Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > Politics Board

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old 03-16-2019, 07:24 PM   #26
Dumpington
Really Experienced
 
Dumpington is offline
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 279
YDB95 writes: "First of all, Reagan was as racist as he was dumb, so you might want to find another poster boy for your cause on this one."

Liberals might want to think that. After all, Reagan kicked their asses with back-to-back landslide election wins, making childish name-calling certainly understandable. In 1980, Reagan defeated incumbent President Jimmy Carter in a lopsided 489-49 electoral college blow-out, and then four year's later he smashed Carter's Vice President (Walter Mondale) with a 49-state lopsided drubbing, winning the electoral vote by an all-time record 525-to-13 margin!

"Secondly, there is literally no evidence whatsoever that photo-ID laws are necessary"

That's EXACTLY what people cheating at election time would want to say. And then they'd claim that it's somehow RACIST to expect minority voters to own photo-ID's. How can ANYBODY claim that minority voters can't get photo-ID's, when those same minority voters need photo-ID's to fly on a plane or purchase a case of beer?

No, they can easily get photo-ID's, but the Democratic Party BENEFITS when people cheat at the polls, which is why liberals do NOT want voter-photo-ID laws passed - EVER! Also, illegal immigrants would have a tougher time voting in states requiring a photo-ID, and Democrat candidates NEED illegal votes to win!

Every corrupt, fraudulent precinct in the United States is run by Democrats! In south Texas, where Lyndon Johnson stole his 1948 Democratic Party U.S. Senate run-off, it was corrupt Democrat counties that added thousands of votes to his total. In Cook County, Illinois (another Democratic Party stronghold), Chicago's mayor Daley used to splash water on ballot boxes so that he could report that "the ballots need to dry before they can be counted," so that he'd know exactly how many votes would be needed to achieve victory after the downstate tallies were reported. And then there's the infamous "butterfly" ballots in Palm Beach County, Florida (yes, it's another corrupt Democratic Party stronghold!)
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2019, 08:15 PM   #27
YDB95
Literotica Guru
 
YDB95's Avatar
 
YDB95 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hill Valley, CA
Posts: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
YDB95 writes: "First of all, Reagan was as racist as he was dumb, so you might want to find another poster boy for your cause on this one."

Liberals might want to think that. After all, Reagan kicked their asses with back-to-back landslide election wins, making childish name-calling certainly understandable. In 1980, Reagan defeated incumbent President Jimmy Carter in a lopsided 489-49 electoral college blow-out, and then four year's later he smashed Carter's Vice President (Walter Mondale) with a 49-state lopsided drubbing, winning the electoral vote by an all-time record 525-to-13 margin!
Which only goes to show racism still sold very, very well less than a generation after the Civil Rights Act. Nothing you say here contradicts my point in any way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
"Secondly, there is literally no evidence whatsoever that photo-ID laws are necessary"

That's EXACTLY what people cheating at election time would want to say. And then they'd claim that it's somehow RACIST to expect minority voters to own photo-ID's. How can ANYBODY claim that minority voters can't get photo-ID's, when those same minority voters need photo-ID's to fly on a plane or purchase a case of beer?
Because they don't need photo IDs to purchase beer unless they look under 21. Did you miss the part where I said "elderly"? They also skew poor, which means they don't often fly anywhere.

And it absolutely IS racist if the "solution" you prescribe affects minority voters disproportionately, which this does. Not to mention it's a "solution" to a problem that doesn't even exist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
Also, illegal immigrants would have a tougher time voting in states requiring a photo-ID, and Democrat candidates NEED illegal votes to win!
Nope, not racist at all here, nosiree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
Every corrupt, fraudulent precinct in the United States is run by Democrats! In south Texas, where Lyndon Johnson stole his 1948 Democratic Party U.S. Senate run-off, it was corrupt Democrat counties that added thousands of votes to his total. In Cook County, Illinois (another Democratic Party stronghold), Chicago's mayor Daley used to splash water on ballot boxes so that he could report that "the ballots need to dry before they can be counted," so that he'd know exactly how many votes would be needed to achieve victory after the downstate tallies were reported. And then there's the infamous "butterfly" ballots in Palm Beach County, Florida (yes, it's another corrupt Democratic Party stronghold!)
First of all, the adjective is "Democratic", not "Democrat". Then again, you sometimes do use "Democratic," so you can't even keep your slurs straight. Might want to brush up on your editing there.

You will get no argument from me that LBJ stole the 1948 election, but in that era all counties in Texas were Democratic, and the evidence shows it was his own campaign doing the cheating, not the party apparatus (it was, after all, against another member of the party). In Illinois in 1960, there was also cheating on the Republican side in downstate, so no one really knows who got more votes there. (But contrary to what Rush told you, Kennedy would still have won by a few electoral votes without IL.)

Palm Beach? You really want to argue that it was Democratic trickery that caused thousands of Holocaust survivors to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan?! Wow. Just, wow.

I could give you a laundry list of Republican dirty tricks, everything from framing Gary Hart with Donna Rice to Reagan's campaign stealing Carter's debate-prep book (that just might have a little something to do with why Reagan won, you know) to the almost routine occurrence of flyers appearing in black neighborhoods implying that you can go to jail just for showing up at the wrong polling place...but really, all I need here is one word: Russia.
__________________
The Elizabeth Chronicles available at Amazon now!


Latest stories: D-Cup Blues (Valentine's Day Contest)
The Night Before Graduation (750 word contest)

My favorites:
Beware the Quiet One (First Time)
Grand Island (Romance)
The Blizzard (First Time)
Chemistry of Love (Romance)

AH Profile Page
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019, 12:10 AM   #28
KeithD
Literotica Guru
 
KeithD's Avatar
 
KeithD is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Key West
Posts: 5,485
Here's a wrinkle on the Electoral College. Colorado has just voted that its electoral votes in a presidential election will go to whoever wins the national popular vote. Eleven other states have already passed this.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019, 01:31 PM   #29
Dumpington
Really Experienced
 
Dumpington is offline
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 279
YDB95 writes: "Which only goes to show racism still sold very, very well less than a generation after the Civil Rights Act. Nothing you say here contradicts my point in any way."

You CHEAPEN the word "racism" when you haphazardly apply it to everyone with whom you disagree with politically!

Back in 2010, President Obama delivered the eulogy at the funeral of a former high-ranking officer in the Ku Kux Klan. Was THIS a racist act? Do you seriously believe that Barack Obama was practicing racism when he spoke at the funeral of a former KKK "Exalted Cyclops?" This particular Exalted Cyclops had cast the deciding vote in the U.S. Senate one year earlier to pass the 2009 Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), so perhaps those extenuating circumstances made it less racist?

"Because they don't need photo IDs to purchase beer unless they look under 21."

I look over 21 - WAY over twenty-one - and yet I still get asked to show my drivers' license on occasion when purchasing alcohol! And do you know what I do? I SHOW THEM MY LICENSE! For somebody to claim that I'm too stupid to acquire a photo-ID is the absolute heighth of absurdity! And yet, that's what the Democratic Party does on a regular basis in the hopes of allowing non-citizens to continue casting ballots for their candidates!

" I could give you a laundry list of Republican dirty tricks, everything from framing Gary Hart with Donna Rice..."

Seriously? That was the MONDALE campaign going after Gary Hart, and Walter Mondale was a former DEMOCRAT vice president - or, as YOU might call him, a "DEMOCRATIC!" Every single crooked, corrupt county & precinct in the United States right now is a noted Democratic Party stronghold! I could also add that every high-crime precinct in the U.S. votes heavily Democrat, as well!

KeithD points out: "Here's a wrinkle on the Electoral College. Colorado has just voted that its electoral votes in a presidential election will go to whoever wins the national popular vote. Eleven other states have already passed this."

This is true, Keith - and all eleven of those states (plus Colorado) voted for Hillary in 2016!

The Democratic Party KNOWS full well that it will never have the power to rid itself of the Electoral College, and so getting states to give their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner is their way of hopefully getting around it. The problem is that Republican states are refusing to play along.

In November of 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote against George W. Bush, but Bush won the Electoral Vote and became president. Let's pretend that Colorado (and these other eleven states) had passed their legislation then. Four years later (2004), Bush ran for re-election, and added 11,577,160 votes over what he'd won in November of 2000, and he defeated John Kerry by over three-million votes nationwide, winning the electoral vote, 286-251. But, if you suddenly give Bush California, Washington, New Jersey, New York, & Massachusetts, suddenly he's got an electoral college landslide of 410-127, despite those five-states all supporting John Kerry! What's the point of this exercise? To make John Kerry look like a bigger loser than he actually was?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019, 08:00 PM   #30
YDB95
Literotica Guru
 
YDB95's Avatar
 
YDB95 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hill Valley, CA
Posts: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
YDB95 writes: "Which only goes to show racism still sold very, very well less than a generation after the Civil Rights Act. Nothing you say here contradicts my point in any way."

You CHEAPEN the word "racism" when you haphazardly apply it to everyone with whom you disagree with politically!
I don't apply it to everyone with whom I disagree politically. I do apply it to Ronald Reagan, who made the term "welfare queen" famous and who kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi - a town famous for one thing and one thing only: the murder of three civil rights activists in 1964 - and also threw in "I believe in states' rights" (the ultimate racist dogwhistle) to that speech. Not to mention that he opposed sanctions against South Africa, supported "colorblind" social programs that devastated already-hurting inner cities...I could go on but you get the idea.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
Back in 2010, President Obama delivered the eulogy at the funeral of a former high-ranking officer in the Ku Kux Klan. Was THIS a racist act? Do you seriously believe that Barack Obama was practicing racism when he spoke at the funeral of a former KKK "Exalted Cyclops?" This particular Exalted Cyclops had cast the deciding vote in the U.S. Senate one year earlier to pass the 2009 Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), so perhaps those extenuating circumstances made it less racist?
Since Sen. Byrd had literally spent the previous half-century apologizing for his racist past, and had also become a dependable vote FOR civil rights in the Senate, no, I don't think it was a racist act. There's that pesky context again!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
I look over 21 - WAY over twenty-one - and yet I still get asked to show my drivers' license on occasion when purchasing alcohol! And do you know what I do? I SHOW THEM MY LICENSE! For somebody to claim that I'm too stupid to acquire a photo-ID is the absolute heighth of absurdity! And yet, that's what the Democratic Party does on a regular basis in the hopes of allowing non-citizens to continue casting ballots for their candidates!
And if you didn't have your license with you? You probably just wouldn't get the beer. Not exactly the end of the world. Disenfranchisement is a bit more serious than that. I suppose you consider it sheer coincidence that some of the states that are pushing these laws have also closed the DMV offices in predominantly black counties, thus making it even harder for those who don't already have a license to get one?

Voting is a bit more serious than buying beer, my friend.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
" I could give you a laundry list of Republican dirty tricks, everything from framing Gary Hart with Donna Rice..."

Seriously? That was the MONDALE campaign going after Gary Hart, and Walter Mondale was a former DEMOCRAT vice president - or, as YOU might call him, a "DEMOCRATIC!"
Bwahahahaha...I corrected your use of "Democrat" as an adjective and you respond by using "Democratic" as a noun - congratulations, you're the first person EVER to think of that one! Will you be here all week? Should I try the veal?

And no, it was Lee Atwater, the notorious Republican mudslinger, who engineered the entire thing with Donna Rice. It was in the news recently. Also, that happened in 1988, when Walter Mondale wasn't running for anything.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
Every single crooked, corrupt county & precinct in the United States right now is a noted Democratic Party stronghold!
That's twice you've said that, without backing it up with anything but attitude.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
I could also add that every high-crime precinct in the U.S. votes heavily Democrat, as well!
First of all, that's not true. Parts of the rural South that are 80% Republican have crime rates to rival Detroit or St. Louis - you're just not talking about as many people, but the percentages are there. But even if you were right, it makes perfect sense that the parts of the country that are in most dire need of assistance are going to vote for the party that believes in providing a helping hand and a safety net. What's wrong with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post

KeithD points out: "Here's a wrinkle on the Electoral College. Colorado has just voted that its electoral votes in a presidential election will go to whoever wins the national popular vote. Eleven other states have already passed this."

This is true, Keith - and all eleven of those states (plus Colorado) voted for Hillary in 2016!

The Democratic Party KNOWS full well that it will never have the power to rid itself of the Electoral College, and so getting states to give their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner is their way of hopefully getting around it. The problem is that Republican states are refusing to play along.

In November of 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote against George W. Bush, but Bush won the Electoral Vote and became president. Let's pretend that Colorado (and these other eleven states) had passed their legislation then. Four years later (2004), Bush ran for re-election, and added 11,577,160 votes over what he'd won in November of 2000, and he defeated John Kerry by over three-million votes nationwide, winning the electoral vote, 286-251. But, if you suddenly give Bush California, Washington, New Jersey, New York, & Massachusetts, suddenly he's got an electoral college landslide of 410-127, despite those five-states all supporting John Kerry! What's the point of this exercise? To make John Kerry look like a bigger loser than he actually was?
Here's what you're missing, Dumpington: that law only kicks in when states representing a majority of the electoral college have ratified it. In other words, if those particular states had passed the law between 2000 and 2004, the five states you mentioned would still have voted for Kerry because the law wouldn't apply.

Not to mention that if the law were effective in 2000, Bush would have lost even if he'd stolen Florida.
__________________
The Elizabeth Chronicles available at Amazon now!


Latest stories: D-Cup Blues (Valentine's Day Contest)
The Night Before Graduation (750 word contest)

My favorites:
Beware the Quiet One (First Time)
Grand Island (Romance)
The Blizzard (First Time)
Chemistry of Love (Romance)

AH Profile Page
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019, 12:10 AM   #31
FEELINGLUCKYPUNK
Loves Spam
 
FEELINGLUCKYPUNK is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: on your IGGY list
Posts: 668
We got a Federalist system where Washington is sovereign and all 50 states are sovereign. Bacl in 1787 the Founders couldn't agree about who could vote. So they decided to let each state decide who their voters are but voters don't pick the winners, electors pick the winners. In 1070 19 year olds voted in Georgia, in Florida you hadda be 21., some states wanna let 16 year olds vote.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019, 02:44 AM   #32
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 43,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by FEELINGLUCKYPUNK View Post
We got a Federalist system where Washington is sovereign and all 50 states are sovereign. Bacl in 1787 the Founders couldn't agree about who could vote. So they decided to let each state decide who their voters are but voters don't pick the winners, electors pick the winners. In 1070 19 year olds voted in Georgia, in Florida you hadda be 21., some states wanna let 16 year olds vote.
You're talking to a bunch of flaming socialist who fucking hate everything about the USA including its founding and structure.

Especially KeithD....arguably the most anti-American, USA hating, authoritarian communist stain on literotica since the departure of KO.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019, 03:48 AM   #33
FEELINGLUCKYPUNK
Loves Spam
 
FEELINGLUCKYPUNK is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: on your IGGY list
Posts: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBoy View Post
You're talking to a bunch of flaming socialist who fucking hate everything about the USA including its founding and structure.

Especially KeithD....arguably the most anti-American, USA hating, authoritarian communist stain on literotica since the departure of KO.
And they'll never get rid of the electoral college cuz they got no PLAN B
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2019, 12:54 PM   #34
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 43,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by FEELINGLUCKYPUNK View Post
And they'll never get rid of the electoral college cuz they got no PLAN B
They'll never get rid of the EC because you can't run an article 5 convention with just 9 states
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-19-2019, 06:00 PM   #35
Dumpington
Really Experienced
 
Dumpington is offline
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 279
YDB95 writes: "I don't apply it to everyone with whom I disagree politically. I do apply it to Ronald Reagan..."

The virulently racist state of Massachusetts voted for Ronald Reagan... TWICE! Other right-wing racist states that went for Reagan in both 1980 & again in 1984: Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey (and thirty-five OTHER racist states!)

"Since Sen. Byrd had literally spent the previous half-century apologizing for his racist past..."

So David Duke can STILL count on receiving your vote, assuming he begins his apology-tour sometime soon?

"Voting is a bit more serious than buying beer, my friend."

EXACTLY RIGHT! Voting is so much more important than buying beer! So WHY are modern Democrats fine with people showing up at the polls without bringing proper identification? They need to suck-it-up and support voter-ID laws to keep our elections honest!

" Parts of the rural South that are 80% Republican have crime rates to rival Detroit or St. Louis"

Those few parts of the rural south with high crime rates are ALL Democratic Party strongholds! And those parts of St. Louis & Detroit with lower crime rates include the more Republican-leaning precincts. If the criminals run the show, the Democrats dominate the neighborhood!

BotanyBoy writes: "They'll never get rid of the EC because you can't run an article 5 convention with just 9 states"

And the Democrats know it. It's why they hate the Electoral College, the First & Second Amendments, and the entire U.S. Constitution! Many of today's Democrats would rather our nation looked more like Venezuela or Cuba.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2019, 12:53 AM   #36
YDB95
Literotica Guru
 
YDB95's Avatar
 
YDB95 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hill Valley, CA
Posts: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
YDB95 writes: "I don't apply it to everyone with whom I disagree politically. I do apply it to Ronald Reagan..."

The virulently racist state of Massachusetts voted for Ronald Reagan... TWICE! Other right-wing racist states that went for Reagan in both 1980 & again in 1984: Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey (and thirty-five OTHER racist states!)
I repeat, that only goes to show how well dogwhistle racism was selling in the 1980s. Not exactly a secret. Since you've singled out Massachusetts, it's worth remembering there was tremendous racial tension in Boston in that era, mostly over busing. And while all the other states you mentioned are reliably blue today - 35 years later - in 1984 they were all Republican-leaning. From 1968 through 1988 - six elections in a row - they all voted Republican every time except for Connecticut in 1968. In no way does anything you've said up there prove - or even suggest - that Reagan wasn't a racist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
"Since Sen. Byrd had literally spent the previous half-century apologizing for his racist past..."

So David Duke can STILL count on receiving your vote, assuming he begins his apology-tour sometime soon?
Since he has spent his career continuing to perpetuate his racist past rather than atoning for it, no. Besides, what makes you think an apology tour is on the way?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post


"Voting is a bit more serious than buying beer, my friend."

EXACTLY RIGHT! Voting is so much more important than buying beer! So WHY are modern Democrats fine with people showing up at the polls without bringing proper identification?
Okay, this is crucial. You say "fine with people showing up at the polls without bringing proper identification" as if that's a dangerous new idea, but here's the thing: That is how it has always been done, and there is no evidence of anyone abusing that in more than tiny numbers. The highest figure I could find for confirmed cases of fraudulent voting was 31 cases since 2000. That, I believe, is out of over a billion votes that have been cast in all the elections since then. Now, if you have evidence that there are more cases out there that just aren't being caught, that deserves attention.

But there is no such evidence. What there IS evidence of is that the real goal is to curtail voting among minority groups. See here for one such example, noting that the intent was to target African-American voters with "almost surgical precision".
__________________
The Elizabeth Chronicles available at Amazon now!


Latest stories: D-Cup Blues (Valentine's Day Contest)
The Night Before Graduation (750 word contest)

My favorites:
Beware the Quiet One (First Time)
Grand Island (Romance)
The Blizzard (First Time)
Chemistry of Love (Romance)

AH Profile Page
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2019, 01:43 AM   #37
KeithD
Literotica Guru
 
KeithD's Avatar
 
KeithD is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Key West
Posts: 5,485
Just to confuse the Trumpettes, I'll note that I'm in favor of requiring photo ID of all voters at the polls. I've been a voting precinct chief and know how helpful that is and how easily it is to claim you're the voter without having that proof. What I would do is make registrars ensure that everyone registered had a photo ID--get them one if they can't manage that themselves. Design voter cards so they have a photo ID and provide them at the registrar's office.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2019, 01:59 AM   #38
sharingfantasies
Ratiocinator
 
sharingfantasies's Avatar
 
sharingfantasies is offline
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: No longer with 14 million other people. In a cabin in the pines.
Posts: 18,995
When I voted at the polls in California, I always had to have picture ID, plus we had to verify our address with the ID and then sign our names so that, if necessary, the signature could be checked with the original application to register to vote. When I moved to Arizona, I did the mail-in ballot. One of the reasons that it takes so long to count ballots in Arizona is that they compare the signature on the mail-in ballot with the original registration form. The big problem I see is that an address is required for a registration card. Not everyone has an address recognized by the post office.
__________________
Take care

Turns out I was an invigilator in the past.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2019, 02:11 AM   #39
tmock
Really Experienced
 
tmock is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
YDB95 writes: "I don't apply it to everyone with whom I disagree politically. I do apply it to Ronald Reagan..."

The virulently racist state of Massachusetts voted for Ronald Reagan... TWICE! Other right-wing racist states that went for Reagan in both 1980 & again in 1984: Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey (and thirty-five OTHER racist states!)

"Since Sen. Byrd had literally spent the previous half-century apologizing for his racist past..."

So David Duke can STILL count on receiving your vote, assuming he begins his apology-tour sometime soon?

"Voting is a bit more serious than buying beer, my friend."

EXACTLY RIGHT! Voting is so much more important than buying beer! So WHY are modern Democrats fine with people showing up at the polls without bringing proper identification? They need to suck-it-up and support voter-ID laws to keep our elections honest!

" Parts of the rural South that are 80% Republican have crime rates to rival Detroit or St. Louis"

Those few parts of the rural south with high crime rates are ALL Democratic Party strongholds! And those parts of St. Louis & Detroit with lower crime rates include the more Republican-leaning precincts. If the criminals run the show, the Democrats dominate the neighborhood!

BotanyBoy writes: "They'll never get rid of the EC because you can't run an article 5 convention with just 9 states"

And the Democrats know it. It's why they hate the Electoral College, the First & Second Amendments, and the entire U.S. Constitution! Many of today's Democrats would rather our nation looked more like Venezuela or Cuba.
Voting is a right, not a law. And it is not really serious except maybe on the local level. Voter I D should have started years ago. Minorities complain about not being able to go get a I D. If that were so, how do they get to the polls to vote?! THEY COMPLAIN BECAUSE WITH I D, THEY CAN VOTE ONLY ONCE, THE DUMMIES.
IN NATIONAL VOTING, RESULTS HAVE BEEN DECIDED LONG BEFORE THE WEST COAST HAS FINISHED VOTING! WHY BOTHER? ITS A JOKE!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2019, 02:22 AM   #40
KeithD
Literotica Guru
 
KeithD's Avatar
 
KeithD is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Key West
Posts: 5,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmock View Post
THEY COMPLAIN BECAUSE WITH I D, THEY CAN VOTE ONLY ONCE, THE DUMMIES.
Bullshit. I worked the polls for several years, and obviously never heard this stupid complaint being made. The only intentional double voting attempts I encountered were by people who managed to get--or remain--registered in more than one district. And from the context of your post, I don't think you want to hear what sorts of people I encountered trying to get away with that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2019, 08:36 AM   #41
Dumpington
Really Experienced
 
Dumpington is offline
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 279
YDB95 writes: "Since you've singled out Massachusetts, it's worth remembering there was tremendous racial tension in Boston in that era, mostly over busing."

Okay, I believe we're in agreement here that Massachusetts is a hotbed of racism! I think we can ALSO agree that John F. Kennedy only won the presidency in 1960 by sweeping the segregationist states of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, & Arkansas (along with winning five of Alabama's 11 electoral votes), altogether worth a combined 81 electoral votes!

"And while all the other states you mentioned are reliably blue today - 35 years later - in 1984 they were all Republican-leaning."

I also find it interesting that the racist Ku Kux Klan was ONLY politically powerful in the American south back in those days when the Democratic Party thoroughly dominated that region of our nation. In 1980 & '84, after Ronald Reagan swept the south for the Republicans, the KKK ceased to exist as a credible political force in that entire region, and is all-but-extinct there today. In 2010, President Obama delivered the eulogy at the funeral of the last KKK officer to hold a U.S. Senate seat!

"The highest figure I could find for confirmed cases of fraudulent voting was 31 cases since 2000."

Okay, so Hillary Clinton gets 64,855 FEWER popular votes in 2016 than Barack Obama received in 2012 - but in the state of California she receives 899,507 MORE popular votes than Barack '12? If California wasn't allowing illegals to vote, what would have been the actual total there?

KeithD writes: "I'm in favor of requiring photo ID of all voters at the polls."

Good for you, Keith! So what if Hillary receives 900-thousand fewer votes in the Golden State in 2016? At least it would be an HONEST total!

tmock writes: "Voter I D should have started years ago. Minorities complain about not being able to go get a I D. If that were so, how do they get to the polls to vote?!

Exactly right, tmock! The Democratic Party opposes voter photo-ID laws for the simple reason that it will cost them the votes of people who shouldn't be casting ballots in the first place! Democrat candidates have long benefitted from non-citizens voting, along with people voting repeatedly at different polling stations (where they're not required to show an ID!) To make the claim that minorities are too stupid to acquire a valid photo-ID is what former President Ronald Reagan once called: "the soft bigotry of low expectations!" But that is what your modern Democratic Party continues clinging to!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2019, 10:24 PM   #42
YDB95
Literotica Guru
 
YDB95's Avatar
 
YDB95 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hill Valley, CA
Posts: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
YDB95 writes: "Since you've singled out Massachusetts, it's worth remembering there was tremendous racial tension in Boston in that era, mostly over busing."

Okay, I believe we're in agreement here that Massachusetts is a hotbed of racism!
There's racism in all fifty states, Dumpington, and in every country on earth for that matter. There was in 1980, there is now. In no way was I singling out Massachusetts in particular - after all, you were the one who brought it up in the first place. Of course, if you consider Massachusetts a "hotbed of racism", I would certainly agree that explains why it voted twice for Reagan.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
I think we can ALSO agree that John F. Kennedy only won the presidency in 1960 by sweeping the segregationist states of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, & Arkansas (along with winning five of Alabama's 11 electoral votes), altogether worth a combined 81 electoral votes!
It is true that he carried the states you listed. You're cherrypicking, but you're not wrong. Now, if you want to argue that JFK won those states because he supported segregation, well, that simply isn't true. Remember - okay, you probably don't know this, but you do now - he spoke out in support of Martin Luther King while he (MLK that is) was in jail just before the election, a move that has been credited with clinching his narrow win.

It's also worth noting which were the only states that did NOT vote Democratic four years later, in the immediate wake of the Civil Rights Act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
"And while all the other states you mentioned are reliably blue today - 35 years later - in 1984 they were all Republican-leaning."

I also find it interesting that the racist Ku Kux Klan was ONLY politically powerful in the American south back in those days when the Democratic Party thoroughly dominated that region of our nation. In 1980 & '84, after Ronald Reagan swept the south for the Republicans, the KKK ceased to exist as a credible political force in that entire region, and is all-but-extinct there today.
Nope. Reagan wasn't the first Republican to sweep the South; Nixon was, a decade earlier. And the Klan was a spent force politically decades before that.

You do, however, touch on a valid point here: the Dems started losing their grip on the South at exactly the time they turned their backs on their racist past and embraced civil rights, in 1964. Strom Thurmond famously switched parties that year, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
In 2010, President Obama delivered the eulogy at the funeral of the last KKK officer to hold a U.S. Senate seat!
Yes, and in 1985, Ronald Reagan went to Germany to honor the Nazis by visiting Bitburg. Cherrypicking again - hey, two can play at that game.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
"The highest figure I could find for confirmed cases of fraudulent voting was 31 cases since 2000."

Okay, so Hillary Clinton gets 64,855 FEWER popular votes in 2016 than Barack Obama received in 2012 - but in the state of California she receives 899,507 MORE popular votes than Barack '12? If California wasn't allowing illegals to vote, what would have been the actual total there?
Are you seriously arguing that Clinton improving on Obama's vote in one state proves she was getting illegal votes? Occam's razor, my friend: she improved on Obama in California because a lot of suburban Republicans voted for her - a well documented phenomenon nationwide, and especially in California, where she became the first Democrat to carry Orange County for president since 1936.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpington View Post
Exactly right, tmock! The Democratic Party opposes voter photo-ID laws for the simple reason that it will cost them the votes of people who shouldn't be casting ballots in the first place! Democrat candidates have long benefitted from non-citizens voting, along with people voting repeatedly at different polling stations (where they're not required to show an ID!) To make the claim that minorities are too stupid to acquire a valid photo-ID is what former President Ronald Reagan once called: "the soft bigotry of low expectations!" But that is what your modern Democratic Party continues clinging to!
Okay, I've already defeated your silly point about "proof" of widespread voting by illegal immigrants. But since that's twice now you've served up that Reagan quote (which, incidentally, was really coined by a speechwriter for George W. Bush years after Reagan's term had ended), I might as well address that too. It's nothing but a justification for rolling back affirmative action, a way of rationalizing policies that fail to account for the real effects of 400 years of slavery and Jim Crow and the cold, hard truth that one generation of remedy has not undone them. Providing for everyone's right to vote has NOTHING to do with thinking they're stupid - and everything to do with accounting for the reality that the policies you're pushing for are designed specifically to disenfranchise minority voters because they mostly vote against your party. Nothing more, and unfortunately nothing less.

And I guess I could comment on how absolutely appropriate it is that you're lauding Reagan for someone else's words - a remarkably eloquent take on the right's reverence for him these days. But that's beside the point.
__________________
The Elizabeth Chronicles available at Amazon now!


Latest stories: D-Cup Blues (Valentine's Day Contest)
The Night Before Graduation (750 word contest)

My favorites:
Beware the Quiet One (First Time)
Grand Island (Romance)
The Blizzard (First Time)
Chemistry of Love (Romance)

AH Profile Page
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2019, 12:58 PM   #43
Rightguide
Literotica Guru
 
Rightguide's Avatar
 
Rightguide is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 18,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBoy View Post
They'll never get rid of the EC because you can't run an article 5 convention with just 9 states
The Constitution could not have been ratified without it and the nation won't stand if it is removed by whatever means. Only three or four states will decide who is President. Candidates wouldn't even visit smaller states while trying to garner the major population centers. The vast heartland of America would have no voice in Presidential elections.
__________________
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2019, 09:19 PM   #44
YDB95
Literotica Guru
 
YDB95's Avatar
 
YDB95 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hill Valley, CA
Posts: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rightguide View Post
Only three or four states will decide who is President. Candidates wouldn't even visit smaller states while trying to garner the major population centers. The vast heartland of America would have no voice in Presidential elections.
That's not only the exact opposite of how it would work, it's also what we actually DO have under the Electoral College.
__________________
The Elizabeth Chronicles available at Amazon now!


Latest stories: D-Cup Blues (Valentine's Day Contest)
The Night Before Graduation (750 word contest)

My favorites:
Beware the Quiet One (First Time)
Grand Island (Romance)
The Blizzard (First Time)
Chemistry of Love (Romance)

AH Profile Page
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2019, 09:30 PM   #45
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
 
JackLuis's Avatar
 
JackLuis is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: La La Calif
Posts: 15,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rightguide View Post
The Constitution could not have been ratified without it and the nation won't stand if it is removed by whatever means. Only three or four states will decide who is President. Candidates wouldn't even visit smaller states while trying to garner the major population centers. The vast heartland of America would have no voice in Presidential elections.
Given the 'vast heartland's" record of performance, that might not be bad.
__________________
JackLuis-

Here My Stories

Creative Copulation - Gods do it too!

My New Best Friend, for our VE's


Spreading Seeds Sagas- Can a young man find happiness in a world where there ten women for every man?

"Fiction writers are just liars with typing skills."
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:01 AM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.