╌>

Automatic Voter Registration Will Seal Decades Of Democrat Wins

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  9 months ago  •  90 comments

By:   Hayden Ludwig (The Federalist)

Automatic Voter Registration Will Seal Decades Of Democrat Wins
Automatic voter registration is a fast track to permanent Democratic power — so, naturally, activists are working around the clock to pass it.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Automatic voter registration (AVR) may sound obscure, but it's a fast track to permanent Democrat power — so, naturally, activists are working around the clock to pass it in the states and Congress.

Modern elections are usually won by the party that turns out the bigger base. Left-wing strategists believe their victory hinges on astronomically high Democratic turnout. Whether that's true or not matters less than their perception that it worked to oust President Donald Trump in 2020 and saved the left from catastrophe in the 2022 midterms, even when Republicans won the popular vote nationwide by a bigger percentage margin than Hillary Clinton won in 2016.

That's what AVR is all about: bloating voter rolls to juice Democrat votes. It works because the left has spent close to a decade-and-a-half and untold billions of dollars building a get-out-the-vote machine that abuses IRS charity laws to win elections.

Under normal rules, eligible Americans must register to vote on their own initiative, usually at their county registrar or online through the state motor vehicle department. It's a simple, fair thing to ask people to show an interest in voting and then verify their identity before they cast a ballot; that's how our country has run elections for nearly 250 years.

AVR transforms that opt-in system into an opt-out mess by adding virtually everyone with a heartbeat to state voter rolls, instantly and dramatically expanding the pool of registered voters for the left to cynically tap into. Don't want to be added to a publicly accessible list? Too bad — it's on you to take the initiative to unregister, Democrats say.

How many voters are we talking about? 158 million ballots were cast in 2020. Yet Demos, the think tank of the far left and an AVR champion, estimates there are as many as 77 million eligible-but-unregistered individuals nationwide — folks who couldlawfully vote but may notuntil they're registered to vote in their respective states.

Not every one of them would support Democrats if registered, of course, but even winning a fraction would be enough to ensure Democratic presidential wins for a generation or longer.

That's why AVR is supported by the Brennan Center, the origin of the left's most odious election "reforms," and the Center for American Progress, which boasted in 2018 that AVR could add 22 million newly registered voters nationwide in just its first year. Note that Minnesota's recent election law includes AVR alongside "non-English voting materials" and the pre-registration of 16-year-olds to vote.

To hear leftists crow, you'd think the United States never ran a free election in centuries without AVR laws. The LGBT Movement Advancement Project, which dinks red states for their voter ID laws, considers AVR essential to the health of a state's "democracy."

AVR is needed "to save democracy," according to the Daily Beast. Without it, America isn't a "real democracy," lies the extremist Center for Popular Democracy. FairVote, which also wants to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote for president, considers AVR "good for American democracy." Ditto Common Cause, GQ, and Project Vote.

Conservatives have been too shortsighted to pay attention, but leftists have been tapping this goldmine for years. Of the 23 states with AVR laws, only three are consistently run by Republicans: Georgia, West Virginia, and Alaska.

Michigan enacted AVR in 2018 after a lobbying campaign by the ACLU, Sierra Club, United Auto Workers, and socialist group Our Revolution. In my home state of Virginia, where legislators are capped on the number of bills they may introduce in a single session, Democrats made introducing AVR a top priority when they held total power in 2020. It passed on a partisan split.

Incoming congressional Democrats, fresh from retaking the House of Representatives in 2018, demanded Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "expand automatic voter registration across the country" as part of their "upcoming democracy bill."

They got their wish with the 2019 "Voting Rights Advancement Act," then again with the 2021 "For the People Act" and "Automatic Voter Registration Act," and most recently with the 2023 "Freedom to Vote Act."

Recall that running elections and maintaining voter rolls are the duty of the states, not Uncle Sam, yet Democrats would force all 50 states to severely bloat their voter files. America's voter rolls are already in bad shape, despite (mostly red) states' best efforts to clean them up.

Georgia recently announced it removed 432,000 inactive voters from its rolls since 2021. Virginia removed 114,000 inactive voters in 2021; Oklahoma another 90,000 in 2019; Kentucky dropped 127,000 in 2023; Arkansas may remove 300,000 inactive voters this year; Pennsylvania dropped 180,000 in 2023; and Rhode Island removed another 60,000 inactive voters earlier this year. Texas and Mississippi are weighing bills that would allow them to more aggressively cull inactive voters from their rolls.

States are required by law to keep accurate voter files, to the left's chagrin. Ohio, which culled 116,000 inactive voters from its rolls in 2021, knows best how much leftists loathe what they call "voter purges." In 2017, then-attorney general Eric Holder tried to block Ohio from removing inactive voters as one of the last acts of the Obama administration — only to lose the next year in a landmark Supreme Court ruling.

The truth is obvious: Democrats don't want accurate voter rolls; they want swollen voter rolls. Left-wing NPR admits as much.

This is bad election policy, and it isn't cheap. Nevada's AVR policy cost taxpayers $4.8 million to implement, plus more to maintain it.

It's no surprise that the left's big-money donors are in on the action. We've traced hundreds of thousands of dollars since 2017 to implementing AVR in the states from the Tides Foundation, Pierre Omidyar's Democracy Fund, the Joyce Foundation (whose board once included then-Sen. Barack Obama), and the Carnegie Corporation. One six-figure Carnegie grant to the University of Southern California is even tagged for studying "the state-level impact of automatic voter registration … [on] the national Latino electorate."

For Republicans, fighting AVR is a no-brainer. To the detriment of election integrity, Congress and the states have already made registering to vote and casting a ballot extremely easy. What we need are cleaner voter rolls and more secure elections, not a public subsidy for the Democrats' get-out-the-vote machine.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    9 months ago

I think it may already be too late.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    9 months ago

the country just hasn't been the same since they gave the vote to those that weren't white male xtian property owners. /s

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1    9 months ago

When the freed slaves were given the right to vote they chose Republican.

Learn your history.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    9 months ago

When the freed slaves were given the right to vote they chose Republican.

Learn your history.

And today they chose Democrat.  Learn your current affairs.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    9 months ago

LBJ scammed them. Will it last 200 years?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    9 months ago

“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”

― Lyndon B. Johnson

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @1.1.4    9 months ago

Yup, I rest my case. He evidently believed everyone was stupid.
- Vic Eldred

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @1.1.4    9 months ago
If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” ― Lyndon B. Johnson

Yep, Democrats were divisive even back then.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    9 months ago
Yup, I rest my case. He evidently believed everyone was stupid.

Not at all since he believed that whites needed someone to look down on and were stupid enough to allow the charlatons to accomplish that.

LBJ scammed them. Will it last 200 years?

Passing the civil rights act was scamming blacks...LMAO that is as stupid a comment as I've seen on NT in quite some time. 

So for over 50 years blacks and other minorities have not realized that LBJ scammed them? [Deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @1.1.7    9 months ago

Do you recall what welfare did to the black family?

Did you ever read the Moynihan Report?

One could argue that black women ended up married to the federal government and many black families were broken.

Do you still think he cared about blacks?  Or maybe he told the truth when he said he'd have them voting democrat for 200 years.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.8    9 months ago
Do you recall what welfare did to the black family?

Do you recall what welfare did to the white family?

Did you ever read the Moynihan Report?

I did plus numerous other reports, did you? 

One could argue that black women ended up married to the federal government and many black families were broken.

You are starting to sound like Reagan and his ''welfare queen'' BS.

Do you still think he cared about blacks?  Or maybe he told the truth when he said he'd have them voting democrat for 200 years.

I do, but then again his history is one of helping the minorities before he got to the White House. I think that his comment about the lowest white man rings true.

Once again you don't seem to think that blacks have the ability to figure out if they have been scammed after over half a century. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.10  evilone  replied to  Kavika @1.1.9    9 months ago
Once again you don't seem to think that blacks have the ability to figure out if they have been scammed after over half a century. 

I could write a whole book on the ideas behind this one sentence. You know the White Savior trope way better than I do...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Kavika   replied to  evilone @1.1.10    9 months ago
I could write a whole book on the ideas behind this one sentence. You know the White Savior trope way better than I do...

Yup, I sure do and I see it here quite often [deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @1.1.9    9 months ago
I did plus numerous other reports,



"Five Decades After: Black Progress Hurt by Expansion in Government, Welfare

Black Activists Criticize Handout Mentality that Destroyed Traditional Families

Washington, D.C.  – Fifty years ago today, before a joint session of Congress, President Lyndon Baines Johnson announced an “unconditional war on poverty in America.” Today, black activists with the  Project 21 leadership network  are critical of how that war has been waged. They note the expansion of government and a strategy focused on handouts that discourage self-improvement caused more harm than help to the poor.

green_sm-10.jpg

“Five decades after President Johnson initiated the ‘war’ on poverty, America remains at around the same percentage of people still living in poverty as it did back then. In 1964, the poverty rate was approximately 19 percent. Today, it’s around 15 percent,” said Project 21 spokesman  Derryck Green . “Statistics such as these demonstrate the War on Poverty was a continually-mismanaged disaster. That isn’t to say there haven’t been people helped by it. All things considered, however, it’s been a tragedy.”

Green added: “The disastrous effects of the government’s management of anti-poverty initiatives are recognizable across racial lines, but the destruction is particularly evident in the black community. It effectively subsidized the dissolution of the black family by rendering the black man’s role as a husband and a father irrelevant, invisible and — more specifically — disposable. The result has been several generations of blacks born into broken homes and broken communities experiencing social, moral and economic chaos. It fosters an inescapable dependency that primarily, and oftentimes solely, relies on government to sustain livelihoods.”

Federal programs directly resulting from the War on Poverty include Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, food stamps and enhanced Social Security benefits. At the time, President Johnson boasted, “[t]he richest nation on Earth can afford to win it.” In 1988, President Ronald Reagan noted in his 1988 State of the Union Address that “we waged a war on poverty, and poverty won.” President George H.W. Bush, in his own 1992 State of the Union Address, pointed out: “Welfare was never meant to be a lifestyle; it was never meant to be a habit; it was never supposed to be passed on from generation to generation like a legacy.” Bush’s comment echoed a statement by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, long before the War on Poverty even began, warned government assistance could be like a “narcotic.”

lebon_sm-6.jpg Commenting on the potential debilitating effects of public assistance, Project 21 Co-Chairman  Cherylyn Harley LeBon  said: “Although they were conceived with good intentions, the programs of the War on Poverty have ultimately had a negative impact on the lives of black Americans. Even Franklin Roosevelt warned that the welfare state ‘must not become a narcotic and a subtle destroyer of the spirit.'”

LeBon continued: “While some good things did come out of the 1960s, many of these programs — including Head Start — have become ineffective and, some argue, damaging over time. In fact, some of the major disasters plaguing minority communities — including drugs, higher incarceration rates and a rise in unwed mothers — couldn’t have just coincidentally began escalating at the same time. At this point, when we can reflect upon what has happened and what is needed, we should now support and expand policies encouraging small business expansion, improving educational opportunities, and strengthening faith and families.”

hudson_sm.jpg Project 21’s  Jerome Hudson  said: “Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty produced a reality that is horrifyingly different than the one he probably hoped for. Instead of providing a mere safety net for families in need, it effectively replaced the virtues of work and self-reliance with an avalanche of welfare programs nuturing the poor. These welfare programs foster defeatism, disincentivize two-parent homes and set ablaze an American underclass now seemingly trapped in a never-ending cycle of poverty.”

cooper_sm-9.jpg “Fifty years ago, America began the War on Poverty,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman  Horace Cooper . “Having spent trillions with little to show for it, it’s clearly time to declare a cease fire. After destroying generations of blacks and all but destroying the black family in total, it is time to try empowerment and personal responsibility.”

arps_sm-5.jpg “The War on Poverty has arguably destroyed the black nuclear family,” said Project 21’s  Christopher Arps . “Roughly 75 percent of black children were born to a married two-parent family when the ‘war’ began in 1964. By 2008, the percentage of black babies born out of wedlock numbered over 72 percent. Today, the rate of unwed motherhood in the black community is more than twice as high as among whites — and almost three times higher than before big government’s grand intervention. And all this comes at a steep financial cost. The federal government has spent an estimated $15 trillion dollars to end poverty. Government reportedly spent $20,610 on every poor individual and $61,830 per poor family in 2012.”

As the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty is observed, it appears the Obama Administration is effectively doubling down on some of the very concepts of which Project 21 members are critical, including raising the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits and food stamp enrollment as well as fostering class warfare by focusing on alleged income inequality.

butler_sm-3.jpg “President Johnson’s War on Poverty, which was being formulated during the Kennedy Administration, is perhaps the only government institution that destroyed and devastated the black American upward mobility and family structure. As an assistant secretary of labor, Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that the premise and concept of the War on Poverty would be detrimental to black America,” said Project 21’s  Charles Butler . “The infamous split between the races that Moynihan predicted has created a deficit between white and black in key areas such as education, income and net worth. Yet we keep doing the same thing repeatedly hoping for a different result.”


Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research ( ).

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.12    9 months ago

Project 21 is a leading voice for black conservatives...Yes, I've read some of their writing as well, their perspective is from a conservative mind set. There are others that take a more central approach to the black experience as well as writers/articles/studies from other authors/groups that represent minority groups.

The majority of welfare recipients are white, around 40% (depending on the study) or 17.5 million about the same as black population yet your concentration is on the black community that is on welfare. I would think that you would be interested in all people who for whatever reason are on welfare and attempt to address the problem and not simply point fingers, in other words, people of all colors and creeds are on welfare in the US but making it a problem of only the black community seems to have a built-in bias in the application of the thought process.

HHS estimates that 45.3 million people in the US are on welfare and of those 20% are employed. 

There are numerous studies and numbers of recipients out there and available to the public that wishes to investigate them.

I, for one, would rather extend a helping hand than point a finger.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @1.1.13    9 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.14    9 months ago

What a horrible insult, says Mr. Finger Pointer

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.12    9 months ago

According to the US Census Bureau, the poverty rate in the United States has fallen from   22%   in   1959   to   15%   in   1966 1

After the initiation of the war on poverty the poverty rate fell. 

The question of why it hasnt fallen farther on a consistent basis has an easy answer - income inequality. Low paying jobs that are the cannon fodder of the capitalist economic system. 

Without a social safety net the poverty rate today would surely be higher than it is now. 

People should stop bitching about welfare and be happy they live in a country that allows people to make as much money as they can - even if it is at the expense of others. 

The idea that poverty could be ended if only poor people worked harder is utter nonsense. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.16    9 months ago

people make what they earn.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.18  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.16    9 months ago
The question of why it hasnt fallen farther on a consistent basis has an easy answer - income inequality.

It has, I beli  the current rate 11.6.  I think a Brookings Institution identified three important factors for staying above the poverty rate:

  • Graduate HS
  • Delay marriage until after 21 and do not have children till after being married
  • Have a full-time job

I would add a fourth, greatly improve the quality of K - 12 education for an Information Age economy.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.16    9 months ago

Here is what the Bing Chat AI has to say on the subject

Poverty is a complex issue that has been around for a long time. Despite being the richest nation in the world in terms of GDP, 37.9 Americans are currently estimated to live in poverty, according to the U.S.   Census 1 . The United States faces significant challenges in its efforts to eradicate poverty, despite being a prosperous nation.   Economic inequality, limited social safety nets, racial disparities, high living costs, and limited social mobility all contribute to the persistence of poverty within the country 2 .

There are many reasons why poverty cannot be eradicated in America. One reason is that America has become a low-wage nation. In the wake of World War II, America had world markets largely to itself. Well-paid unionized industrial jobs not requiring even a high school diploma built an enlarged middle class that cut across racial lines. The year 1973 was the turning point in the other direction. The good jobs disappeared to other countries and later to technology as well. Unions lost ground too.   New jobs appeared mainly in the service sector and paid far less than those lost 3 .

I hope this helps.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.19    9 months ago

original.newsbreak.com   /@embungsery-1701805/3059549120778-why-the-u-s-can-t-end-poverty

Why The U.S. Can’t End Poverty

embungsery 4-4 minutes   6/15/2023


image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&url=4Kgnox_0mwsa8UO00

Photo bycnbcafrica.

Poverty, a persistent issue plaguing societies around the world, continues to be a significant challenge for the United States. Despite being one of the wealthiest nations globally, the U.S. has struggled to eradicate poverty entirely. This article will explore some of the reasons why the U.S. has been unable to put an end to poverty, drawing on various credible sources.

1. Economic Inequality

Economic inequality is a major obstacle to poverty eradication in the U.S. According to the World Inequality Database, the top 1% of income earners in the country captured more than 20% of the national income in recent years. This concentration of wealth makes it difficult to distribute resources equitably and address poverty effectively.

(Source: World Inequality Database -   www.wid.world )

2. Insufficient Social Safety Nets

Compared to many other developed countries, the U.S. has relatively limited social safety net programs. The absence of comprehensive social welfare systems, such as universal healthcare and robust unemployment benefits, leaves vulnerable populations at a higher risk of falling into poverty or struggling to escape it.

(Source: Center for American Progress -   www.americanprogress.org )

3. Racial Disparities

Racial disparities play a significant role in perpetuating poverty in the U.S. Historically rooted systemic racism has led to unequal access to education, employment opportunities, and wealth accumulation for marginalized communities. Addressing these disparities is crucial for achieving long-term poverty reduction.

(Source: Economic Policy Institute -   www.epi.org )

4. High Cost of Living

The high cost of living in many metropolitan areas across the country exacerbates poverty rates. Housing, healthcare, and education expenses consume a significant portion of individuals' incomes, making it challenging for low-income families to make ends meet. Affordable housing and essential services remain pressing issues that contribute to the persistence of poverty.

(Source: United Way ALICE Project -   www.unitedwayalice.org )

5. Limited Social Mobility

Limited social mobility, or the ability to move up the socioeconomic ladder, hampers poverty eradication efforts. Studies have shown that individuals born into poverty are more likely to remain in poverty throughout their lives, indicating a lack of opportunities for upward mobility. Addressing barriers to mobility, such as disparities in education and access to capital, is crucial for breaking the cycle of poverty.

(Source: Pew Charitable Trusts -   www.pewtrusts.org )

Conclusion:

Despite being a prosperous nation, the United States faces significant challenges in its efforts to eradicate poverty. Economic inequality, limited social safety nets, racial disparities, high living costs, and limited social mobility all contribute to the persistence of poverty within the country. Addressing these systemic issues requires comprehensive policies that promote equitable distribution of resources, equal opportunities, and social welfare programs. By tackling these root causes, the U.S. can take significant steps toward alleviating poverty and creating a more just society for all.

Sumber:

  1. World Inequality Database -   www.wid.world
  2. Center for American Progress -   www.americanprogress.org
  3. Economic Policy Institute -   www.epi.org
  4. United Way ALICE Project -   www.unitedwayalice.org
  5. Pew Charitable Trusts -   www.pewtrusts.org
  6. Why The U.S. Can’t End Poverty   CNBC
 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.21  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.16    9 months ago
Low paying jobs that are the cannon fodder of the capitalist economic system. 

What is worker’s pay like in non-capitalistic economic systems?

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.22  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.19    9 months ago

Haven't you heard? AI is not nearly advanced enough to give any real consideration in deep issues..

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.23  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.20    9 months ago

800

We can see from this chart from the CNBC video that the first 15 years of the war on poverty saw the lowest poverty rate of the past 65 years. Then it started go up around 1980 , corresponding with the exodus of US businesses to overseas or off shore locations and with the beginnings of todays income inequality. 

The truth is the poverty rate would be higher today than it is if we didnt have "welfare". 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.20    9 months ago
Economic Inequality

If Bill Gates had earned less would we have paid janitors more?

Racial Disparities

Exactly, if Appalachians were white, they wouldn’t be so poor.

High Cost of Living

What has made urban living so expensive and what are these Blue communities doing about it?

Limited Social Mobility

Indeed, the high cost of urban living, coupled with poor education and many children in single parent families makes it much harder to climb the ladder 

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.25  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.23    9 months ago
A quarter-century ago, a Democratic president celebrated “the end of welfare as we know it,” challenging the poor to exercise “independence” and espousing balanced budgets and smaller government.

What happened?... 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.26  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.21    9 months ago

I am not a communist. Capitalism produces material wealth and material progress for most people. It needs to be heavily regulated though, and we need as a society to provide a strong social safety net for the many people who cant escape poverty because they dont make enough money. This is not a bug of the capitalist system, it is a feature. The idea that capitalism could lift everyone out of poverty is complete nonsense. Capitalism requires poverty to function as intended ( wage race to the bottom).  Our job as a society is to provide aid to the inevitable number of people who face poverty. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.27  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.24    9 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.28  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.26    9 months ago

I understand why you want to avoid a wage comparison between Capitalism and non-Capitalism systems.

It needs to be heavily regulated though

I think that it needs to balance the cost of regulation with the cost to innovation and growth of especially small businesses.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.27    9 months ago

What did you find stupid, John, about these two fucking questions.  I assume that they are inconvenient to your narrative.  There is nothing trolling in 1.1.24 you just want folks to avoid challenging your conclusions.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.30  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.28    9 months ago

I accept that we will have a substantial poverty rate, it is inevitable. So we need to tax the people with the money (which they acquired through benefiting from capitalism) and use it to provide some measure of aid to those at the bottom. 

The point conservatives ALWAYS miss is that there will always be people at the bottom. Poverty cannot be eliminated no matter how hard the poor work. It is baked into the system. 

Just pay your taxes and stop bitching about how unfair it all is. If you can afford to pay a lot in taxes you have won the game, not lost. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.31  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.27    9 months ago

It’s pretty pathetic, John, that you want to avoid some debate.  You should try to defend your convictions and educate us in the process.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.32  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.29    9 months ago

You never stop, no matter how many of your off topic, often silly, comments get ticketed or deleted.  Sometimes you are obviously doing it to troll. Lucky for you NT allows trolling.  I'd be embarrassed. 

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.33  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.30    9 months ago
Poverty cannot be eliminated no matter how hard the poor work.

No doubt.... that's the true injustice. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.34  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.30    9 months ago
The point conservatives ALWAYS miss is that there will always be people at the bottom.

By the basis of metrics that is an obvious truth regardless of our system.

Just pay your taxes and stop bitching about how unfair it all is.

I pay my taxes and the only bitching that I have done is about the complexity of our taxes and I hold both Parties accountable.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.35  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.32    9 months ago
You never stop, no matter how many of your off topic, often silly, comments get ticketed or deleted

Again, what was silly or trolling in this thread?

I’d be embarrassed.

Judging from you comments and dodging questions, I don’t think that you would.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.30    9 months ago
So we need to tax the people with the money (which they acquired through benefiting from capitalism) and use it to provide some measure of aid to those at the bottom

we already do that now.

we tax the heck out of some folks.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.35    9 months ago

i say, fuck your questions

you have nothing to say other than to ask other people questions?

who do you think you are , socrates ? 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.38  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.14    9 months ago
I doubt that.

Of course you do, not surprising

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.39  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.37    9 months ago

Why do you think that you and other members shouldn't have to answer questions? ( Sorry Drinker)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  GregTx @1.1.39    9 months ago

Don't you get it?

When a liberal asks a question, it is for "clarification" and when a conservative asks, it's "trolling".

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1.41  George  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.40    9 months ago

256

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  George @1.1.41    9 months ago

Exactly!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.43  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.37    9 months ago
I say, fuck your questions

Perhaps one of your clearest comments.  You should endeavor the same with subsequent comments.

you have nothing to say other than to ask other people questions?

I’ve have had much more to say and frequently back it up with sited sources.

who do you think you are , socrates ? 

No, I think you are frequently unable to defend you assertions.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
2  SteevieGee    9 months ago

If more people vote the results will better reflect the views of the American people.  Conservatives aren't the majority in America but they turn out to vote en masse.  I've been registering voters for many years now.  That doesn't necessarily translate into votes but I keep trying.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @2    9 months ago
If more people vote the results will better reflect the views of the American people.

FALSE.

There are people uninterested in politics or voting. They are much too busy with their daily lives. Forcing them to vote at random means that such people could end up deciding elections.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
2.1.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    9 months ago

People who are uninterested in politics or voting likely won't vote.  Nobody is forcing anybody to vote.  However, for some who are interested, AVR removes one small obstacle that may make the difference between them being allowed to vote or not.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.1    9 months ago
AVR removes one small obstacle that may make the difference between them being allowed to vote or not.

Why is registering to vote an obstacle?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.1.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    9 months ago
Why is registering to vote an obstacle?

Maybe dem politicians (and some leftist elites) feel people who would vote dem are too stupid to figure out how to register.

If they are automatically registered then it will be easier for dems to "help" people fill out the  ballets with universal absentee ballets (the next thing on their wish list.

Register and vote from the comfort of your living room.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
2.1.4  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    9 months ago
Why is registering to vote an obstacle?

I called it a "small obstacle".  Many states don't have so called 'motor voter' laws offering voter registration to driver's license applicants and many people don't know where to go to register.  If it were no obstacle at all you wouldn't be so opposed to AVR.

The more people participating in our democracy, the healthier that democracy is.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.4    9 months ago
I called it a "small obstacle". 

Why is that? If one is interested in voting it is fairly easy.


  Many states don't have so called 'motor voter' laws offering voter registration to driver's license applicants and many people don't know where to go to register. 

That wasn't really a good idea either. You see California has that "motor voter" law and the way it works is that you are asked on the form if you are a citizen with the right to vote. It has been alleged that nobody checks to see if the applicant on such a form really is a citizen and thus whoever checks the box becomes a registered voter:

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla has admitted that state officials  "don't know"  how many non-citizens voted in the June primary elections after a blunder at the DMV allowed 1,500 foreign citizens to be registered to vote in the United States.

According to a report by the Associated Press, of the 1,500 people who were improperly registered to vote by the Department of Motor Vehicles this year, officials don't know how many actually voted.

On Tuesday, Neon Nettle  reported  that the California DMV admitted this week to an  "error"  that allowed 1,500 non-citizens to register to vote in U.S. elections during 2018 between April and September.

The bombshell followed years of assurances from the blue state government that the department has safeguards put in place to prevent people from being improperly registered to vote.

California Elections Official: We Don't Know How Many Non-Citizens Voted in June | Neon Nettle



 If it were no obstacle at all you wouldn't be so opposed to AVR.

I am opposed to anything that invites chaos or fraud. Democrats seem to like both.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
2.1.6  SteevieGee  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.3    9 months ago
Maybe dem politicians (and some leftist elites) feel people who would vote dem are too stupid to figure out how to register. If they are automatically registered then it will be easier for dems to "help" people fill out the  ballets with universal absentee ballets (the next thing on their wish list.

They may or may not be the smartest people in the world but they probably know the difference between a vote and a dance [deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.7  devangelical  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.6    9 months ago

LOL

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.1.8  Right Down the Center  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.6    9 months ago
They may or may not be the smartest people in the world

That is being very generous

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
2.1.9  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    9 months ago
I am opposed to anything that invites chaos or fraud. Democrats seem to like both.

When I register voters I ask for ID.  I'm not required to but I often fill it out for them using the data on their driver's license if they're registering as a Democrat.  Having a driver's license in CA isn't proof of citizenship.  Any false information submitted on a voter registration form is perjury and carries up to a 5 year sentence.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.9    9 months ago
but I often fill it out for them using the data on their driver's license if they're registering as a Democrat. 

That says it all.

I've offered to work the polls here in MA. I never get a call. Maybe I should change my party affiliation to democrat. I've been seriously thinking about it.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
2.1.11  SteevieGee  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.8    9 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
2.1.12  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    9 months ago
I've offered to work the polls here in MA. I never get a call. Maybe I should change my party affiliation to democrat. I've been seriously thinking about it.

I'm not talking about working the polls (although I've done that too)  I set up my little table somewhere where there are lots of people and register voters.  I most recently  worked outside of a citizenship ceremony for new citizens and registered about 20 voters.  2 of them chose to register Republican, the rest were Dems and DTS.  I also sometimes go to the farmers' market and I did it at some BLM protests.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.13  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    9 months ago
I am opposed to anything that invites chaos or fraud.

oh, the irony...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.4    9 months ago
Many states don't have so called 'motor voter' laws offering voter registration to driver's license applicants and many people don't know where to go to register.  If it were no obstacle at all you wouldn't be so opposed to AVR.

Ever hear of NVRA?

If I knew states were violating federal law, I would let the Biden JD know!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.1.13    9 months ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3  Nerm_L    9 months ago

Why do we continue to listen to these phony libertarian neoliberal faux conservatives?  AVR won't give Democrats any edge (unless they use affiliation to deny participation in primaries). 

Donald Trump received more votes than any other Republican candidate in history by pulling traditional non-voters into the mix.  The article is pushing a conventional wisdom that encourages complacent acceptance of the establishment status quo.  Republic voters have demonstrated that they're fed up with Republican deadwood.  Haven't voters sent a clear and unmistakable message that It's time to take the country back from neoliberal Republicans and Democrats?  Haven't voters sent a message that the politics of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton won't hold the center any longer?

Right now there are two leading candidates for the 2024 election: Trump and Biden.  The mood of voters suggest they don't want either one.  People don't want Trump simply because he is an asshole buffoon.  People don't want Biden because he is wrecking the economy and dividing the country on social issues.  That's a stark difference that doesn't suggest AVR will give Democrats an advantage.

The only so-called advantage for Democrats would be forcing voters to choose affiliation at registration time.  That imposed choice of affiliation disenfranchises voters during the primaries.  Republicans can eliminate that tiny advantage by requiring that all voters be allowed to vote in all primaries.  That means a voter can vote in both the Democrat and Republican primary.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
3.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Nerm_L @3    9 months ago
The only so-called advantage for Democrats would be forcing voters to choose affiliation at registration time.

In CA you are not required to choose affiliation.  You can choose "decline to state".  However, in the primary elections you won't see anybody on your ballot for federal offices.  We have open primaries for state offices though.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.1.1  Thomas  replied to  SteevieGee @3.1    9 months ago
You can choose "decline to state". However, in the primary elections you won't see anybody on your ballot for federal offices. We have open primaries for state offices though.

IMO, That is an example of partisan interference in elections. It is usually much to late by primary time to drastically change the make up of the field.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.2  Nerm_L  replied to  SteevieGee @3.1    9 months ago
In CA you are not required to choose affiliation.  You can choose "decline to state".  However, in the primary elections you won't see anybody on your ballot for federal offices.  We have open primaries for state offices though.

So, choosing to be unaffiliated disenfranchises the voter.  The only way to see candidates for Federal office on a primary ballot is to declare an affiliation.  Sounds like a poll tax to be allowed to vote for Federal candidates.

If primaries are strictly party business (which allows the party to dictate who can vote) then why are state governments even involved.  Political parties are private enterprises; they're not part of government.  The primaries as they are currently conducted are certainly not democratic elections.  

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
3.1.3  SteevieGee  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.2    9 months ago
If primaries are strictly party business (which allows the party to dictate who can vote) then why are state governments even involved.  Political parties are private enterprises; they're not part of government.  The primaries as they are currently conducted are certainly not democratic elections.  

The primaries are how the parties choose their candidates.  Each party is only allowed one candidate in the general election.  The elections are run by the states. It's what you pay taxes for.   Exactly what do you have a problem with?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  SteevieGee @3.1.3    9 months ago

He doesn't know.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @3    9 months ago

Good analysis but it assumes voters will vote intellectually and not simply with a partisan bias.   I’m all for one person one vote.    Where I depart is the lack of intellect many vote with.    Simply voting for the person who promises the most free shit dooms our country to the inevitable welfare state that will follow.

I agree with Vic.    Not sure how you fix this since that horse left the barn long ago.    If it was ever in the barn in the first place.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @3.2    9 months ago
I agree with Vic.    Not sure how you fix this since that horse left the barn long ago.    If it was ever in the barn in the first place.

We're certainly not going to fix this by allowing the two political parties to obtain even more power over elections.  If a political party is allowed to dictate who can vote in a state sponsored election then that election has been rigged.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @3    9 months ago

just what the fuck is a 'phony libertarian neoliberal faux conservative(s)????

you just make the shit up as you go along

it's cuckoo for cocoa puffs

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4  bbl-1    9 months ago

What ever Vic.  If you're 18, a citizen of the US, without court ordered restriction, you are eligible to vote whether you live in a $15.6 million dollar mansion or live in a tent or homeless shelter.  For that day--election day--the mansion man and the tent person are equal.

What are you afraid of, Vic?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5  JBB    9 months ago

It never occurs to the gop that they must actually appeal to voters and get votes to win elections... 

Registration is a start. Online voting is our goal!

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
5.1  bbl-1  replied to  JBB @5    9 months ago

Gee, forced birth and Nazi marches aren't getting the traction the GOP needs?  Damn.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
5.1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1    9 months ago

Exactly, unfortunately America in 2023 isn’t like Germany 90 years ago.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.2  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.1    9 months ago

What party from the past was like MAGA?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
5.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    9 months ago

What does that question have to do with Germany in the 30’s?

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.4  GregTx  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    9 months ago

Bless your heart ❤️..... I'm going to go with Roosevelt republicans...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.5  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.3    9 months ago

Quite a bit actually...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
5.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @5.1.5    9 months ago

Please explain.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
5.1.7  bbl-1  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.3    9 months ago

You're the one that brought 1930's Germany.

I am referring to daily occurrences on American streets.  Or-------------you doing the sleep rock thing?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
5.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.7    9 months ago

Sleep rock thing?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    9 months ago

Germany in the 1930s

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.2  George  replied to  JBB @5    9 months ago
Online voting is our goal!

Is that because democrats are to lazy to actually go to the polls?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  George @5.2    9 months ago

I imagine that and it would be easier to modify the system.  

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.2.2  George  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.1    9 months ago

Let’s be honest, the ultimate goal is to have pre-filled out ballots. Like they use for vote harvesting.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
5.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @5    9 months ago
Registration is a start. Online voting is our goal!

Insufficient, telepathy should be your goal.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6  Sparty On    9 months ago

I once asked one of our union employees who they thinking of voting for for president.    I knew the answer but was curious what he would say.    

His response …. Whoever the union tells him to vote for.

Typical “cerebral” Democrat voter ….

 
 

Who is online




51 visitors