Recent poll re postponing the election [Archive]

CitizenBBN

08-12-2017, 02:59 AM

History, I love you, but man come off the ledge and bring the other half of the country in with you. :) I know a lot of people out there have those fears, but seriously they're up there with the 2am AM radio stuff out there when Obama was President.

Obama was NOT stockpiling ammo with DHS in order to seize control and prevent the 2016 election. It was never going to happen. He never had some secret plan to declare martial law. All of these things were active theories, they just never got discussed b/c the conservative media rightly discounted them and the liberal media would never report them.

Likewise, Trump is not the anti-Christ sent here to seize control and overthrow American democracy and suspend an election.

We've never missed an election, and while Obama was a socialist and Trump is personally an ass-hat, neither of those even comes close to the worst circumstances under which we've had elections.

The only difference between the Obama conspiracies and the Trump conspiracies is the liberal media in this country is gleefully reporting absolutely left field stuff as news, when no one would do that with the same level of stuff about Obama.

People need to stop believing everything this media puts out there, it's just not true. It's utterly true Trump is decidedly unlikeable and crass and the rest, but it's not true that we're facing some dire threat to democracy from him. Any more than we were facing one with Obama. Obama was doing his best to make us European socialists but he wasn't going to stage a coup (as if anyone with a gun would support him anyway), and neither is Trump.

Relax. There wont' be any voting problems big enough to not have our usual elections. At worst with some kind of hack that exposes a disaster in machines, a near impossibility, your'e taking days and maybe weeks, not months or years, and I can't foresee any situation where even that occurs.

We've had elections in the middle of the Civil War, in the middle of world wars. We've survived far worse than Obama's socialism and Trump's asshole-ism. It's going to be fine.

KeithKSR

08-12-2017, 12:44 PM

Unfounded fears.

Catonahottinroof

08-12-2017, 01:14 PM

Geez.....

UKHistory

08-12-2017, 02:32 PM

I will step off the ledge a minute. But please know a poll was taken and published in USA today and the Washington post that 52% of republicans would be in favor of postponing an election under certain circumstances.

Trump publicly stated prior to the election the system was rigged. He doesn't accept that he lost the popular vote. The president has been the sorest winner that I have ever seen.

Now we have a special election commission with three years to potentially remove voters that are unfriendly to the president. If there is real voter fraud, fine.

Mainstream republicans like McConnell don't think there is. The president rails against the party and its "arcane" measures. Those arcane procedures allow for thoughtful dialogue and God forbid compromise.

Then there is the president's Richard Pryor impersonation. Every outrageous comment is defended that it is his sense of humor

How convenient.

I am glad that the good folks here are not a part of the 52% of polled republican who would be willing defer an election.

I will get off this area and not post here on this topic for a while. If we hold an election in 2020 and there has not been rampant voter suppression I wil admit I was wrong. Gladly.

If I am right, I call dibs on being the real life Winston Smith for America's reenactment of 1984.

I love this country and I will defend the Constitution with my every breath. If I am wrong about trump and I hope I am, I will say so.

Back to hoops and movie quotes.

UKHistory

08-12-2017, 02:33 PM

Citizen

We really need to meet in person one of these days. You are a good man.

kingcat

08-12-2017, 03:11 PM

kingcat

08-12-2017, 03:48 PM

CitizenBBN

08-12-2017, 04:52 PM

“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”.. Donald Trump 2012

“He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country” ..Trump after Obama's victory

Agree with it or not, anyone that doesn't believe POTUS wants too drastically roll back voting rights in this country is deceiving themselves. From one perspective his is an attack on democracy itself. Using a similar argument that our enemies abroad have decried for decades.
That democratic elections are, can be, and maybe even should be rigged....even from without

Yet many Americans could still care less. A strange and powerful delusion imho.

But that's just one opinion among many.

Really? A lot of people on the left have spoken against the Electoral College. that's not even news, and a number of states have actually passed laws to try to short circuit the process. Are all those legislatures and Governors all in on the conspiracy to remove our rights?

I've laid it out elsewhere, and while I doubt voter fraud is as high as Trump claims, it's certainly within the realm of possibility and there is NO doubt there is some level of it in this country.

Procedures in kentucky are surprisingly tight, in fact we have done things for decades that are being ruled illegal as other states try to follow suit. Simple, basic things like showing an ID to prove you are who you are when you go vote. You know, the same thing you have to do to buy smokes or cash a check, etc.

But there are states with no id rules, states with no rules at all, states with absentee balloting that is easy to defraud, etc. There are LOTS of gaps in the system, and we have proof of it on small scales.

The idea of looking at it to see if the system is working is completely valid. My question would be what are people so afraid of? Someone can only be removed if they are a felon, registered multiple places, dead, etc. What suppression are we fearing here exactly?

No, what people in power fear is that Trump is right, and there are 2-3 million (99.99% Democrat) voters out there who are voting who shouldn't be. They don't want those people found.

My bet is there are at least 500,000 or so, and most of them are probably done through falsely filled in absentee ballots. But the commission will never uncover the people who are canvassed, "assisted" in getting registered and then "assisted" in filling it out, etc. There are near armies of people out there, now on both sides, going door to door to help get votes for their side, and no way are they not "helping" those folks to vote the right way.

CitizenBBN

08-12-2017, 04:54 PM

September 2, 2015

Barack Obama Planning To Cancel 2016 Election? Alex Jones, Larry Nichols Claim Obama Wants To Set Up ‘Islamic Caliphate’ In America

https://www.infowars.com/black-conservative-leader-obama-could-declare-martial-law-cancel-2016-elections/

https://www.mrconservative.com/2015/06/60262-obama-launches-plan-to-suspend-2016-election/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2013/03/13/rush-obama-may-cancel-2016-election/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/austin-miles-obama-will-cancel-2016-elections-spark-race-war/

..and on and on.. Some here believed it too

And some on here believe Trump is a Russian agent and on a mission to destroy democracy and the Constitution. Which was my point.

The two theories are equivalent. The only difference is that none of what you posted made it out of the most hard right websites and wee hours talk shows. The theories on Trump are presented on the networks, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo and the NYT as if they are real threats.

kingcat

08-12-2017, 05:30 PM

Hehe. Those reports and others were certainly heralded here, and without any argument as I recall from the right.

You cleverly misrepresent the positions taken here by both sides. Classic arguments abound.
But that's alright..you love debate and all that entails. I certainly understand directing an argument to a stalemate if a winning position can't be obtained.

But I am honestly not attempting to win any argument. I'd much prefer to be wrong

kingcat

08-12-2017, 05:53 PM

The theories on Trump are represented in a negative light nearly worldwide and for the most part, positively only from the far right perspective and those yet unwilling to question their support for the man in any way. That's fine, and I hope we don't have to see just how far the line of impropriety must be moved to accommodate such trust. Still, that is not the point of anything I have stated here and I wont move my argument in that direction. Trump is heralded and greatly admired here on this board. At some point the fake news thing will have run its course and facts will expose the truth completely.
I'm very confident Trump personally is not a Russian agent by the way. :)

It's a time for unity in the face of present danger and it is best to allow the FBI to do its work. I completely trust in that and currently support the president making wise and prudent decisions to escape calamity.

Catonahottinroof

08-12-2017, 06:46 PM

He is not heralded by that many here....
As a Libertarian I can tell you there will never be a "your guy" as president for me. However, Trump is being railed unfairly in many respects and many are too blind to see the bias applied to make it that way.

KeithKSR

08-12-2017, 07:45 PM

When the number of people voting or registered to vote exceeds those living in a jurisdiction who are eligible to vote there are serious voter fraud issues.

CitizenBBN

08-12-2017, 11:13 PM

Trump is heralded and greatly admired here on this board.

OK, this I'm calling out. Show me that "greatly admired" thing from people here.

I don't know anyone who "admires" him. I certainly don't. i've called him every name we can on this board within the rules. As a person he's an ass, pompous, full of it and himself, etc.

Almost everyone I know who voted for him held their nose to one degree or another to do so. They did it b/c they hope he will put us on a different path and live up to his promises. Even those are a mixed bag, but then again we had the two most awful choices for an election since at least the 1800s.

I only "support" him as far as I support the direction of certain policies.

My defense of him is more to correct the record of absolute absurdity I now see in the "mainstream" media. yes he's a lot of bad things, but this is an over the top action by the left to try to undo an election where Trump, despite all his faults, won b/c the Democratic party has shifted completely out of touch with vast swaths of America.

For example this topic of voter fraud. Trump sets up a commission to examine the fact that there are legitimate questions about our election process, and yes there are documented if sparse cases of it happening along with a lot of obvious holes in various places, and he's accused of trying to overthrow democracy itself. It's hyperbole beyond the pale.

All the commission is doing is comparing data to try to find double registrations and dead people, and even that, which is completely 100% legit and in fact the obligation of the states to do IMO, has caused outrage that we're doing something awful.

It's absurd. All of it. People are simply way too focused on the trappings and slogans and sound bites in politics instead of staying focused on policy and action and substance.

so far Trump has done nothing policy wise, not one single damned thing, that would be out of line with a more polished conservative President. Obama took lots of executive actions with immigration and many other things, and none of those were sold as ending democracy by the media, yet Trump simply does the same thing for a different ends and it's the end of the word.

So why is he seen as some complete outlier? Only bc he's for an agenda that at least half of this country wants to see implemented, but it's not the agenda of those who control the media so he's painted as a lunatic. He helps that along a LOT by acting like one, but so far he really hasn't followed up on the bluster, and I seriously doubt he does.

CitizenBBN

08-12-2017, 11:25 PM

Hehe. Those reports and others were certainly heralded here, and without any argument as I recall from the right.

You cleverly misrepresent the positions taken here by both sides.

I have absolutely no intention to misrepresent anyone's position.

So you obviously thought those positions on Obama were over the top, why are you embracing the same level of conspiracy regarding Trump?

It's true I didn't call out some of those theories harshly, but neither did I agree with them. I do question why DHS has bought such large amounts of ammo, both from a spending standpoint and from the standpoint of government power and presence. That does not translate into believing that Obama was going to seize power. I think if you go back and read those discussions you'll find that was the main area of concern for most here.

I'm trying to not call out the anti-Trump conspiracies harshly either, out of respect for those here who believe them, but I am trying to offer some perspective.

So far all of these claims and fears are based conjecture, fear-mongering and rhetoric. Admittedly much of the rhetoric is from Trump himself and his comments do nothing to quell those concerns. But the are still just talk and bluster. When they are based in something substantive then we can worry. You know, like withholding information from the American people to such a degree the Attorney General is held in contempt of Congress for the first time in American history.

Doc

08-13-2017, 01:42 AM

Trump is heralded and greatly admired here on this board.

Total and unequivocal bullshit! Nobody has heralded or admired him. Most if not all have criticized him as a boorish child. Given the choice between him and a career crooked politician who should be in jail, they elected to at least give him the benefit of the doubt. Most didnt suppprt Obama either but the criticism here was at least fair. Same with Trump. He has been roundly and throughly criticized on numerous fronts, but given the choice, most elected to fairly criticize him while the left, in general, continues with their fabrications to dusrupt his agenda

kingcat

08-13-2017, 02:02 AM

After skimming over the last fifty or so threads, I have decided no response necessary.

Catonahottinroof

08-13-2017, 05:38 PM

Thank you for re-affirming your partisanship for those those who weren't sure...
After skimming over the last fifty or so threads, I have decided no response necessary.

kingcat

08-13-2017, 06:48 PM

No offense intended but the irony is pretty amusing. This forum is extremely partisan and that has to be acknowledged. not a complaint...a fact.

Now, I'm going to leave the barbs and vitriol to others who feel the need.
I have tried and will continue to try to state my opinions in a respectful way while attacking no one individually.

I consider everyone here a friend and will always treat you guys that way.

Catonahottinroof

08-13-2017, 07:13 PM

So stating an opinion equating voting fraud with publicly available data that shows more votes than registered voters in California with a response that equated it with the fake news death of Chumlee was a respectful (or even well thought out response)by you?
I didn't post anything about it at the time you posted it, but since you find irony amusing I couldn't resist.

No offense intended but the irony is pretty amusing. This forum is extremely partisan and that has to be acknowledged. not a complaint...a fact.

Now, I'm going to leave the barbs and vitriol to others who feel the need.
I have tried and will continue to try to state my opinions in a respectful way while attacking no one individually.

I consider everyone here a friend and will always treat you guys that way.

kingcat

08-13-2017, 08:39 PM

I certainly wouldn't have taken offense at it had the situation been reversed. I'd have laughed along with you since the Chumlee thing is an ongoing internet joke. Heck, it was highlighted in the middle of the screen.

However, sorry if that offended. I think I stated in the thread I didnt mean to knock the post.

CitizenBBN

08-13-2017, 10:22 PM

Citizen

We really need to meet in person one of these days. You are a good man.

You are a great guy, and I'm glad you feel that way b/c I'd love to meet, and I'd never want politics to come between us or anyone on this board.

In the end it's not like any of these leaders are going to call us for opinions, what we do here is just angels dancing on the head of a pin in terms of its influence, but friendships and relationships are real and not to be discarded over such things.

Next time I"m up that way I'll make a point of seeing what we can work out. I'm not there often these days, work keeps me tied here, but I have family there so it does happen.

Also, come in for a game sometime. I can always scrounge up some tickets, we'll sit around and rag on rival teams instead of politicians. :)

CitizenBBN

08-13-2017, 10:37 PM

No offense intended but the irony is pretty amusing. This forum is extremely partisan and that has to be acknowledged. not a complaint...a fact.

I agree it's very one-sided on the American political spectrum. Can't argue that a bit.

But I may quibble with "partisan" only b/c to me that is someone who just spouts the party line without having their own opinion, or questioning their "side". I see some of that here no doubt, but honestly probably not as much as I see in the general population.

For example I generally agree with Trump's stated goals, but I have never offered any defense of his message or behavior or his absurd habit of personally attacking people like a 6 year old. Doc called him a "petulant child" and I think that fits better than any other description I've heard. He's an ass-hat. I get why people want to punch him. If he weren't rich he'd have the crap kicked out of him every weekend in a bar.

To me being "partisan" is supporting his nonsense no matter what, and I don't see that. I do end up defending him on here, but not for his personal behavior and not if I disagree.

For example, I'm outraged that Sessions wants to expand "asset forfeiture", which is a polite way to say seizure without warrants or charges, much less a conviction. I'm outraged Trump will end net neutrality, which is a travesty, and I supported Obama on it for 8 years on here.

If I were "partisan" in my view I would be twisting my beliefs to fit theirs, and I don't see that on here. Now 80% of the time 80% of the group will in fact agree with the conservative view b/c that's who we are, but it's not out of bias or blindness or just defending "our side".

I don't mean to nit picks, that's just how I see that word. We can't get around it being a strongly conservative group, but I do hope we can rise to express OUR opinions respectfully and not just stick to attacking "the other side" and defending "our side" no matter what.

I sincerely don't see that on here that much. Some, but not as much as I see it elsewhere in the world.

kingcat

08-14-2017, 12:32 AM

Good post.

I guess we all have to sacrifice a little if we want varying opinions. You know, if when this board was created the first several to post here had been Democrats, folks now entrenched here would better understand why participation is so very limited. Its a natural phenomenon to protect ones turf.
Similar to our sports discussions, those we consider rivals must walk a thin line to participate..if they are allowed at all.

I can tell you with a surety that anyone who leans Democratic is not able to be themselves here or post in the manor we use in our other forums.
Although we are friends, political animosity runs high. So we must alter posting styles and yield our positions.

That prevailing animosity is quite evident and, although it could have be reversed, truly sad in that it's reflective of where our nation now stands.

That is the greatest enemy we all face imo. United we stand..but divided, as we are..we fall. :|

There will be no winners in the long run.

http://myibd.investors.com/image/RAMclr-121613-nero-IBD-COLOR-FINAL-for-WEEKEND.gif.cms

KSRBEvans

08-14-2017, 07:23 AM

We held national elections in the middle of civil and world wars. We should hold elections when required by the Constitution, no matter what.

I also think the question that was asked in the poll was a setup question. If they'd asked the same question of Democrats when they were in power, the number of Democrats wanting to postpone would've been about the same IMHO.

Also, I wouldn't assume the lack of people participating in these threads and disagreeing with Trump implies support. I'm not a Republican anymore, largely due to Trump and those who enabled and continue to enable him. I made my feelings about him pretty well known during 2016 and they haven't changed. But I'm also not going to haunt every political thread to express that opinion. That gets boring pretty quickly.

Doc

08-14-2017, 08:22 PM

Its funny becuase there were rumblins of the same (an election postponement) during Obama's reign. Nobody took them seriously yet this dopey idea has momentum, likely because its yet another opportunity to cast Trump in a negative light. Plus I find it quite odd that the Washington Post's number of 52% of republicans would be in favor. Move the decimal point one space left and I might , emphasize might, believe it. They must have looked very hard to find that 52%...that or phased the question in such a manor that the poll would be so skewd as to be worthless for any purpose other than making the GOP appear to support this idea.

Is there any doubt republicans, as a general rule, want voter confirmation / identy? Not at all. And is there much doubt the the far left wants open voting with what amounts to an honor system? Nope. Its also ironic that when even a small number of voters are disenfranchised, the left gets all upset over it and raises a stink yet they have little or no issue with ineligble people casting votes. I suspect the number of "eligible voters" who could not vote due to a voter ID law is far less than the number of illegal votes cast in any election yet even the fear of somehow making voter identification a mandatory process where a relatively small number may have an issue draws quick legal action but voter fraud is routinely dismissed as a conspiracy that has no effect on the election.

kingcat

08-14-2017, 08:56 PM

Doc you make the Republicans sound so noble if I didnt know better Id take the pledge right here and now. ;)
Many if not most believe Republicans would like to hinder minority votes and substantially lessen turnouts at the polls in areas predisposed to a Democratic lean.

And Democrats are motivated to likewise benefit themselves.

Truth is, every citizen should be compelled to vote and assisted in every way in doing so. And anyone messing with the system or tampering should be treated as traitors to this country, or enemies of democracy. I wouldn't care which side they came from

But best guesses and suspicion from both sides are a waste of effort. If nothing gets done its very likely because someone was just playing politics along the way

I do wonder about tangible things like the fairness of felony disenfranchisement.
Lifetime bans seem wrong to me. Once a debt to society has been paid and past felons are free in society they should be allowed to vote automatically imho

The Declaration of Independence states that government must derive its power from the consent of the governed. And despite their past crime, most felons and ex-felons are citizens, governed and affected by the decisions made in Washington.
As an essential protection from government tyranny, corruption, and unjust laws, it is crucial that*all*citizens can contribute to the discussion of what type of society they would like to live in and what the laws dictating that society are.

I have read that Kentucky, Florida, and Virginia each disenfranchise over 20 percent of their respective adult black American populations in this way. Other states like Connecticut and Rhode island are moving forward in this area.

In Kentucky anyone wishing to be re-enfranchised must submit a formal letter or essay explaining why rights should be reinstated, plus a three character references in letter form. The number of applications has significantly declined since the process went into effect in 2004.
Alabama’s system highlights the vagueness of some states’ rules. Its disenfranchisement law bars prior felons from voting if their crime involved moral turpitude
Ambiguous at best.

A reintroduced bill is currently in congress but with probably not much chance of passing.
S. 1588: Democracy Restoration Act of 2017

Doc

08-14-2017, 09:48 PM

I don't think they are noble at all. You commented above about how you read previous posts to determine this admiration for Trump. I'd ask you to reread to confirm this belief that I believe the GOP are noble. My belief is every individual who is legally eligible to vote if they desire should, and those who are not eligible should not vote. Their skin color, ethnicity, level of income, etc has no bearing. Those opposed to the eligible voter only defend their point by throwing the minority issue out there because its the only defense they have.

What I stated is the GOP as a party policy is to support voter ID laws. That is factual. Likewise it is factual that the liberal aspect of this nation strongly opposes it. It is my observation and mine alone that the left tends to get riled when any voter is denied but does not seem bothered by ineligible people voting. Likewise the right wants strict ID laws but are less concerned if an eligible voter is denied. MY PHILOSOPHY is if you are an eligible voter who has a desire to vote, you can and will do whatever is required. If that falls closer to the GOP party line, so be it but it hardly means I find those jackasses noble.

Your belief Republicans goal is to hinder minority voting. I say incorrect. You assume those who are ineligible to vote are minorities. I forget that blacks, Latinos, etc are not able to acquire adequate ID, and that is strictly a ethnic based issue. Is that because the govt is more willing to issue an ID to a white person, or is it that minorities are not smart enough to get one? I mean it means going to city hall or dmv but the left thinks that is too much of a burden....yet these folks have no trouble getting to their polling locations. You got 4 years between presidential elections to get an ID and thats too much of a burden yet on election day, the single day where elections happen they are more than available. Funny how that works.

I agree that lifetime bans are not wise except for serious crimes. If you are in jail, you should lose your right to vote while there but after release then you paid your debt.

kingcat

08-14-2017, 10:16 PM

Doc, you take me too seriously. I never meant to imply everyone here was anything, Predominantly Pro Trump?...most certainly

Distrusting and angrily anti virtually anything or anyone Democratic? There honestly are only a couple who aren't. But that's alright, I don't care.
Just don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We are friends here...beyond politics.
Honestly I feel things are being read into my posts that arent really there. And only because of my political leanings
How else can I rationalize the feeling of having to walk on egg shells to be a part of a discussion?

I started the above post with a little levity I thought. My opinion is a little different from yours. Not superior, different.

I do believe both sides are cut throat when it comes to both garnering and hindering votes. My point was mainly that I dont trust the info presented by either side until the legal system prosecutes and courts rule on it. Otherwise its very likely to be political rhetoric.

UKHistory

08-15-2017, 10:12 AM

I am 100% for all Citizens being eligible to vote if not incarerated. Once a person has paid his or her debt, they should be eligible to vote in local, state, and national elections.

kingcat

08-15-2017, 11:44 AM

I am 100% for all Citizens being eligible to vote if not incarerated. Once a person has paid his or her debt, they should be eligible to vote in local, state, and national elections.

oh....I thought you said Citizen.. He's never been caught :)

UKHistory

08-15-2017, 03:23 PM

Upper case C on citizen is a force of habit.

CitizenBBN

08-15-2017, 06:48 PM

oh....I thought you said Citizen.. He's never been caught :)

Damned right. But you never know. :)

CitizenBBN

08-15-2017, 07:07 PM

Yes it's true the power of the state is derived from the People, but the Founders absolutely never intended or thought that to mean that everyone should therefore vote.

the reason is that this nation wasn't founded to provide democracy. Democracy isn't a goal, democracy is a means, a system. neither was the nation founded to provide a bicameral legislature or a three part government. All of those things were inventions designed to meet the real goal.

The real goal of this nation is to provide individual liberty.

Democracy was just one part of the system devised to try and limit government and allow for preservation of that liberty, endowed by God and only to be taken away to the minimum level required for the functioning of the nation.

Thus there was never the notion of a universal franchise. The Founders limited it to people who basically had skin in the game, i.e. property owners.

Why? B/c of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin (which is really just a Reader's Digest version and should be attributed to Lord Woodhouselee) : When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.

The Founders knew that in truth real democracy was not good for individual liberty. Sound wrong? it's not. B/c they that the power of the state could be used for immoral and very non-liberty providing purposes, and that is exactly what we now see happening.

So if only those who owned property could vote, they would tend to not vote for things that took property from people. They would also be people of generally higher education with more time to properly study the issues and make more informed decisions.

The founders absolutely would not want people voting who don't know the 3 branches of government or can't find the US on a globe.

And you know what? Neither do I.

I freely admit, I have no desire to see felons vote, or anyone else who doesn't have a damned clue about what is going on. I wouldn't randomly drag people off the street to help make business decisions, why on Earth would I want some illiterate person who doesn't know the first thing about economics, foreign policy, etc. making decisions about who runs the country?

When those who want universal franchise start randomly bringing in homeless people to help them pick stocks and plan their retirements or choose their next car or house, then I'll believe they are consistent in their thinking. Otherwise, if they are going to CPAs and investment advisors and attorneys and such for their advice, maybe they ought to consider that doing the same thing for the country as a whole is a good idea.

Voting is not a right. Voting is a privilege bestowed as part off a system designed to protect all our liberty. Simply put, if the Founders had access to an all knowing machine that could insure our liberty and proper functioning of the government without any human assistance, they'd have gleefully turned it on and let it run the whole show.

In fact they knew this system was deeply flawed b/c in the end it still relied on humans making decisions, and humans are notorious for making decisions in their own self interest, and that's why at every turn the government is turned against itself, and why voting was so limited.

Voting is thus as deeply flawed as is Congress and the other branches, and they knew it. It was always flawed, will always be flawed, and the only hope was to constrain the whole government so much that it just couldn't manage to do much damage. But voting was never a goal, it's just another systemic flaw we have to tolerate until we come up with a better system.

Democracy is the worst government, except for all the rest. but It was never the goal, it's just a pale shadow on the wall of the cave while we wait for some other system or human evolution to finally deliver real liberty.

CitizenBBN

08-15-2017, 07:24 PM

On to Franklin's "quote" and what we see today, it was completely right.

Basically those on the Left want illegals to vote etc. b/c those people will vote overwhelmingly for their side, keeping them in power, and they vote that way b/c of the limitless promises of handing them free stuff.

Sorry, but that's the truth. People have figured out they can vote themselves money. So now half of the eligible workers in this country don't work, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who is completely able-bodied drawing disability, and people are actually claiming it as an accomplishment when more people go on something like food stamps.

What started as programs to temporarily help people back up has become a modern system of slavery that is every bit as vicious as the old one, robbing people of their basic dignity, self-respect and self-reliance. And they happily vote for it b/c it beats working harder.

So yes the GOP generally wants to limit voting, b/c people who have no problems having a drivers license and haven't committed any felonies tend to vote for them (though not overwhelmingly), and Democrats want more voting b/c people who for some inexplicable reason don't have a photo ID of any kind and/or have a rap sheet tend to vote for them.

I'm not sure Democrats should be proud of that fact, nor Republicans ashamed of their position.

Personally if you haven't had a job since reaching adulthood, do and/or deal drugs, and generally sponge off the people who are working hard and paying into the system ever year, no I don't think you should get a say in what we do as a nation.

People who pay taxes, hold down jobs, and keep the country running, I'm just fine if those are the people making the decisions, whether they lean left or right.

I've dealt with so many people who I wouldn't trust to drive my car down the driveway. Seriously, with the current drug epidemic and disability epidemic etc. there are vast swaths of people eligible to vote who if you met them in real life you wouldn't let them in your front door. Why would we want them making decisions for you and your family? that's what one is saying when they say they want those people to have an equal voice in who runs the country.

They're going to vote for whoever satiates their desires in the short run, without any regard to you, your family or their future. They wont' even care for their own kids, what care will they give to the world they're leaving yours?

so we have about $100 trillion in combined government debt or so, all due from someone somewhere but it's not their problem, and politicians in order to stay in power are happy to hand it down to your kids and grand-kids too.

BTW, that $100 TRILLION number is right. That's one estimate of our total unfunded liabilities, federal state and local. All b/c people figured out they could vote themselves money.

CitizenBBN

08-15-2017, 07:28 PM

Also let me be clear, that characterization is NOT of Democrats as a whole, or those who support those policies or universal franchise, etc.

It's just that a large numeric part of the voting base IS accurately characterized by the above, and the Democrats want those people voting b/c they vote overwhelmingly for their side.

If most Americans who work hard and pay taxes and carry their share of the load all vote for Democrats or some policy of wealth transfer then there we are. I don't agree with it, but there we are.

But apologize for wanting that decision to be made by those people, the folks on here on both sides, versus the kinds of people I know who are stoned all the time, illiterate, selfish, thieving, lowlifes? Nope.

If others who contribute decide that's what we're going to do I will disagree, I will argue it's contrary to our goals as a nation, but at least it hasn't been taken from me by people who are sitting around all day while I go work to pay their bills.

PS - don't think I don't think a number of GOP voters also have MAJOR issues. They do. I presume David Duke and others vote GOP a lot, and those people I don't want voting either. but there's no doubt that numerically the GOP will fare better the more we limit voting, the Dems will do better the more it expands to those who don't have IDs, etc. this isn't "one party better than the other", it's just how the math works out for who will vote for what.

It's also why the GOP has started to become Democrat Lite on a lot of issues like health care. They're willing to start handing out the goodies too in order to get votes, and they are absolutely 100% every bit as corrupt about staying in power. It's a whole separate topic, but I don't like the GOP either. I'm a Libertarian, and thus have no real home.

CitizenBBN

08-15-2017, 07:43 PM

I am 100% for all Citizens being eligible to vote if not incarerated. Once a person has paid his or her debt, they should be eligible to vote in local, state, and national elections.

I'm curious, and I mean this with complete respects.

How many felons do you know personally?

I know several, and you know what? None of them are really reformed. Not really. I've even tried to help a few, and they stole and cheated the first chance they got.

I have no doubt some have turned their lives around and are great people, but the odds are they are not. Only a small number ever get out of the circumstances that led to their misdeeds.

Yes it's a mark that stays with them forever and for those who change, those wrongly convicted, and those convicted of felonies that many may not see as a big deal, that is not very fair. I get that completely.

But for every one of those guys there are many more who deserved it, and deserved a number of others for which they were never caught.

UKHistory

08-15-2017, 09:45 PM

I'm curious, and I mean this with complete respects.

How many felons do you know personally?

I know several, and you know what? None of them are really reformed. Not really. I've even tried to help a few, and they stole and cheated the first chance they got.

I have no doubt some have turned their lives around and are great people, but the odds are they are not. Only a small number ever get out of the circumstances that led to their misdeeds.

Yes it's a mark that stays with them forever and for those who change, those wrongly convicted, and those convicted of felonies that many may not see as a big deal, that is not very fair. I get that completely.

But for every one of those guys there are many more who deserved it, and deserved a number of others for which they were never caught.

Truly know? Not any. I have been in a support group or two with convicted individuals. I have relatives who have been incarerated for public intoxication or small amounts of drugs.

But no hard core felons.

I am not sure they are reformed. Sounds like your experience says they are not. In the abstract, once you are out I do think you should have the right to vote. I can see people not wanting to hire you. I can see others not wanting to live by you. I think they should vote.

kingcat

08-15-2017, 10:06 PM

Well, its my belief that in a free society, the disenfranchised (and I'm not talking felons here) would use their liberty to eventually rise up and over throw such a government. No offense Chuck but, but I find yours a scary line of thought.
I have family that probably couldn't find Washington on a map..but they would be a lifesaver in the event of a catastrophe.
And their common sense is not to be devalued either.

You would be hard pressed to support a government without the voluntary backs of average and below average minds in this or any country. And they would demand the vote with picks and axes. I dont envision such a view as yours (if I understand correctly) as supported by those who actually fought for this country's independence. the political types,, kept that to themselves I'm sure
I dont even think education was a huge commodity at that time. :)

If every citizen doesn't have a right to vote, then the vote isn't needed anyway. And neither was the war for independence. The British had it right all along.

I think this sums up the motives behind voter disenfranchisement of that day..

..it reflected eighteenth-century English notions about gender, race, prudence, and financial success, as well as vested interest. Arguments for a white, male-only electorate focused on what the men of the era conceived of as the delicate nature of women and their inability to deal with the coarse realities of politics, as well as convictions about race and religion.

African Americans and Native Americans were excluded, and, at different times and places, the Protestant majority denied the vote to Catholics and Jews.
In some places, propertied women, free blacks, and Native Americans could vote, but those exceptions were just that. They were not signs of a popular belief in universal suffrage.
Property requirements were widespread. Some colonies required a voter to own a certain amount of land or land of a specified value.
Others required personal property of a certain value, or payment of a certain amount of taxes.

Examples from 1763 show the variety of these requirements. Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40.

kingcat

08-15-2017, 10:15 PM

After thinking it through, Im not sure Hoosier or Louisville fans should be allowed to vote

CitizenBBN

08-16-2017, 12:00 AM

First, we're already disenfranchised. Do you really think your individual vote counts for much, or mine? Do any of us here really think our leaders really, deeply care about how we're doing?

So individually I don't know what it does for us. it makes us feel like we're inputting, but really we're just a mass, not individuals. That's why we have the gerrymandering, the voter laws in both directions, etc. It's not about individuals, it's a numbers game.

When I get into these discussions with people they always focus on the historic and false reasons for not extending the franchise, such as sex and race. Of course no one supports such notions.

And I mostly only make this point from time to time to highlight the fact that no democracy isn't a goal, it's a means to a goal, and we've apparently lost sight of the goal. people seem to often confuse democracy with liberty, but they aren't the same thing. You can have a democracy that restricts liberty terribly.

I also have a problem with the notion these days that rights come without any responsibility. If we consider voting a right, OK, then where is the responsibility to educate oneself and use that right responsibly? Not to vote conservative, but to vote with knowledge of what you are voting for either way.

I don't see that as unreasonable. I only use the past as a highlight of the fact that it was part of the original idea that those who voted would be more aware, educated and responsible with their vote.

I'm not suggesting we go back to property requirements etc., but I am going to suggest that these modern notions that everyone should vote simply b/c they should without any regard to whether they have exercised the responsibility to know for what they are voting are false narratives. They are equating voting with liberty in some way, exercising their rights, but ignoring the responsibility that comes with doing so.

And no, I don't like the idea that people in large numbers have control over my life indirectly and they can't find the US on a globe. I don't care to have anyone in control of me, but given a choice I would like it to be people who at least have some understanding of the world around them. Doesn't have be the same perspective I have on it, but it would be nice if it wasn't the idiots you can find endlessly on these "man on the street" videos where they name Buzz Lightyear as a famous astronaut. lol.

CitizenBBN

08-16-2017, 12:02 AM

After thinking it through, Im not sure Hoosier or Louisville fans should be allowed to vote

If we lift the felony restrictions a lot more of them would be eligible. :)

CitizenBBN

08-16-2017, 12:07 AM

In the abstract, once you are out I do think you should have the right to vote. I can see people not wanting to hire you. I can see others not wanting to live by you. I think they should vote.

If we don't want them as neighbors or working with us, why would we want them with a say in how our whole life is run and how our future pans out?

In the abstract I can see why we'd want their rights generally restored in some way.

But if we give them the right to vote do we restore their 2nd Amendment rights as well? Those are also restricted for felons. But if they can vote can't they now have a gun too?

And if we can't trust them to such a degree we won't let them have a full right of self defense out of fear of their irresponsible behavior, why would we trust them to vote and help shape the direction of the nation?

In the abstract I see the argument, I do. But in reality I see too many of them simply not having the basic responsibility needed to be afforded such a thing.

Doc

08-16-2017, 12:22 AM

CitizenBBN

08-16-2017, 12:40 AM

Folks who have an interest in voting should. Those who don't, fine. All this get out to vote stuff is bunk IMO. These campaigns to merely boost the numbers are silly. Of course the left works to get people who lean that way while the right does the same, just the other direction. Too bad those folks are typically not well informed on what the party is supporting. You are encouraging the uniformed to vote.

Both parties are highly engaged in "getting out the vote", which as you said is just a numbers game manipulation to get out "their" likely voters.

It isn't outright fraud so long as those actual people do vote, but it's about as sincere an effort at democracy as UL arguing the NCAA shouldn't punish the players by taking away their wins.

Catonahottinroof

08-16-2017, 09:28 AM

I'm much like Doc in that people who want to vote (legally, hate that I have to add this), then they should. Felons with stipulation, but IMO they should if they are productive members of society.

CitizenBBN

08-16-2017, 08:00 PM

I'm much like Doc in that people who want to vote (legally, hate that I have to add this), then they should. Felons with stipulation, but IMO they should if they are productive members of society.

I have no problem with some path whereby felons re-earn their rights, including their right to self defense with a firearm. But to just grant it when they get out and their probation ends? Absolutely not. Every study shows that the vast majority of people in that group are still committing crimes, they just haven't been caught again yet.

I googled some numbers to support the point. Within 5 years of release from prison about 75%-80% of felons are re-arrested. MOre than half are re-arrested within a year. So maybe after 10 years with no crimes you figure they have passed some bar, 5 at a bare absolute minimum, but there has to be some test of some kind, be it time or something else.

kingcat

08-16-2017, 08:20 PM

Similarly the elderly vote could be questioned. A large percentage sees their cognitive function decrease after a certain age.

And an argument could include those on certain medications, especially anti depressants or anyone medically classified as an alcoholic.
Then it would follow that former alcoholics or other type addicts should be required to prove they were clean for a set period of time.

Some of these are logical and would actually improve the system in some ways. And I am being serious.

But. it is not the system of a truly free society.

KSRBEvans

08-17-2017, 09:56 AM

IMHO we've drawn distinctions between misdemeanors and felonies in this country (and for centuries in other nation-states) for good reason, and those distinctions shouldn't be tossed aside.

There's a process for felons to have their rights restored (here's (http://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/kentucky-restoration-of-rights-pardon-expungement-sealing/) info on Kentucky's, for example), and I think a case-by-case determination is the better approach.

UKHistory

08-18-2017, 11:42 AM

BEvans,

Thanks for sharing this. I will read closely over the weekend. I am inconsistent in terms of firearms, I would say the right to carry and own a gun after conviction should be granted. Pardons are different. But felons don't need guns. Take up karate.

I think with voting rights once you are out of prison, full rights to vote should be resored. I am sure some and maybe a lot have not been rehabilitated. I am sure some and maybe a lot will commit another crime and be back in prison.

If they are out of prison having paid their debt, I would work to help US citizens convicted of felonies to regain the right to vote.

I just think it is right thing to do. Felons don't have strong lobbying groups. They are not cute and cuddly or particularly nice. This stance of mine is not about about popularity.

But allowing them to participate in an event which defines one of the most patriotic actions an American can perform is good for the country and their own sense of self worth.

KeithKSR

08-18-2017, 03:28 PM