User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Election Fraud

  1. #1
    Points: 56,156, Level: 57
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 194
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    patrickt's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    15940
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    U. S. Citizien living in Oaxaca
    Posts
    9,456
    Points
    56,156
    Level
    57
    Thanks Given
    503
    Thanked 3,401x in 2,422 Posts
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173

    Election Fraud

    Rep. Pelosi said that even if no one wanted Obamacare they would have passed it anyway and she's apparently taking that same position on election fraud. Even though Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of honest elections the liberals will fight that tooth and nail. I realize liberals are adamantly opposed to voters identifying themselves beyond simply stating, "I am Luke Skywalker." I also understand that purging dead people from the voter rolls is adamantly opposed by the liberals.

    So, what can we do? Can we require precincts to count the number of people voting--they do all sign in--and the number of ballots cast? That would mean the practice of giving some voters two or three ballots or simply stuffing the ballot boxes--physically or electronically--would be a little more difficult.

    Could we have a national death certificate registry that is available to all states? It could also be available to federal operations that shovel out money. I would think it would benefit SS, Medicare, Food stamp administration, SSI, and the plethora of other "entitlements" to know when someone dies. Now, I'm not saying states should be allowed to purge dead people from the voters roles. Lord, no. But, at least have an idea of how many dead people are there.

    Of course, there are more, lots more, but let's start with these. Would liberals agree to these two?

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to patrickt For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (06-18-2016),waltky (06-18-2016)

  3. #2
    Points: 20,411, Level: 34
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 339
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    waltky's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3985
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,217
    Points
    20,411
    Level
    34
    Thanks Given
    526
    Thanked 626x in 524 Posts
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    48

    Angry

    Granny says, "Dat's right - there's too much special interest an' foreign money goin' to candidates...

    Is Big Money Subverting US Elections and Democracy?
    June 16, 2016 | WASHINGTON — Bernie Sanders, who won 23 state contests in his fading quest to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, was buoyed for months by supporters’ small average donations of $27. Conversely, Republican contender Jeb Bush flamed out in February despite his well-heeled connections.
    Both experiences point to the limits of big money in U.S. politics, at least in the 2016 election cycle. But some political experts and most average Americans nonetheless see growing financial influence – which can vary with the primary or general election, increase further down the ballot and shape policies affecting daily life. Americans of all stripes agree that money holds greater sway than ever, and the effects are mostly negative, a Pew Research Center survey found. The center reported in December that "large majorities favor limits on campaign spending and say the high cost of campaigning discourages many good candidates from running for president." "There’s no country with longer and more expensive elections than the United States," said Ken Goldstein, a University of San Francisco professor and political advertising expert.

    Campaigning for the presidency begins well over a year out; Republican Ted Cruz was the first to announce his candidacy in March 2015. Spending in 2012 — the election cycle that included the last presidential race — topped $6.3 billion, the watchdog Center for Responsive Politics calculated. This election cycle is expected to set records in spending by campaigns, political parties and outside interest groups, the center has forecast. As of late May, candidates and the super PACS (political action committees) backing them raised more than $1.2 billion, according to campaign filings. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's campaign alone generated nearly $85 million, and supporting super PACs raised more than $204 million.


    Demonstrators march on the U.S. Capitol to oppose big money in politics in Washington, D.C.

    Real estate magnate Donald Trump largely has self-financed his campaign, but last month made a joint fundraising deal with the Republican National Committee enabling rich donors to contribute up to $500,000 apiece. He initially said he needed to raise $1 billion for the general election, but he has since scaled back. His aides are expected to meet in coming days with those of billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, USA Today recently reported. The powerful Koch network of donors and policy developers may bypass the presidential contest — chafing at Trump’s stated opposition to free trade deals, for example — to focus on helping Republicans retain Senate control.

    Concerns down the ballot

    Norman Ornstein, a political scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he doesn’t “look at presidential politics as the be-all and end-all of the campaign funding system.” Candidates for the nation’s top office already have “an enormous amount of name recognition” and extensive media coverage that lessen the impact of campaign spending on advertising. More worrisome is what happens further down the chain — in congressional, legislative and local contests, he said. Ornstein told VOA that “a whole bunch of senators” had privately divulged their fears about voting for legislation that could antagonize big donors. “The part that troubles me most is judicial elections,” he added, noting heavy partisan spending aimed at tilting the composition of state Supreme Courts in Wisconsin and North Carolina. Ornstein speculated that a judge “may think twice” in deciding a case involving a giant corporation or wealthy individual whose support might be vital in future elections.

    Landmark court decisions

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO