Watch before you vote

[blue32]

What exactly do you think it was telling? That the person was too much of a wimp to actually fill out the affidavit, vote and wait to see if the ballot was counted? Until you do that you haven't proven a thing. Or is it telling that the retired people volunteering their time to help people vote don't know who Huma Abiden is?

Or is this about Muslims? They shouldn't wear burkas because we can't tell who they are? What about nuns? A full habit isn't that different from a burka. So no burkas, no habits, how about a minister collar? Those too?

Oh wait, the video said a person could smuggle a bomb inside wearing a burka. But if that is really a concern a skinny person could smuggle a bomb inside of a fat suit too.

We should start a list, we're on to something here.

People who should not be allowed to vote:

1. Muslim women
2. Nuns
3. Fat people

LOL wow the point of the video went above your head.

The point was to show how easy it is to game the system and commit voter fraud.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

LOL wow the point of the video went above your head.

The point was to show how easy it is to game the system and commit voter fraud.

But no one committed voter fraud in that video. If it was so easy why didn't they do it?

It's like walking into a bank with a hidden video camera and whispering, "I could rob this place." then posting a video claiming that banks are easy to rob.

 

[blue32]

But no one committed voter fraud in that video. If it was so easy why didn't they do it?

It's like walking into a bank with a hidden video camera and whispering, "I could rob this place." then posting a video claiming that banks are easy to rob.

All she needed to do was fill out the paperwork. There was no requirement for an ID check, and that was the point of the video and why they were talking about the burka. C'mon man...

 

[MarAzul]

US Grant owned a slave and oversaw his wife's slaves.

Not really true. They were his father-in-law's slaves, but one of which, he was given. He freed that slave long before he became a member of the Republican party which began with John C Fremont
running for President in 1856. Grant didn't belong to the Republican party until after the war. Sort of like Eisenhower.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a General that joined a Party while still serving on active duty, ever.
I suppose there may have been one, but not Grant.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

All she needed to do was fill out the paperwork. There was no requirement for an ID check, and that was the point of the video and why they were talking about the burka. C'mon man...

It was more than just some paperwork, it was an affidavit claiming that's who she was. If it was so easy why didn't she do it? We didn't she take it to the next logical step and actually vote. If she voted and they counted the vote then I agree, that's a problem. But that never happened. She didn't prove anything.

And why was she wearing a burka? Any person could go in there and fill out an affidavit. Again, why not a nun's habit? Why not a fat suit?

 

[blue32]

It was more than just some paperwork, it was an affidavit claiming that's who she was. If it was so easy why didn't she do it? We didn't she take it to the next logical step and actually vote. If she voted and they counted the vote then I agree, that's a problem. But that never happened. She didn't prove anything.

And why was she wearing a burka? Any person could go in there and fill out an affidavit. Again, why not a nun's habit? Why not a fat suit?

I'm not going to explain it to you if you haven't gotten the picture by now.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'm not going to explain it to you if you haven't gotten the picture by now.

Oh I got the picture. Muslim women wearing burkas can commit election fraud or can "drop a bomb" out of their burkas and blow up a polling place.

 

[MarAzul]

Every Republican Congressman from Kentucky, which did not accept the party’s “containment” platform, owned slaves between 1854 and 1864.

Those dirty bastards! Renegades!

umm, perhaps I was hasty with the Renegades! There doesn't appear to be any of those you suggest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Representatives_from_Kentucky

 

[SlyPokerDog]

umm, perhaps I was hasty with the Renegades! There doesn't appear to be any of those you suggest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Representatives_from_Kentucky

LOL!

Most of the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, the first income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, railroads, and aid to education and agriculture.

 

[MarAzul]

I'm not going to explain it to you if you haven't gotten the picture by now.

Sly is trying to become to first to square obtuse.

 

[MarAzul]

LOL!

Most of the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, the first income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, railroads, and aid to education and agriculture.

Sounds like Lincoln's work,
First income tax,
Tariffs,
Huge debt. (First Nation to exceed a Billion dollar budget).

But no Kentucky Congressman in this group. (until later).

 

[H.C.]

Did you know, no Republican ever owned slaves?

Statements like this is why I detest the human race.
Republicans & Democrats try to twist the truth to make themselves seem better than the other.
Give me a break.
But as sly has said previously.
There is no way a closed minded Republican or Democrat will ever believe anything that isn't exactly what they want to believe.


Ulysses S. Grant was a Republican president who once had slaves. However, there’s some nuance that should be considered before this factoid gets repeated out of context.
First, Grant was not personally highly invested in the subject of slavery. He used slaves that were owned by his father-in-law, only one of which did he legally own. Furthermore, he freed that slave rather than selling him, which was a significant opportunity cost.
Secondly, at the time in question the Republican Party was a fledgling and poorly-defined entity, and Grant didn’t clearly associate himself with it until a decade later after Lincoln had become president.
Thirdly, this type of historical trivium is fundamentally deceptive because institutions change and reinvent themselves. That is, any comparison about “x number of Democrats had slaves while only y number of Republicans did” is fundamentally meaningless because it insinuates associations that aren’t relevant to contemporary politics. The pool of Democrats who could have owned slaves is much larger than the pool of Republicans who could have simply because the Democratic Party is significantly older. And while the Republican Party was established with an interest in the Abolitionist Movement, it lost any claim to being less racist by instituting the Southern Strategy to elect Nixon.
Some individual Republicans deserve credit for acknowledging the injustice of the Southern Strategy, but as an institution the party has failed to adequately address the subject in a way that would indicate sincere contrition or a will to fix the problem.

I'm sure you'll find a way to twist this to make it seem like the republican party is less racist due to "never owning slaves".
Typical political bullshit that both the major parties are guilty of.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Statements like this is why I detest the human race.
Republicans & Democrats try to twist the truth to make themselves seem better than the other.
Give me a break.
But as sly has said previously.
There is no way a closed minded Republican or Democrat will ever believe anything that isn't exactly what they want to believe.


Ulysses S. Grant was a Republican president who once had slaves. However, there’s some nuance that should be considered before this factoid gets repeated out of context.
First, Grant was not personally highly invested in the subject of slavery. He used slaves that were owned by his father-in-law, only one of which did he legally own. Furthermore, he freed that slave rather than selling him, which was a significant opportunity cost.
Secondly, at the time in question the Republican Party was a fledgling and poorly-defined entity, and Grant didn’t clearly associate himself with it until a decade later after Lincoln had become president.
Thirdly, this type of historical trivium is fundamentally deceptive because institutions change and reinvent themselves. That is, any comparison about “x number of Democrats had slaves while only y number of Republicans did” is fundamentally meaningless because it insinuates associations that aren’t relevant to contemporary politics. The pool of Democrats who could have owned slaves is much larger than the pool of Republicans who could have simply because the Democratic Party is significantly older. And while the Republican Party was established with an interest in the Abolitionist Movement, it lost any claim to being less racist by instituting the Southern Strategy to elect Nixon.
Some individual Republicans deserve credit for acknowledging the injustice of the Southern Strategy, but as an institution the party has failed to adequately address the subject in a way that would indicate sincere contrition or a will to fix the problem.

I'm sure you'll find a way to twist this to make it seem like the republican party is less racist due to "never owning slaves".
Typical political bullshit that both the major parties are guilty of.

I.love.you.

 

[Denny Crane]

Statements like this is why I detest the human race.
Republicans & Democrats try to twist the truth to make themselves seem better than the other.
Give me a break.
But as sly has said previously.
There is no way a closed minded Republican or Democrat will ever believe anything that isn't exactly what they want to believe.


Ulysses S. Grant was a Republican president who once had slaves. However, there’s some nuance that should be considered before this factoid gets repeated out of context.
First, Grant was not personally highly invested in the subject of slavery. He used slaves that were owned by his father-in-law, only one of which did he legally own. Furthermore, he freed that slave rather than selling him, which was a significant opportunity cost.
Secondly, at the time in question the Republican Party was a fledgling and poorly-defined entity, and Grant didn’t clearly associate himself with it until a decade later after Lincoln had become president.
Thirdly, this type of historical trivium is fundamentally deceptive because institutions change and reinvent themselves. That is, any comparison about “x number of Democrats had slaves while only y number of Republicans did” is fundamentally meaningless because it insinuates associations that aren’t relevant to contemporary politics. The pool of Democrats who could have owned slaves is much larger than the pool of Republicans who could have simply because the Democratic Party is significantly older. And while the Republican Party was established with an interest in the Abolitionist Movement, it lost any claim to being less racist by instituting the Southern Strategy to elect Nixon.
Some individual Republicans deserve credit for acknowledging the injustice of the Southern Strategy, but as an institution the party has failed to adequately address the subject in a way that would indicate sincere contrition or a will to fix the problem.

I'm sure you'll find a way to twist this to make it seem like the republican party is less racist due to "never owning slaves".
Typical political bullshit that both the major parties are guilty of.

The Southern Strategy? The Democrat from Alabama ran as an independent and won all these southern states, below.

The electoral vote was 301 Nixon (even without those southern states), Humphrey 191, Wallace 46.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

 

[KingSpeed]

Voting for Hillary at 10am.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Voting for Hillary at 10am.

How many times?

 

[julius]

The Southern Strategy? The Democrat from Alabama ran as an independent and won all these southern states, below.

The electoral vote was 301 Nixon (even without those southern states), Humphrey 191, Wallace 46.

How has New Yorks Electoral college vote gone from 43 back during this vote to 29 currently?



Isn't it population based?

 

[MarAzul]

because it insinuates associations that aren’t relevant to contemporary politics

instituting the Southern Strategy to elect Nixon.

Wow! I loved your obvious dive into the depths of history. But I guess I don't understand the "Southern Strategy" thing for Nixon. I detested that guy, never voted for him.
But on the other hand, I think there is an interesting association from back then and contemporary politics.

You would think, the black people would hang with the Republicans, after all, they were only Party to ever help. But some how some way, Mr Roosevelt changed all that!
I sure as hell can't see why? and even if I did, that was 70 friggin years ago.

 

[Denny Crane]

How has New Yorks Electoral college vote gone from 43 back during this vote to 29 currently?



Isn't it population based?

Yes.

New York's population has fled the state for less "liberal" locations.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

If you are a republican, you aren't necessarily a white supremacist.

But if you are a white supremacist, you are probably a republican.

If you are a republican, you aren't necessarily a bible thumping homophobe.

But if you are a bible thumping homophobe, you are probably a republican.

This can't really be argued against unless you lack common sense.

So, all the "democrats were for slavery!" stuff, while completely accurate, means precisely squat.

Democrats suck too so don't even go there. Clinton is basically the Bush administration with slightly less god fearin'. I mean, George bush endorsed her for gods sake. Isn't that a red flag for the progressives out there?

And for all the shit "liberals" take from the idiot teabagger crowd, you would think they would be at least a little, you know, liberal. "Obama has changed the very fabric of America!" Lol please.

Obama kills civilian kids for breakfast. He sucks monsanto cock, pharma cock, oil cock, insurance cock, and any other cock big enough to warrant a nice sloppy blowjob. Its been business as usual for the last 8 years.

All the Obama hate from republicans is just code for one thing. "He's black! Can't you see he's black!? There's n******* eating off the White House china!"

It's fucking pathetic, and idiots like that should kill themselves.

So...Death to the GOP?

It sounds nice, but the Dems swooped in and stole all the middle and most of the moderate right, just a little less racist, a little less bigoted, and a little less white. They are the new GOP as far as I'm concerned, we need to balance the power of the force.

 

[MarAzul]

If you are a republican, you aren't necessarily a white supremacist.

But if you are a white supremacist, you are probably a republican.

If you are a republican, you aren't necessarily a bible thumping homophobe.

But if you are a bible thumping homophobe, you are probably a republican.

This can't really be argued against unless you lack common sense.

So, all the "democrats were for slavery!" stuff, while completely accurate, means precisely squat.

Democrats suck too so don't even go there. Clinton is basically the Bush administration with slightly less god fearin'. I mean, George bush endorsed her for gods sake. Isn't that a red flag for the progressives out there?

And for all the shit "liberals" take from the idiot teabagger crowd, you would think they would be at least a little, you know, liberal. "Obama has changed the very fabric of America!" Lol please.

Obama kills civilian kids for breakfast. He sucks monsanto cock, pharma cock, oil cock, insurance cock, and any other cock big enough to warrant a nice sloppy blowjob. Its been business as usual for the last 8 years.

All the Obama hate from republicans is just code for one thing. "He's black! Can't you see he's black!? There's n******* eating off the White House china!"

It's fucking pathetic, and idiots like that should kill themselves.

So...Death to the GOP?

It sounds nice, but the Dems swooped in and stole all the middle and most of the moderate right, just a little less racist, a little less bigoted, and a little less white. They are the new GOP as far as I'm concerned, we need to balance the power of the force.

Wow! A lot of strong words here, not sure if they all pull in unison or even complementary. Sound like one pissed off fella. But Sly likes it, perhaps he can translate.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Wow! A lot of strong words here, not sure if they all pull in unison or even complementary. Sound like one pissed off fella. But Sly likes it, perhaps he can translate.

Yeah I'm pissed off. We are going to have another piece of shit president. Thanks to our piece of shit country being too stupid to care.

 

[MarAzul]

too stupid to care.

I am quite sure you don't fit this category. All though I don't think I do either. But I am not at all sure we both could be happy. Today.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

If you are a republican, you aren't necessarily a white supremacist.

But if you are a white supremacist, you are probably a republican.

If you are a republican, you aren't necessarily a bible thumping homophobe.

But if you are a bible thumping homophobe, you are probably a republican.

This can't really be argued against unless you lack common sense.

So, all the "democrats were for slavery!" stuff, while completely accurate, means precisely squat.

Democrats suck too so don't even go there. Clinton is basically the Bush administration with slightly less god fearin'. I mean, George bush endorsed her for gods sake. Isn't that a red flag for the progressives out there?

And for all the shit "liberals" take from the idiot teabagger crowd, you would think they would be at least a little, you know, liberal. "Obama has changed the very fabric of America!" Lol please.

Obama kills civilian kids for breakfast. He sucks monsanto cock, pharma cock, oil cock, insurance cock, and any other cock big enough to warrant a nice sloppy blowjob. Its been business as usual for the last 8 years.

All the Obama hate from republicans is just code for one thing. "He's black! Can't you see he's black!? There's n******* eating off the White House china!"

It's fucking pathetic, and idiots like that should kill themselves.

So...Death to the GOP?

It sounds nice, but the Dems swooped in and stole all the middle and most of the moderate right, just a little less racist, a little less bigoted, and a little less white. They are the new GOP as far as I'm concerned, we need to balance the power of the force.

I like this post also but don't agree 100 percent. All the Obama hate isn't because of his skin color. I heard him speak 4 years before he ran for President and wanted to vote for him right then and there without knowing anything about him.

Fast forward to finding out how completely far off from my beliefs he is it is a different story now. Plus you yourself point out how much of a corporate knob slobberer he is so you can see how people can dislike him because of his policies.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I saw a woman on the news crying because she finally got to vote for a woman for President. We should all be crying after voting this year but not in a joyful manner

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I like this post also but don't agree 100 percent. All the Obama hate isn't because of his skin color. I heard him speak 4 years before he ran for President and wanted to vote for him right then and there without knowing anything about him.

Fast forward to finding out how completely far off from my beliefs he is it is a different story now. Plus you yourself point out how much of a corporate knob slobberer he is so you can see how people can dislike him because of his policies.

I guess I wasn't clear, I meant the shit he gets from the right.

From my end, he ran on universal healthcare for fucks sake. He lied about damn near everything. He's been a huge disappointment.