't have won (like if it happened in a key state in a close race).  Thus in my opinion, 2% of votes being fraudulant is too much.  Voter ID requirements would help cut that down, along with a sort of national database to help curb fraud via voting in multiple states (absentee voter fraud): though on that I admit may cause problems with the 'big brother' fears....

 

The thing is that in person voter fraud is a fairly laborious and not so effective way to commit the kind of voter fraud it takes to largely swing elections these days. Can it be done? Sure. But it's really far, far easier to use mail in ballots for fraud and it doesn't have to be voting in multiple states, there are lots of ways to work that scam - and IDs do absolutely nothing about that. Anyone can register, and if you aren't voting in person, then IDs don't matter.

 

Here's the problem with some of these non-citizen voting hunts. Take the situation in Colorado. The thousands of fraudulent voters they were predicting just haven't shown up. And that's with them having access to voter rolls and the federal database which keeps track of immigrants who become citizens. And the proof that they point to that it's happening relies a lot on things like registration forms where the non-citizens are actually checking that they aren't citizens, or them writing letters asking to be removed from the rolls because they didn't understand that they couldn't register until they had their citizenship. So that sounds way more like there's an education problem on the matter rather than fraud.

 

But what a lot of people have an issue with is that when they have these “suspect” voters – who very often are just not updated in the database – they get letters like the following:

 

We have information indicating that you may not be a U. S. citizen and that you are registered to vote. In Colorado, only U.S. citizens can register to vote and vote. We are relying upon immigration information you previously gave to the Division of Motor Vehicles in the Department of Revenue when you applied for or renewed your driver's license or state identification card. This information was later crosschecked with the United State Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

 

Please complete and return the Colorado Secretary of State's office the enclosed "Admission or Denial of Non-U.S. Citizen" return form with thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter. You may return the form by mail, fax, or email, or you may return the form in person to the office. To the extent requested on the return form, include a copy of any document that either shows you are not the person identified in this letter, that you are a U.S. citizen, or that your immigration status has otherwise changed.

And now these people have to prove their citizenship, or – and here's the best part – they have to prove that they're not this person. So I can lose my chance to vote if I don't go and prove I'm not someone else because we share a name. And there was a woman in Florida who had to prove herself twice.

 

This all might be understandable if the people who are desperate to prove this was a problem were turning up the substantial amounts of fraud that they claimed in order to justify all of this. But instead they seem to be unearthing some folks who are trying to get unregistered.

 

And, to be honest, I'm not even sure why non-citizens are the main target of this (other than that they're probably less likely to vote Republican). If I had to put my money on people who would try to throw an election it would definitely be citizens on the far edges of both the left and the right. We're way more polarized and fanatical about our political system – case in point, the whole super speedy voter ID laws.

 

Ensuring the timely removal of dead registered voters from the roll would help as well (example: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/0...000-dead.html):  there's an old saying about how the 'dead always vote democrat'.  Hell, I would not be surprised if some ass has used my departed mother's identity to vote since she died.

 

As for removing dead people from the rolls, they do. And maybe they could do it in a bit more efficient way, but I think that it's always best A. done very carefully, and B. done far in advance of elections.

 

But the result of the submission by the group in that article can be found here.

 

“Here’s the bottom line,” Sims said. “Whenever (the Voter Integrity Project) pulled their list, it was extremely out of date. There were probably 400 or 500 that were identified, but we went through and looked at it, and most of them had already been removed.”

 

So, of the 30,000 names, about 29,500 were being taken care of. And while it's nice that those 500 were removed, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of fraud, and instead at least 51 still living people were on that list. So we're making people prove up that they should be allowed to stay on the voter roll in response to all the non-fraud that was found.

 

And that's disturbing. Because nothing is more important than our right to vote. It's what allows us to shape our government so that we retain all of the other right we have. Before we start adding burdens or potential obstacles to that I want to first know for certain that it's necessary, and second that it's going to be effective – which it's not because we aren't doing anything about absentee ballots.

 

I'm not saying that voter ID laws can't work. I'm just saying that when all things are equal we should err on the side of making the path to voting as smooth as possible. And no one's really showing how things are so unequal.

Edited November 5, 2012 by skauble