@WarChiefZeke said: @jjstraka34 said: Amazingly, now that the Senate election in Florida has basically been decided in favor of Rick Scott, all the talk about the election fraud has immediately ceased.
No it hasn't. This isn't a story that has just disappeared. An investigation into fraud is ongoing in that state at the urging of the Attorney General.
No the majority of leftists are not upset about white people. Are there evil white people like Brian Kemp who fight to hold people down? Yes, and old white men such as Trump who are destroying the planet to make a buck today because he's old and won't be here tommorow yeah that's a problem.
Joe the Walmart worker is not the enemy. All lives matter. We're all a part of the brotherhood of mankind, if you got a problem with that then you probably need to do some traveling because it will open your eyes to see we're all not so different.
The anti-white sentiment is extremely grating, to say the least. It is not okay to insult people, denigrate their intelligence or ethics or enlightenment, or to suggest that they are "the problem" or that their opinions don't matter or that they're not qualified to exercise their free speech on certain subjects, based on the color of their skin. I've seen multiple examples of each of those things, and far too many folks on the left are willing to tolerate it, or even attempt to justify it, because whites are deemed acceptable targets.
That vitriolic anti-white rhetoric might not translate into discrimination or anti-white policies, but that doesn't make it acceptable.
My mother was raised in a state where she was the unique white on her classroom. Was good treated? No, she suffered a lot, people calling her "leite azedo"(i belive that is soured milk on english - not sure), segregated her and assumed that she was rich based only on her skin color. My ex-girlfriend, an woman with envy of her beauty tried to attack her with a knife. Other people asked her if her grandpa was a nazi only cuz she have an German Surname. Now she have an tatoo on her left hand to cover up the scar. Since i was raised in a state where 70% identify as white(but the real number is probably around 40%), an tall and have broad shoulders, i had an much easier life in this aspect but still had to listen to some people saying "you need to get more sun"(note : my skin become red with sun, i can't tan)
About anti white rhetoric not translate into discrimination, affirmative action is a form of discrimination. My cousin will not study medicine thanks for that. And if the left president got elected, we will have this programs on private companies too. If is hard for me to get a job, will be impossible....
Doesn't matter if everyone enslaved everyone on the history and that was whites who ended the slavery or even that the Monarchists from House of Orléans ended slavery and that a coup took the crown power after princess Izabel(Blonde/Blue eyed) signed the law outlawing slavery. People use it as justification for an failed program.
Or the fact that blacks can openly make "black only" companies like "infopreta" or even afro only relationship groups but if whites do the same, they will be on jail. In fact, some people will call you "racist" by liking more woman like Milagros Schmoll than Mc Carol(photos on spoiler)
Not mention, in most non "south" states, the standard for whiteness is broken. Someone can easily be considered white on Bahia(state with greatest amount of African population) but "pardo" or even black in Santa Catarina(whitest state).
It always fascinates me when Americans refer to the "left". It seems to roughly translate as "slightly right of centre" from a European perspective .
Same on other regions. Macri and Bolsonaro are viwed as extreme right, on USA they will be just another average republican. To be fair, even "social democrats" on Brazil are considered right.
-----------------------------------------------
Honestly, some times i wish that Haddad had won the election and enforced his affirmative action programs on companies, only to every white become incapable of getting a job and leave, those with the right for any EU citizenship(and i know a colleague who is 1/8 Polish and have Polish citizenship) move to Europe and those without this right move to Uruguay/Argentina, lets see how many years this country will last if this happens...
This stuff shouldn't be allowed. Free speech has a limit, and inciting hate and attacks doesn't, and shouldn't come under the heading of "Free Speech". Apparently, this judge, and the court, agrees. This guy went way too far, and I am glad he is being sued. I hope Mrs. Gersh wins her case.
Architect of bin Laden raid: Trump 'threatens the Constitution' when he attacks the media
Trump plots to cancel research into curing diseases like Alzheimer’s
https://shareblue.com/trump-cancel-medical-research-fetal-tissue-hhs-alzheimers/?fbclid=IwAR3IauzYb8Dy5LWBWRdIwF0Vi978drZMvOHPIIFgHXhhRiHsU0B24xQ_Pgk Because it involves Stem Cells, which anti-abortion activists seem to think are like actually babies. "But Trump is willing to throw all of that progress out the window just to pander to the same religious extremists who want to ban birth control and fertility treatments. An HHS spokesperson told Politico that the department is “holding multiple listening sessions with various stakeholders [like] scientists, pro-life groups, ethicists” on whether to ban this medical research."
Well, so much for curing those diseases if Trump & Co. Have their way.
Trump’s Interference With Science Is Unprecedented
Let's just say, that research into disease isn't the only science the Trump White House is fooling with. "The Trump administration is breaking with 75 years of precedent by attempting to interfere in how science is practiced by the U.S. government, according to three experts who issued a dire warning to their profession in the journal Science on Thursday. The administration is empowering political staff to meddle with the scientific process by pushing through reforms disguised to look as though they boost transparency and integrity, the experts say."
Great. As long as the rich are fine, the rest of us can just up and die.
Mitch McConnell has done grave damage to all three branches of government
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/opinions/mitch-mcconnell-has-damaged-all-three-branches-of-government-begala/index.html?fbclid=IwAR3_sEe_6x5I4Uc1wZLdo9sSR1AQCwj2ANYt5-hs9mL_wU2KyHOYPABdNjs&utm_source=hootsuite&utm_medium=&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign= "The presidency. American intelligence knew Vladimir Putin's henchmen were attacking America, using cyberwarfare tactics to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign. Yet when the nonpartisan leaders of our intelligence community briefed McConnell, his reply -- according to a new book by Washington Post reporter Greg Miller -- was purely partisan: "You're trying to screw the Republican nominee." McConnell not only refused to condemn the Russians, Miller writes, he threatened to attack the US intelligence community, labeling its call to defend America an act of partisan politics." "The Senate. McConnell has broken the Senate. By refusing even to meet with President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, and by blocking hearings on his nomination, McConnell deeply harmed the comity on which the Senate is supposed to run." "The Supreme Court. Which brings us to the high court. Not content with simply stealing Garland's seat for Trump, McConnell rammed through the nomination of the profoundly unpopular Brett Kavanaugh. The court now has four justices appointed by Presidents who originally came into office after losing the popular vote."
This guy should be voted out of his seat. I really hope it happens. He acts like doesn't know what he's doing, but he does, and I get the feeling he is so totally hyper-partisan that little can be done to him or about him.
‘Nothing short of horrifying:’ Veterans' groups demand fixes at VA nursing homes
Vaccinate your damn kids or go live on a compound somewhere with no other human contact. The rest of society isn't obligated to put the health of their children on the line for this bullshit.
i had an much easier life in this aspect but still had to listen to some people saying "you need to get more sun"(note : my skin become red with sun, i can't tan)
Congratulations, you're Irish-American!
Come on up to the northern hemisphere anytime, you can be a firefighter.
I an partially "central" european and partially "south" european, my father was blonde/green eyed and my mother looks like the average Portuguese, white skin but dark hair/eyes, if i have irish blood, i don't know but unfortunately i an weak against sun as my father and have eyes/hair of my mother(i was born with blonde hair/green eyes but both becomed darker and darker with time). My skin after sun exposure
I wonder if they are going to do the same about Brian Kemp in Georgia? Investigate him, I mean. And North Dakota.
Heh heh I love how conservatives are twisting their underpinnings in a bunch about some kind of vague and unsubstabtiated "fraud" in an election won by a Republican... but as soon as Kemp is mentioned it's just crickets. Can't defend him, but don't have the guts to admit how offensive that election was... so just crickets chirping.
We've already talked about Kemp. There is no conspiracy of silence here.
Fraud investigations are vague and unsubstantiated even when they have clear violations as the basis for the investigation as noted by the Department of State and Attorney General and a long history of such actions taking place in the past? Ok.
Nobody is asserting that Kemp committed election fraud. Apples and oranges, to the extreme. Actual fraud vs. perfectly legal policies about voter rolls you don't like, many of which Kemp has nothing to do with since he does not write voter roll laws for the state.
Purging voter rolls is a matter of Federal law according to the National Voter Registration Act. Every state has to do so. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the language of the law has not been followed.
"(a) In general In the administration of voter registration for elections for Federal office, each State shall...
...(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of— (A) the death of the registrant; or (B) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d);"
"(c) Voter removal programs
(1) A State may meet the requirement of subsection (a)(4) by establishing a program under which— (A) change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service through its licensees is used to identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and (B) if it appears from information provided by the Postal Service that— (i) a registrant has moved to a different residence address in the same registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is currently registered, the registrar changes the registration records to show the new address and sends the registrant a notice of the change by forwardable mail and a postage prepaid pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or correct the address information; or (ii) the registrant has moved to a different residence address not in the same registrar's jurisdiction, the registrar uses the notice procedure described in subsection (d)(2) to confirm the change of address.
(2)(A) A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters. (B) Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to preclude— (i) the removal of names from official lists of voters on a basis described in paragraph (3)(A) or (B) or (4)(A) of subsection (a); or (ii) correction of registration records pursuant to this chapter."
It's quite peaceful, really, when the shrill whinging ("it's so hard being white!") dies down...
This is not at all an accurate representation of what anyone was saying, and even if it was, i'm not sure what is gained by blatant attempts to mock people.
But I realize the point of your post was more to spread your own vitriol rather than to deliver any factual content.
The only part that matters is the only part they didn't provide a single piece of evidence for- the personal testimony that says she didn't move or change address.
I mean, if Mother Jones says it happened that is definitely a valid replacement for evidence, an investigation, or anything really for some folks, but not to anyone fair minded.
I wouldn't stake my reputation on the claim that Georgia is systemically violating voting policies to deny eligible voters their chance to vote based on the fact that Mother Jones said it happened once with no proof, personally.
So are you suggesting that Mother Jones made up this person, or are you saying that this person lied and that they did move within the last 2 years?
Because asking for a news article to provide personal information (especially in this day of age) isn't appropriate. What would be appropriate would to have people take this persons claim at their word, and investigate it thoroughly. That investigation should only be done persons who can be trusted with sensitive, private information, and can actually have access to the voter rolls, purge lists and can compel people to provide reasons for the removal under oath. A journalist can't do any of that.
I said early that I will not take these purge doom and gloom reports seriously until people have come forward and stated, "I was registered to vote, and I am being denied." This article has found people who are willing to say that they were. Time for a proper investigation.
I would absolutely not put it past Mother Jones to lie- or just uncritically publish someone's claim without investigating- especially when lying is so easy and there is no accountability or way to determine one way or the other, but you don't even need to go that far.
They make the claim that this is systemic and not an isolated incident, that the procedures are not being followed, and don't provide anything else to suggest as such, just total numbers and not the actual context of why they were removed. They don't even begin to prove the case that they want to make.
I have no issues with an investigation, but I will point out that if there was a clear basis for one it would have already begun.
So are you suggesting that Mother Jones made up this person, or are you saying that this person lied and that they did move within the last 2 years?
Because asking for a news article to provide personal information (especially in this day of age) isn't appropriate. What would be appropriate would to have people take this persons claim at their word, and investigate it thoroughly. That investigation should only be done persons who can be trusted with sensitive, private information, and can actually have access to the voter rolls, purge lists and can compel people to provide reasons for the removal under oath. A journalist can't do any of that.
I said early that I will not take these purge doom and gloom reports seriously until people have come forward and stated, "I was registered to vote, and I am being denied." This article has found people who are willing to say that they were. Time for a proper investigation.
By all means, let's waste even more of our justice system's time and taxpayer money. Do you really think they'll find anything? It'll be yet another he said, she said, nobody can prove anything waste of time.
What would be appropriate would to have people take this persons claim at their word, and investigate it thoroughly.
I half disagree. Claims of wrongdoing should be investigated- that much I agree on.
That we should take a person or news organization at their word? Absolutely not. No person or organization is above scrutiny and skepticism. Putting anyone or anything above those things puts them above accountability.
So are you suggesting that Mother Jones made up this person, or are you saying that this person lied and that they did move within the last 2 years?
Because asking for a news article to provide personal information (especially in this day of age) isn't appropriate. What would be appropriate would to have people take this persons claim at their word, and investigate it thoroughly. That investigation should only be done persons who can be trusted with sensitive, private information, and can actually have access to the voter rolls, purge lists and can compel people to provide reasons for the removal under oath. A journalist can't do any of that.
I said early that I will not take these purge doom and gloom reports seriously until people have come forward and stated, "I was registered to vote, and I am being denied." This article has found people who are willing to say that they were. Time for a proper investigation.
By all means, let's waste even more of our justice system's time and taxpayer money. Do you really think they'll find anything? It'll be yet another he said, she said, nobody can prove anything waste of time.
Canadian story time! (You might have already heard it though)
tl;dw The Canadian Senate were being accused of frivolously wasting tax payers money. They were being attacked almost daily by the press of questionable spending habits and little oversight. The Harper government finally relented and opened an investigation into the spending of the senators and found that there was less than $1 million of questionable claims. The instigation itself cost $23.6 million and took 3 years to conclude. Seems like a complete waste of money and time, spending 3 years to find less than a million dollars, however, the one thing it did do, was shut EVERYONE up about the topic and was worth it in that regard. If the investigation didn't happen, Canadians would still be being barraged with these claims of misappropriate spending via the elite, unelected Senate that needs to be abolished.
What would be appropriate would to have people take this persons claim at their word, and investigate it thoroughly.
I half disagree. Claims of wrongdoing should be investigated- that much I agree on.
That we should take a person or news organization at their word? Absolutely not. No person or organization is above scrutiny and skepticism. Putting anyone or anything above those things puts them above accountability.
Sorry, lemme rephrase, if a person claims something happened to them, one should not completely dismiss the claim and should be thoroughly investigated on merit. If a claim has no merit, it should be very easy to find and not waste much time. (for example, if this person actually did move within the last 2 years, that'd be easy to find out. If they didn't, and they were still removed, the claim has some merit and more investigation would be required).
I would absolutely not put it past Mother Jones to lie- or just uncritically publish someone's claim without investigating- especially when lying is so easy and there is no accountability or way to determine one way or the other, but you don't even need to go that far.
They make the claim that this is systemic and not an isolated incident, that the procedures are not being followed, and don't provide anything else to suggest as such, just total numbers and not the actual context of why they were removed. They don't even begin to prove the case that they want to make.
I have no issues with an investigation, but I will point out that if there was a clear basis for one it would have already begun.
@WarChiefZeke when you're talking about many thousands of people it's not realistic to expect them all to be individually identified in a story. The article you referred to used one particular person as an example, before moving on to more general statements - which seems an appropriate method of journalism to me.
You may discount the big increases in the numbers of people purged (over 10% of the entire electorate just between 2016 and 2018) and the fact that a greatly disproportionate number of those were black. It's true that we can't know if particular individuals were correctly removed or not, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to find out. This lawsuit challenges removing people from the electoral register on the grounds they hadn't voted for 6 years and says that at least 340,000 people of the 534,000 purged in 2016/17 can be shown to still be living at the same address.
Even if you stick to the line though that numbers prove nothing, do you really believe it's appropriate to support someone responsible for the following? - a candidate for governor overseeing the voting for his own election - reporting on the official election web-site that Democrats were being investigated for cyber-crimes in relation to voting (not only untrue, but adding insult to injury after Georgia refused federal funds intended to increase their election security) - waits of several hours for people to vote in urban areas - losing multiple court battles over voting procedures in the few weeks leading up to the election
As for saying that if there were proper evidence, an investigation would already have begun - just who is in charge of deciding if an investigation is justified ...
I would absolutely not put it past Mother Jones to lie- or just uncritically publish someone's claim without investigating- especially when lying is so easy and there is no accountability or way to determine one way or the other, but you don't even need to go that far.
They make the claim that this is systemic and not an isolated incident, that the procedures are not being followed, and don't provide anything else to suggest as such, just total numbers and not the actual context of why they were removed. They don't even begin to prove the case that they want to make.
I have no issues with an investigation, but I will point out that if there was a clear basis for one it would have already begun.
@WarChiefZeke when you're talking about many thousands of people it's not realistic to expect them all to be individually identified in a story. The article you referred to used one particular person as an example, before moving on to more general statements - which seems an appropriate method of journalism to me.
You may discount the big increases in the numbers of people purged (over 10% of the entire electorate just between 2016 and 2018) and the fact that a greatly disproportionate number of those were black. It's true that we can't know if particular individuals were correctly removed or not, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to find out. This lawsuit challenges removing people from the electoral register on the grounds they hadn't voted for 6 years and says that at least 340,000 people of the 534,000 purged in 2016/17 can be shown to still be living at the same address.
I'm pretty much in agreement with Deltago's statements here, I hope the lawsuit goes forward and we see the records and the matter is easily cleaned up.
People who haven't voted for a long time *and* who don't live at the same address are supposed to be taken off of voter rolls (as opposed to people who simply haven't voted, which is expressly forbidden).
As your article says, the procedure is after a certain number of years of inactivity they get mail to confirm they still live at that address. If they don't return it and don't vote after that, it is assumed they don't live there anymore. So the question is how many are turning them in that aren't being counted, which should be something that can be verified. Living at that address but not voting for a good number of years and not responding to the requests for verification will get you taken off the rolls, even if you still live there, just as a matter of procedure.
Even if you stick to the line though that numbers prove nothing, do you really believe it's appropriate to support someone responsible for the following? - a candidate for governor overseeing the voting for his own election - reporting on the official election web-site that Democrats were being investigated for cyber-crimes in relation to voting (not only untrue, but adding insult to injury after Georgia refused federal funds intended to increase their election security) - waits of several hours for people to vote in urban areas - losing multiple court battles over voting procedures in the few weeks leading up to the election
I was actually going to mention this in my original comment but it was getting too wordy as it is:
While it's not illegal to be running for election and still be apart of the voter registration process, it clearly has the appearance of a conflict of interest.
It really should be the case that one has to step down from their position by law for a certain period of time prior to running for office.
It is a totally legitimate issue that does give credibility to the case that he could commit fraud. Barring any indication of such, it wouldn't be enough, but it definitely makes a case for opportunity where motive is already apparent.
No one is accusing him of fraud, he is accused of systematic voter suppression, which can basically be defined as using the mechanisms of government to make it as hard as humanly possible for certain groups of people (almost always African-American) to vote, and creating hoops and barriers to them exercising their right that voters more likely to vote FOR Kemp don't have to put up with or be effected by.
Also, being the Secretary of State that is overseeing your own election for Governor is not only a "perceived" conflict of interest. It is a textbook example of it.
Ironically - it is the lack of evidence for widespread voter fraud in a general sense that makes the case for voter suppression that just so happens to target demographics which are unlikely to vote for you so heinous.
See exact match. See less reliable voters See leaving voting machines in warehouses to make lines longer.
I believe I recently saw a statistic that less than 20 people (or some correspondingly low number) knowingly committed voter fraud in 2016
I don't know the exact stipulations in each state that requires photo ID off-hand. But I do know this: If you are a state that has instituted photo ID requirements, then it is absolutely incumbent on that state to then provide a photo ID free of charge to whoever wants it at a readily accessible and normal functioning business hours site. If this isn't the case, and if this ID costs even a single penny to whoever is requesting it, then it is nothing but a Jim Crow-like poll tax.
I am going to get pushback on this saying "if you can't spend $15 on an ID, you don't deserve or care enough to vote". And to that I say maybe you need to have lived from paycheck to paycheck a little longer in your life to see just how quickly a $15 to $30 expense can mess up your finances. If these laws are going to be in place, anything less than free access to the cards and readily available and reasonable access to the locations that produce the IDs is nothing but total disenfranchisement.
Also, this exact-match signature crap is just total nonsense. I haven't signed my signature the same way twice in well over 10 years. Should my vote be invalidated??
I don't know the exact stipulations in each state that requires photo ID off-hand. But I do know this: If you are a state that has instituted photo ID requirements, then it is absolutely incumbent on that state to then provide a photo ID free of charge to whoever wants it at a readily accessible and normal functioning business hours site. If this isn't the case, and if this ID costs even a single penny to whoever is requesting it, then it is nothing but a Jim Crow-like poll tax.
I am going to get pushback on this saying "if you can't spend $15 on an ID, you don't deserve or care enough to vote". And to that I say maybe you need to have lived from paycheck to paycheck a little longer in your life to see just how quickly a $15 to $30 expense can mess up your finances. If these laws are going to be in place, anything less than free access to the cards and readily available and reasonable access to the locations that produce the IDs is nothing but total disenfranchisement.
Also, this exact-match signature crap is just total nonsense. I haven't signed my signature the same way twice in well over 10 years. Should my vote be invalidated??
Signature? I was under the impression exact match meant your name in the registry had to be an exact match with your photo i.d name.
I don't know the exact stipulations in each state that requires photo ID off-hand. But I do know this: If you are a state that has instituted photo ID requirements, then it is absolutely incumbent on that state to then provide a photo ID free of charge to whoever wants it at a readily accessible and normal functioning business hours site. If this isn't the case, and if this ID costs even a single penny to whoever is requesting it, then it is nothing but a Jim Crow-like poll tax.
I am going to get pushback on this saying "if you can't spend $15 on an ID, you don't deserve or care enough to vote". And to that I say maybe you need to have lived from paycheck to paycheck a little longer in your life to see just how quickly a $15 to $30 expense can mess up your finances. If these laws are going to be in place, anything less than free access to the cards and readily available and reasonable access to the locations that produce the IDs is nothing but total disenfranchisement.
Also, this exact-match signature crap is just total nonsense. I haven't signed my signature the same way twice in well over 10 years. Should my vote be invalidated??
Signature? I was under the impression exact match meant your name in the registry had to be an exact match with your photo i.d name.
No. Allegedly on provisional ballots, if your signature doesn’t match the one they have on hand, the vote can be invalid.
Which is to say, I’d be surprised if an actual poll worker who is in charge of matching signatures has even heard of graphology let alone an expert in it.
There is some confusion between the two, this blog post by what seems to be a centrist-leaning writer explains why both are problematic when wielded in the wrong way:
Comments
@jjstraka34 said:
Amazingly, now that the Senate election in Florida has basically been decided in favor of Rick Scott, all the talk about the election fraud has immediately ceased.
No it hasn't. This isn't a story that has just disappeared. An investigation into fraud is ongoing in that state at the urging of the Attorney General.
https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/11/16/florida-democrats-on-defense-amid-election-fraud-investigation-701989
I wonder if they are going to do the same about Brian Kemp in Georgia? Investigate him, I mean. And North Dakota.
Joe the Walmart worker is not the enemy. All lives matter. We're all a part of the brotherhood of mankind, if you got a problem with that then you probably need to do some traveling because it will open your eyes to see we're all not so different.
About anti white rhetoric not translate into discrimination, affirmative action is a form of discrimination. My cousin will not study medicine thanks for that. And if the left president got elected, we will have this programs on private companies too. If is hard for me to get a job, will be impossible....
Doesn't matter if everyone enslaved everyone on the history and that was whites who ended the slavery or even that the Monarchists from House of Orléans ended slavery and that a coup took the crown power after princess Izabel(Blonde/Blue eyed) signed the law outlawing slavery. People use it as justification for an failed program.
Or the fact that blacks can openly make "black only" companies like "infopreta" or even afro only relationship groups but if whites do the same, they will be on jail. In fact, some people will call you "racist" by liking more woman like Milagros Schmoll than Mc Carol(photos on spoiler)
Not mention, in most non "south" states, the standard for whiteness is broken. Someone can easily be considered white on Bahia(state with greatest amount of African population) but "pardo" or even black in Santa Catarina(whitest state).
EDIT : Imagine if was whites singing something similar about blacks
-----------------------------------------------
Honestly, some times i wish that Haddad had won the election and enforced his affirmative action programs on companies, only to every white become incapable of getting a job and leave, those with the right for any EU citizenship(and i know a colleague who is 1/8 Polish and have Polish citizenship) move to Europe and those without this right move to Uruguay/Argentina, lets see how many years this country will last if this happens...
Court rejects neo-Nazi’s free speech defense in SPLC case
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/11/15/court-rejects-neo-nazi’s-free-speech-defense-splc-case?fbclid=IwAR2fdBWvEyt8e21m7bIlR6G9qV10TAGPFWlbqj0bRJLyUcih0ME03GLaPtgA federal judge has rejected neo-Nazi leader Andrew Anglin’s attempt to dismiss an SPLC lawsuit seeking to hold him accountable for orchestrating a campaign of terror against a Jewish woman and her family in Montana.
Anglin claimed in court filings that he was simply exercising his free speech rights when he incited a virtual army of online followers to harass Tanya Gersh, a real estate agent living in Whitefish.
This stuff shouldn't be allowed. Free speech has a limit, and inciting hate and attacks doesn't, and shouldn't come under the heading of "Free Speech". Apparently, this judge, and the court, agrees. This guy went way too far, and I am glad he is being sued. I hope Mrs. Gersh wins her case.
Architect of bin Laden raid: Trump 'threatens the Constitution' when he attacks the media
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/18/politics/donald-trump-william-mcraven/index.html?no-st=1542630105Admiral McRaven spoke out about Trump's calling the Media "The Enemy of the People". Trump called McRaven a "Hillary fan" to dismiss him, as if that explains why he doesn't like Trump dissing the media.
Trump plots to cancel research into curing diseases like Alzheimer’s
https://shareblue.com/trump-cancel-medical-research-fetal-tissue-hhs-alzheimers/?fbclid=IwAR3IauzYb8Dy5LWBWRdIwF0Vi978drZMvOHPIIFgHXhhRiHsU0B24xQ_PgkBecause it involves Stem Cells, which anti-abortion activists seem to think are like actually babies.
"But Trump is willing to throw all of that progress out the window just to pander to the same religious extremists who want to ban birth control and fertility treatments.
An HHS spokesperson told Politico that the department is “holding multiple listening sessions with various stakeholders [like] scientists, pro-life groups, ethicists” on whether to ban this medical research."
Well, so much for curing those diseases if Trump & Co. Have their way.
Trump’s Interference With Science Is Unprecedented
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/experts-warn-trump-epa-meddling-scientific-method/575377/?fbclid=IwAR2yb37LHUdzehYCwATyj8bGVHwYGW6RfSAYiCV87ijm4a-G-52Rc1_0tk8&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=5bea5a5b3ed3f00001a343b3_ta&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebookLet's just say, that research into disease isn't the only science the Trump White House is fooling with.
"The Trump administration is breaking with 75 years of precedent by attempting to interfere in how science is practiced by the U.S. government, according to three experts who issued a dire warning to their profession in the journal Science on Thursday. The administration is empowering political staff to meddle with the scientific process by pushing through reforms disguised to look as though they boost transparency and integrity, the experts say."
Great. As long as the rich are fine, the rest of us can just up and die.
Mitch McConnell has done grave damage to all three branches of government
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/opinions/mitch-mcconnell-has-damaged-all-three-branches-of-government-begala/index.html?fbclid=IwAR3_sEe_6x5I4Uc1wZLdo9sSR1AQCwj2ANYt5-hs9mL_wU2KyHOYPABdNjs&utm_source=hootsuite&utm_medium=&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign="The presidency. American intelligence knew Vladimir Putin's henchmen were attacking America, using cyberwarfare tactics to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign. Yet when the nonpartisan leaders of our intelligence community briefed McConnell, his reply -- according to a new book by Washington Post reporter Greg Miller -- was purely partisan: "You're trying to screw the Republican nominee." McConnell not only refused to condemn the Russians, Miller writes, he threatened to attack the US intelligence community, labeling its call to defend America an act of partisan politics."
"The Senate. McConnell has broken the Senate. By refusing even to meet with President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, and by blocking hearings on his nomination, McConnell deeply harmed the comity on which the Senate is supposed to run."
"The Supreme Court. Which brings us to the high court. Not content with simply stealing Garland's seat for Trump, McConnell rammed through the nomination of the profoundly unpopular Brett Kavanaugh. The court now has four justices appointed by Presidents who originally came into office after losing the popular vote."
This guy should be voted out of his seat. I really hope it happens. He acts like doesn't know what he's doing, but he does, and I get the feeling he is so totally hyper-partisan that little can be done to him or about him.
‘Nothing short of horrifying:’ Veterans' groups demand fixes at VA nursing homes
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/19/va-nursing-homes-veteran-groups-want-fixes-after-horrifying-reports-trump-administration-congress/2018781002/?fbclid=IwAR0ywXMwydYj1kisCWMh9Peql3pKJAuQ0vffPe7ybXPac-6xa8pg2tf9z5ERegular nursing homes are horrible. I can;t imagine the VA hospitals being any better. At least, in the Nursing home I was in, Veterans got a free meal on Veteran's Day. I can't imagine things being any better, but I can imagine things being lots worse, sadly.
The entire White House press corps should walk out and stop indulging this bully
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/opinions/the-white-house-press-corps-should-walk-out-opinion-intl/index.html?no-st=1541724065&fbclid=IwAR1QSgPAIGagTvUYnisY8QToww-UI4K8WfGo-og4sI3-25p0lGIFGapnUEUActually, I don't agree here. I think reporters should continue to the hold the Administration's feet to the fire. If no one keeps an eye on them, imagine what else they would come out with and get up to in the darkness...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/nation/2018/11/19/anti-vaccination-stronghold-nc-hit-with-states-worst-chickenpox-outbreak-decades/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.c242ceca9465&__twitter_impression=true
Vaccinate your damn kids or go live on a compound somewhere with no other human contact. The rest of society isn't obligated to put the health of their children on the line for this bullshit.
PS : Irish who live on Carib suffer a lot > https://irishamerica.com/2015/10/the-irish-of-barbados-photos/ Colonialism is just a part of "white guilty", honestly if i was black, i rather live on Bermuda(British territory) than on Haiti.
Fraud investigations are vague and unsubstantiated even when they have clear violations as the basis for the investigation as noted by the Department of State and Attorney General and a long history of such actions taking place in the past? Ok.
Nobody is asserting that Kemp committed election fraud. Apples and oranges, to the extreme. Actual fraud vs. perfectly legal policies about voter rolls you don't like, many of which Kemp has nothing to do with since he does not write voter roll laws for the state.
Purging voter rolls is a matter of Federal law according to the National Voter Registration Act. Every state has to do so. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the language of the law has not been followed.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title52/subtitle2/chapter205&edition=prelim
"(a) In general
In the administration of voter registration for elections for Federal office, each State shall...
...(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of—
(A) the death of the registrant; or
(B) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d);"
"(c) Voter removal programs
(1) A State may meet the requirement of subsection (a)(4) by establishing a program under which—
(A) change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service through its licensees is used to identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and
(B) if it appears from information provided by the Postal Service that—
(i) a registrant has moved to a different residence address in the same registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is currently registered, the registrar changes the registration records to show the new address and sends the registrant a notice of the change by forwardable mail and a postage prepaid pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or correct the address information; or
(ii) the registrant has moved to a different residence address not in the same registrar's jurisdiction, the registrar uses the notice procedure described in subsection (d)(2) to confirm the change of address.
(2)(A) A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to preclude—
(i) the removal of names from official lists of voters on a basis described in paragraph (3)(A) or (B) or (4)(A) of subsection (a); or
(ii) correction of registration records pursuant to this chapter."
This is not at all an accurate representation of what anyone was saying, and even if it was, i'm not sure what is gained by blatant attempts to mock people.
But I realize the point of your post was more to spread your own vitriol rather than to deliver any factual content.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/11/brian-kemps-win-in-georgia-tainted-by-voter-suppression-stacey-abrams/
I mean, if Mother Jones says it happened that is definitely a valid replacement for evidence, an investigation, or anything really for some folks, but not to anyone fair minded.
I wouldn't stake my reputation on the claim that Georgia is systemically violating voting policies to deny eligible voters their chance to vote based on the fact that Mother Jones said it happened once with no proof, personally.
Because asking for a news article to provide personal information (especially in this day of age) isn't appropriate. What would be appropriate would to have people take this persons claim at their word, and investigate it thoroughly. That investigation should only be done persons who can be trusted with sensitive, private information, and can actually have access to the voter rolls, purge lists and can compel people to provide reasons for the removal under oath. A journalist can't do any of that.
I said early that I will not take these purge doom and gloom reports seriously until people have come forward and stated, "I was registered to vote, and I am being denied." This article has found people who are willing to say that they were. Time for a proper investigation.
They make the claim that this is systemic and not an isolated incident, that the procedures are not being followed, and don't provide anything else to suggest as such, just total numbers and not the actual context of why they were removed. They don't even begin to prove the case that they want to make.
I have no issues with an investigation, but I will point out that if there was a clear basis for one it would have already begun.
That we should take a person or news organization at their word? Absolutely not. No person or organization is above scrutiny and skepticism. Putting anyone or anything above those things puts them above accountability.
I'll do a youtube video timeline though:
tl;dw The Canadian Senate were being accused of frivolously wasting tax payers money. They were being attacked almost daily by the press of questionable spending habits and little oversight. The Harper government finally relented and opened an investigation into the spending of the senators and found that there was less than $1 million of questionable claims. The instigation itself cost $23.6 million and took 3 years to conclude. Seems like a complete waste of money and time, spending 3 years to find less than a million dollars, however, the one thing it did do, was shut EVERYONE up about the topic and was worth it in that regard. If the investigation didn't happen, Canadians would still be being barraged with these claims of misappropriate spending via the elite, unelected Senate that needs to be abolished.
You may discount the big increases in the numbers of people purged (over 10% of the entire electorate just between 2016 and 2018) and the fact that a greatly disproportionate number of those were black. It's true that we can't know if particular individuals were correctly removed or not, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to find out. This lawsuit challenges removing people from the electoral register on the grounds they hadn't voted for 6 years and says that at least 340,000 people of the 534,000 purged in 2016/17 can be shown to still be living at the same address.
Even if you stick to the line though that numbers prove nothing, do you really believe it's appropriate to support someone responsible for the following?
- a candidate for governor overseeing the voting for his own election
- reporting on the official election web-site that Democrats were being investigated for cyber-crimes in relation to voting (not only untrue, but adding insult to injury after Georgia refused federal funds intended to increase their election security)
- waits of several hours for people to vote in urban areas
- losing multiple court battles over voting procedures in the few weeks leading up to the election
As for saying that if there were proper evidence, an investigation would already have begun - just who is in charge of deciding if an investigation is justified ...
I'm pretty much in agreement with Deltago's statements here, I hope the lawsuit goes forward and we see the records and the matter is easily cleaned up.
People who haven't voted for a long time *and* who don't live at the same address are supposed to be taken off of voter rolls (as opposed to people who simply haven't voted, which is expressly forbidden).
As your article says, the procedure is after a certain number of years of inactivity they get mail to confirm they still live at that address. If they don't return it and don't vote after that, it is assumed they don't live there anymore. So the question is how many are turning them in that aren't being counted, which should be something that can be verified. Living at that address but not voting for a good number of years and not responding to the requests for verification will get you taken off the rolls, even if you still live there, just as a matter of procedure.
I was actually going to mention this in my original comment but it was getting too wordy as it is:
While it's not illegal to be running for election and still be apart of the voter registration process, it clearly has the appearance of a conflict of interest.
It really should be the case that one has to step down from their position by law for a certain period of time prior to running for office.
It is a totally legitimate issue that does give credibility to the case that he could commit fraud. Barring any indication of such, it wouldn't be enough, but it definitely makes a case for opportunity where motive is already apparent.
Also, being the Secretary of State that is overseeing your own election for Governor is not only a "perceived" conflict of interest. It is a textbook example of it.
See exact match.
See less reliable voters
See leaving voting machines in warehouses to make lines longer.
I believe I recently saw a statistic that less than 20 people (or some correspondingly low number) knowingly committed voter fraud in 2016
I am going to get pushback on this saying "if you can't spend $15 on an ID, you don't deserve or care enough to vote". And to that I say maybe you need to have lived from paycheck to paycheck a little longer in your life to see just how quickly a $15 to $30 expense can mess up your finances. If these laws are going to be in place, anything less than free access to the cards and readily available and reasonable access to the locations that produce the IDs is nothing but total disenfranchisement.
Also, this exact-match signature crap is just total nonsense. I haven't signed my signature the same way twice in well over 10 years. Should my vote be invalidated??
Which is to say, I’d be surprised if an actual poll worker who is in charge of matching signatures has even heard of graphology let alone an expert in it.
https://www.georgiapol.com/2018/11/01/exact-match-signature-match-laws/