Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 May, 2019 05:00 am
@maporsche,
I'm planning to go to the next Rennsport.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 May, 2019 07:05 am
@Lash,
Oh please. For a fresher on Kamala Harris on her questioning of Barr which made him stumble and offer inanities.

revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 May, 2019 07:17 am
Quote:
Stacey Abrams: Why I Am Determined to End Voter Suppression

ATLANTA — In the mid-1960s, when my father was a teenager, he was arrested. His crime? Registering black voters in Mississippi. He and my mother had joined the civil rights movement well before they were even old enough to vote themselves.

They braved this dangerous work, which all too often created martyrs of marchers. In doing so, my parents ingrained in their six children a deep and permanent reverence for the franchise. We were taught that the right to vote undergirds all other rights, that free and fair elections are necessary for social progress.

That is why I am determined to end voter suppression and empower all people to participate in our democracy.

True voter access means that every person has the right to register, cast a ballot and have that ballot counted — without undue hardship.

Unfortunately, the forces my parents battled 50 years ago continue to stifle democracy.

My home state, Georgia, for example, suffered a vicious blend of electoral malfeasance, misfeasance and mismanagement during my race for governor last fall. But Georgia is not alone.

Local and state officials across the country, emboldened by the Supreme Court effectively neutering the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, are shamelessly weakening voter registration, ballot access and ballot-counting procedures.

These officials slyly mask their assaults through criteria that appear neutral on the surface but nevertheless target race, gender, language and economic status. The “exact match” policy in Georgia, which a federal court deemed unlawful in November because it requires perfect data entry to secure a timely registration, serves as one example of such a policy.

Although “exact match” lacks the explicit racial animus of Jim Crow, its execution nonetheless betrayed its true purpose to disenfranchise voters of color. Georgia’s secretary of state held 53,000 voter registrations hostage under exact match last year, 70 percent of which came from black voters, who made up only around 30 percent of Georgia’s eligible voters.

The state officials behind exact match were well aware, per an earlier lawsuit, that when only a missing hyphen or a typo in a government database can form the basis to withhold the right to vote, people of color will bear the brunt of such trivial mistakes.

A particularly egregious example involved a voter whose last name is “del Rio.” He was affected by the policy merely because the department of motor vehicles office where he registered to vote did not allow spaces in last names. He was “delRio” there. But the voter rolls do allow spaces. No exact match. Voters like Mr. del Rio faced unnecessary hurdles, and poll workers were not trained properly to make sure that voices like his were heard.

Across the country, voter purges employ an easily manipulated “use it or lose it” rule, under which eligible voters who exercised their First Amendment right to abstain from voting in prior elections can be booted off the rolls.

Add to this mix closed or relocated polling places outside the reach of public transit, sometimes as far as 75 miles away, or long lines that force low-income voters to forfeit half a day’s pay, and a modern poll tax is revealed.

State legislatures have continued the trend this year. In Texas, officials are attempting to further criminalize eligible voters for inadvertent errors often caused by language barriers. In Tennessee, a state with notoriously low voter turnout, the legislature approved a bill subjecting third-party groups conducting voter registration drives to onerous requirements under threat of civil and criminal penalty.

In Florida, 1.4 million Floridians with felonies were re-enfranchised with a constitutional amendment last year that passed with 65 percent of the vote — the largest expansion of voting rights in a half-century. But the legislature has contravened the will of the people, once again disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of returning citizens through a bill that imposes an antiquated poll tax on them in the form of court fees.

After voters run gantlets to get on the rolls, they are undermined by the mismanagement of inexact voter databases, ancient and under-resourced machines, lost absentee ballots or by elections officials who refuse to count votes that were properly cast.

On election night 2018, as phones rang with tales of missing machines, provisional ballots allocated by a vague lottery system and regular voters vanishing from the rolls, I made a simple demand: Count every vote.



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/opinion/stacey-abrams-voting.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 May, 2019 08:06 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

Oh please. For a fresher on Kamala Harris on her questioning of Barr which made him stumble and offer inanities.
In an obvious attempt to simply score a point during her interrogation, Harris asked Barr if he had reviewed all the evidence in the Mueller report before approving it, stating it was "his duty as a prosecutor to review all the evidence before proceeding". I suspect Barr was dumbfounded by the inanity of the question, and simply said (truthfully) "no".

The obvious fact here is that Barr was not the prosecutor at all : Mueller was the appointed Prosecutor, and he had spent more than two years collecting and reviewing the evidence and producing a detailed report establishing his findings. Barr's job as Attorney General was to review the report for consistency and conformity with law and approve it if it was OK.
It appears Harris was suggesting that Barr spend another year or so redoing Mueller's work.

Harris' question & response merely an empty stunt designed to exploit her position on the Senate committee to a witness who could not, in that setting, respond to her in kind.

Meanwhile Barr is back at work overseeing an investigation into the origins of this fraud which is likely creating a lot of real fear among the senior Obama era FBI and intelligence community officials involves. Some are already starting to squeal.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 May, 2019 01:51 pm
@georgeob1,
Want to bet that if trump docent win the presidency in 2020 him and most of his kids go to prison along with a bunch of his government todies?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 May, 2019 02:11 pm
@revelette1,
Oh please. I said I’d seen her in confrontational situations. Why not actually read before responding?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 May, 2019 02:15 pm
@georgeob1,
Seems to me she was ponting out the truth. Barr had done a rush job to grab the discourse first in a patently half baked attempt to get trump off the hook without knowin the wexact thrust of the report by actually fully reading it as mueller and his staff made clear. It was known by july16 the russians were meddling. Trump a known putin fan gives him the go ahead to hac clinton which he does. Trumps fotreign policy people had peviously made red flags go up. A well regardrf foreign foreign intelligrence expert found troubling intelligenve on russis which has mostly ptoved true and trump is using his usual fake news routine to get an actual witch hunt started about abipartisan investigation. And people who should have more balls are toadying to him as usual.

RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 May, 2019 02:25 pm
@MontereyJack,
If we can beat Trump we can put the whole crooked bunch in jail. We'll probably have to build a new prison for all the Trump toddies who will be elegiable.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 16 May, 2019 02:30 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
If we can beat Trump we can put the whole crooked bunch in jail.

What would the charge be? He won an election he was not supposed to? Who is crooked, and when was it proven?


0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 May, 2019 05:27 pm
@MontereyJack,
I recognize your points but don't agree with some. In a world in which China is the fastest emerging power and has long been building economic and in some cases political footholds other Asian, African and South American countries; and in which the Soviet Empire no longer exists; it makes eminent strategic sense for both the United States and Western Europe to develop improved economic and political relations with Russia. This indeed is a point of serious discussion among many contemporary strategic thinkers and analysts.

The problem is twofold: (1) Putin's Authoritarian and somewhat criminal regime, with major economic entities run by economic oligarchs dependent on the leader's patronage, is not a particularly good trading partner. (2) Putin appears unreconciled to the breakup of the old empire and the independence of Ukraine, the Baltic states and those of Crimea and Central Asia. However Putin will not be there forever, and the combination of Russia's existing and potential export markets in both Europe and America and China's expanding ambitions in Central Asia could motivate a significant Russian realignment with the West. In this area I believe our long range strategy should build on Putin's hopes for exports and his growing fear of China's expansion to create an economic foundation for better relations.

China has very methodically taken control of much foreign production of food and petroleum to secure its essential needs, and has near monopoly control of the production of essential rare earth metals and some other raw materials. It is also seeking more mostly in the Central Asian nations between Russia and China - a fact that visibly disturbs Russian leaders. The still vast expanse of Russia and Central Asia may offer the West's only alternative source of these and other essential commodities. In short both sides in Russia's relations with the West have something important to gain from future cooperation and it makes good sense to start building the foundation for it now. Finally I believe Trump understands this as well, and sees the need to get past Putin's need for reassurance and the mischievous Russian meddling that results from it.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 12:36 am
@georgeob1,
Hmmm... I think the US people needs some reassurance that its democracy still works, and the only way they'll get it is by voting the Russian agent out.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 02:57 am
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6stxs5WwAQyemd?format=jpg&name=900x900

When former Vice President Joe Biden was a freshman senator he said in a 1974 interview with Washingtonian that he believed the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling clearing the way for legal first-trimester abortions “went too far,” and that he didn’t “think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

In the interview, which took place just two years after Biden’s wife and two-year-old were killed in a car accident, Biden — then the youngest senator in U.S. history — said his anti-abortion views were part of his “socially conservative” outlook.

“My wife said I was the most socially conservative man she had ever known,” he said. “When it comes to issues like abortion, amnesty, and acid, I’m about as liberal as your grandmother.”

A spokeswoman for Biden told HuffPost in 2015 that Biden’s comments in Washingtonian were taken out of context.

—————————
(But, that’s a lie.)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c78409ae4b0de0c3fbf2b70/amp
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 03:34 am
Rodney Latstetter and 9 others liked

BackToWork🌹
@ideologicalized
·
May 15
H. Clinton picked a pro-life Dem to be her running mate. Nancy Pelosi endorsed a terrible pro-life Democrat incumbent over a progressive pro-choice challenger. If you think the Democratic leadership really cares about reproductive freedom & womens’ heath care you are a sucker
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 03:40 am
@Lash,
So something someone said 45 years ago disqualifies them from consideration? (Not that I'm considering voting for either of those guys.)
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 03:42 am
@hightor,
So, what politicians say about policy has no value as people consider their vote?
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 03:53 am
@Lash,
Not if they no longer hold the same opinion as they did 45 years ago. People can change — you've said so yourself. I knew that Biden was socially conservative; he still considers himself a Catholic. But his thinking has evolved, albeit rather slowly. I suppose you could find people who'd criticize Sanders for just sticking to the same line; I'm not making that critique myself but I can see how some people would see it as a sign of doctrinaire intellectual rigidity!
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 04:01 am
@hightor,
Yes, Biden and I’ve enjoyed identical responses to our changes of opinions... Some people’s perspectives actually do change as their basic belief system changes; some say what they need to to get what they want.

Since we’ve got a video or two from the 50’s to the present of Bernie Sanders warning the US against the worst mistakes we’ve made in modern history, I’d say we desperately need Sanders’ brand of intellectual rigidity.

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 04:02 am
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/60442232_2448454051859863_1428794529703526400_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_oc=AQnPhK704mKZYEwqccYBxdgE0vPWsHMfiq8HWS4WO0MJvLCQt16_tqNQ0BCwehtncv4&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=6bc21d8de624cdc30ac6855183843f4f&oe=5D58A70A
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 04:26 am
@Lash,
Sanders wrote:
It's not me they fear...

Who's "they"?
Sanders wrote:
It's you.

Well yeah; that's why we have government. As you've said;
Lash wrote:
Dude, these liars prey on stupid people, and unfortunately, we are up to our necks in them.

It's the Achilles heel of democracy — populism.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 04:42 am
@hightor,
The establishment democrats fear Sanders and the people who are dedicated to getting him elected — so much so that they’re risking a loss to Trump by fighting the progressive wing of the party.

Why would democrats vote for a guy who weakened a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body instead of a man who has championed it for 50 years?

That’s the question.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 08:43:07