PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on January 25, 2019, 04:48:19 PM
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1088898595653386240
And approximately 58,000 did.
Hope this kind of travesty comes up at the SOTU.
Arrest warrants and deportation orders should be quickly made.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1088898595653386240
And approximately 58,000 did.
Hope this kind of travesty comes up at the SOTU.
Arrest warrants and deportation orders should be quickly made.
This is what is known. Just imagine what the actual number is nationwide.
And we wonder why the dims are so interested in letting anyone in the country.
-
Democrats will be all for this as long as they think the illegals are voting for them. They will turn the instant they think these people are voting Republican.
Because for Democrats, it is all about power. They know that people are not interested in what they want so they just want the raw power to cram it down everyone’s throats.
Yet, they still say “democracy”...
-
This is in the early stages. And is since 1996, not just in the last election. And our voter rolls are notoriously full of outdated garbage.
It's time to modernize our registration system.
-
It's time to modernize our registration system.
This!
I still can't understand why showing an ID before voting is such a bad thing. It seems that you need an ID for everything else. Just prove that you are who you are and make your mark.
-
I'm not sure that you and Asechrest have the same ideas as regards modernizing our registration system. But I'm sure you could agree on a few things and compromise on a few.
My problem with Asechreset's plan is that he would like to automatically register everyone with no effort on their part required. I think that if someone wants to vote, they should have to put forth at least a little effort.
I would also like to see some sort of knowledge test, but I know that won't fly so I won't push for it.
-
Maybe only people that actually pay taxes should vote.
-
Maybe only people that actually pay taxes should vote.
Absolutely!!!
-
My problem with Asechreset's plan is that he would like to automatically register everyone with no effort on their part required. I think that if someone wants to vote, they should have to put forth at least a little effort.
You misunderstand the difference between registering and voting. These are two different things.
-
You misunderstand the difference between registering and voting. These are two different things.
We've been over this a half dozen times. In many states, registering gets a ballot sent to your home. From there, voting is easy. We’re saying that if you want to vote, you should have to make the effort to register. Mail-in ballots are a big open door for fraud and ballot harvesting. It looks to me like going back to onsite voting, verifying your name and address on a register, would be a giant step toward stopping fraud.
Look at the title of this thread. Ninety five thousand registered, 58,000 voted. Every one of those was a vote stolen from an American citizen. Tell me you want that to continue happening. Because I guarantee you it is happening in Florida.
-
Every communist (democrat) goes ballistic whenever the topic is illegal aliens voting.
Their reasoning is always using illegals to harvest illegal votes.
They always lie about their motivation because communists lie as often and as transparently as muslims.
-
We've been over this a half dozen times. In many states, registering gets a ballot sent to your home.
Three states have all-mail voting. Some others have all-mail voting only in certain limited circumstances, like uncontested races.
From there, voting is easy. We’re saying that if you want to vote, you should have to make the effort to register.
I know what you're saying. I propose instead that the "effort" remains in the process of voting, not in being registered. Remember that the purpose of a universal automatic registration system is many-fold. It's not just to piss you off. It comes with advantages including, for example, up-to-date voter rolls which make verification of voter eligibility far more accurate and efficient without accidentally adversely affecting those who are truly eligible.
Mail-in ballots are a big open door for fraud and ballot harvesting. It looks to me like going back to onsite voting, verifying your name and address on a register, would be a giant step toward stopping fraud.
Yes, it is an open door for fraud. I'm on-board with moving back to in-person voting or some other system that verifies eligibility with better certainty. And what's great is that an automatic voter registration system can help bolster that certainty.
Look at the title of this thread. Ninety five thousand registered, 58,000 voted. Every one of those was a vote stolen from an American citizen. Tell me you want that to continue happening. Because I guarantee you it is happening in Florida.
We've been over this half a dozen times, so I think you've forgotten (again), that I'm fully supportive of voter ID if it comes with an automatic registration system.
-
This!
I still can't understand why showing an ID before voting is such a bad thing. It seems that you need an ID for everything else. Just prove that you are who you are and make your mark.
Whoa there. Listen to asechrest’s plan before you concur. Your plan isn’t what he has in mind.
-
Three states have all-mail voting. Some others have all-mail voting only in certain limited circumstances, like uncontested races.
I know what you're saying. I propose instead that the "effort" remains in the process of voting, not in being registered. Remember that the purpose of a universal automatic registration system is many-fold. It's not just to piss you off. It comes with advantages including, for example, up-to-date voter rolls which make verification of voter eligibility far more accurate and efficient without accidentally adversely affecting those who are truly eligible.
Yes, it is an open door for fraud. I'm on-board with moving back to in-person voting or some other system that verifies eligibility with better certainty. And what's great is that an automatic voter registration system can help bolster that certainty.
We've been over this half a dozen times, so I think you've forgotten (again), that I'm fully supportive of voter ID if it comes with an automatic registration system.
When you say “automatic,” what do you mean? In my state anyone, even illegals, are automatically registered when they get a drivers license. This is also the case in California. I think you can see why I might be wary of “automatic” registration.
-
You misunderstand the difference between registering and voting. These are two different things.
Theoretically, you can't vote if you are not registered. By automatically registering everybody, it makes it possible to drive a bus through the ghetto and load up hundreds or thousands of people and drive them to the polls, where the will vote for whoever they are told to for a cup of coffee and a doughnut. No thinking or effort required.
-
Theoretically, you can't vote if you are not registered. By automatically registering everybody, it makes it possible to drive a bus through the ghetto and load up hundreds or thousands of people and drive them to the polls, where the will vote for whoever they are told to for a cup of coffee and a doughnut. No thinking or effort required.
Don't worry. The unregistered rate of the white vs. black population is about the same. So someone else can load up folks from the poor white areas if you think that will help. Also, rewarding voters with anything is illegal.
-
Poor White areas are not typically as concentrated as poor Black areas. So you're off base, yet again A. Your plan is specifically designed to flood the voting rolls with Democrats, minorities, illegals, etc.
-
Don't worry. The unregistered rate of the white vs. black population is about the same. So someone else can load up folks from the poor white areas if you think that will help. Also, rewarding voters with anything is illegal.
But enforcing that is extremely difficult. Especially when the enforcers are on their side. We have election officials on video telling illegals how to get registered to vote. Dems are trying to swing elections not by changing peoples minds and motivating them honestly to go vote, but by purposely targeting populations and even individuals who they know will vote their way to offer free rides to polls (or take in their early ballots) and even minor bribes just to stuff the polls with dem voters and, they are only doing this where the vote outcome will make or break their election win. It's slimy what they do.
-
Don't worry. The unregistered rate of the white vs. black population is about the same. So someone else can load up folks from the poor white areas if you think that will help. Also, rewarding voters with anything is illegal.
I don’t believe you’ve ever answered my question as to how your “automatic” registration maintains an accurate registry of eligible voter residencies.
-
I don’t believe you’ve ever answered my question as to how your “automatic” registration maintains an accurate registry of eligible voter residencies.
Nor mine as to what you mean by “automatic;” how and where does this registration automatically take place?”
-
Nor mine as to what you mean by “automatic;” how and where does this registration automatically take place?”
How about at birth. In an American hospital on American soil. Accommodations can be made for those that are born outside a hospital of American citizens. We his way, age can be verified too and they can’t vote until age 25. Even then they will need photo ID and proof of local residency. Or they will be required to update the database about their place of residence 6 months in advance of an election.
Still don’t like it though.
-
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/colorado-tries-game-electoral-college-disenfranchise-local-voters
-
But enforcing that is extremely difficult. Especially when the enforcers are on their side. We have election officials on video telling illegals how to get registered to vote. Dems are trying to swing elections not by changing peoples minds and motivating them honestly to go vote, but by purposely targeting populations and even individuals who they know will vote their way to offer free rides to polls (or take in their early ballots) and even minor bribes just to stuff the polls with dem voters and, they are only doing this where the vote outcome will make or break their election win. It's slimy what they do.
No, it's not extremely difficult. But even if it was, the answer is not literacy tests or becoming the arbiters of who is worthy or not worthy of voting. It is my conviction that doing so would be un-American.
-
I don’t believe you’ve ever answered my question as to how your “automatic” registration maintains an accurate registry of eligible voter residencies.
I've answered this many times. You might remember me referencing Canada with respect to how they information-share between local, "state", and federal levels. This is one example of how it's done.
-
No, it's not extremely difficult. But even if it was, the answer is not literacy tests or becoming the arbiters of who is worthy or not worthy of voting. It is my conviction that doing so would be un-American.
Now that’s just not honest. Enforcement is extremely difficult because few prosecutors have the resources to investigate the small but numerous cases where people are voting for other people, aren’t living in the precincts, etc. - instance of voter fraud that we know exists. Prosecutorial discretion will often overlook more wholesale fraud if they are wearing the same jerseys. Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm has rejected to pursue cases of vote fraud in Milwaukee, yet conducted numerous “John Doe cases where his armed police raided the homes of an aid to Scott Walker, Eric O’Keefe, the head of Wisconsin Club for Growth, and others just like the FBI raid on Roger Stone. These raids were for perceived political collusion! Ultimately most were thrown out as an Unconstitutional attack on the first amendment.
But when your city and county is run by democrats and socialists, these instances of prosecutorial overreach, or in the case of voter fraud, turning a blind eye, remain unchallenged and unpunished. Chisholm is still Milwaukee County’s DA.
-
I've answered this many times. You might remember me referencing Canada with respect to how they information-share between local, "state", and federal levels. This is one example of how it's done.
Information sharing relies on citizens reporting their new address, such as needing to change their drivers license. How many people fail to do so? Unless you think Big Brother needs to have a giant database of everyone’s physical movements, this is a ridiculous assumption.
-
Here's another interesting point to remember when it comes to illegal aliens voting.
Notice how the democrats do not want the question on the upcoming 2020 census "Are you a US citizen?". Congressional districts are made up of total population of each state. That population is divided by 771,000. So take a "sanctuary state" such as California where it's estimated (on the low end) that they house 4,000,000 illegals. That equals 5 congressional districts, 5 votes in congress.
Now take several states (Texas, Florida, NY, ILL, etc) and start figuring out how many illegals are there. Several more congressional districts. Start to add that up and it will become a sizable voting block in congress.
A huge state such as Texas makes a big difference in Presidential politics. Flip that state blue and you will essentially see the end of any republican ever becoming president again. In Texas there are 95,000 (known) illegal voters. Ted Cruz won re election with just around 200,000 votes. Think about that.
And anyone wonders why the democrats are so opposed to border security and election law reform.
-
Now that’s just not honest. Enforcement is extremely difficult because few prosecutors have the resources to investigate the small but numerous cases where people are voting for other people, aren’t living in the precincts, etc. - instance of voter fraud that we know exists. Prosecutorial discretion will often overlook more wholesale fraud if they are wearing the same jerseys. Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm has rejected to pursue cases of vote fraud in Milwaukee, yet conducted numerous “John Doe cases where his armed police raided the homes of an aid to Scott Walker, Eric O’Keefe, the head of Wisconsin Club for Growth, and others just like the FBI raid on Roger Stone. These raids were for perceived political collusion! Ultimately most were thrown out as an Unconstitutional attack on the first amendment.
But when your city and county is run by democrats and socialists, these instances of prosecutorial overreach, or in the case of voter fraud, turning a blind eye, remain unchallenged and unpunished. Chisholm is still Milwaukee County’s DA.
What he said. ^^^
-
The NYT plays down the significance of our thread title, dismissing 58,000 votes as a “mere” 0.69 percent fraudulent ballots.
http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/28/nearly-58000-noncitizens-illegally-voted-texas-many-nationwide/
The New York Times, though, downplayed the significance of Friday’s news, noting that “more than 8.3 million people voted in the Texas governor’s race last year, which means that even if all 58,000 people who voted were, in fact, found to be noncitizens and voted in 2018 — a claim that no state official has made — they would have amounted to only 0.69 percent of all votes that were cast.”
That’s one way to put it—if you want to obscure the significance of 58,000 fraudulent votes! After all, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in Florida by a mere 537 votes to become our 43rd president.
Critics are also attempting to spin Paxton’s announcement by painting Texas’ efforts to clean up the voting rolls as an effort in voter suppression. For instance, Kristen Clarke, the president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told The New York Times that “Texas has a rich history of undertaking action to make it harder for people to vote.” “Whenever you’re invoking the threat of criminal prosecution,” she added, “the chilling effect becomes almost unavoidable.”
But there should be a chilling effect on those who would vote illegally.
It’s a crime, and once people start getting seriously punished for it, it will decline.
-
No, it's not extremely difficult. But even if it was, the answer is not literacy tests or becoming the arbiters of who is worthy or not worthy of voting. It is my conviction that doing so would be un-American.
Since tax records do not contain citizenship information, how would your tax records plan determine who is worthy to vote by virtue of being a citizen?
Or is being a citizen part of the worth/not worthy exception you talk about?
-
It’s a crime, and once people start getting seriously punished for it, it will decline.
Wasn’t that the logic behind the war on drugs?
-
The NYT plays down the significance of our thread title, dismissing 58,000 votes as a “mere” 0.69 percent fraudulent ballots.
http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/28/nearly-58000-noncitizens-illegally-voted-texas-many-nationwide/
It’s a crime, and once people start getting seriously punished for it, it will decline.
That hasn't seemed to work out too well on other crimes. Punishment is a component, as is actually catching most of the criminals in the first place. IF people don't think they will be caught, they don't care much about what the punishment is. Especially if the crime is easy to commit.
You'd have to:
Make illegal voting difficult (voter ID)
Step up investigation and enforcement
Make the punishment severe.
But the Libs would fight that tooth and nail
-
Since tax records do not contain citizenship information, how would your tax records plan determine who is worthy to vote by virtue of being a citizen?
Or is being a citizen part of the worth/not worthy exception you talk about?
Asechrest is not forthcoming with actual, hard-core and applicable ways of containing vote fraud. Asechrest sees an ideal somewhere in the ether, and believes in it, but it has no substance yet. He is confident it will silence liberals’ cries of “Suppression!” and allow only legal citizens to vote.
He’ll tell us how this can be done as soon as he figures it out for realz.
-
That hasn't seemed to work out too well on other crimes. Punishment is a component, as is actually catching most of the criminals in the first place. IF people don't think they will be caught, they don't care much about what the punishment is. Especially if the crime is easy to commit.
You'd have to:
Make illegal voting difficult (voter ID)
Step up investigation and enforcement
Make the punishment severe.
But the Libs would fight that tooth and nail
Yes, as soon as I typed that I saw the flaw in it. Call me an idealist. I’m just hoping CNN gets their pants sued off over Covington. I read that the families are lawyering up. Will that stop CNN from propagandizing? A few million bucks, maybe? Hmmm.
-
Now that’s just not honest. Enforcement is extremely difficult because few prosecutors have the resources to investigate the small but numerous cases where people are voting for other people, aren’t living in the precincts, etc. - instance of voter fraud that we know exists. Prosecutorial discretion will often overlook more wholesale fraud if they are wearing the same jerseys. Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm has rejected to pursue cases of vote fraud in Milwaukee, yet conducted numerous “John Doe cases where his armed police raided the homes of an aid to Scott Walker, Eric O’Keefe, the head of Wisconsin Club for Growth, and others just like the FBI raid on Roger Stone. These raids were for perceived political collusion! Ultimately most were thrown out as an Unconstitutional attack on the first amendment.
But when your city and county is run by democrats and socialists, these instances of prosecutorial overreach, or in the case of voter fraud, turning a blind eye, remain unchallenged and unpunished. Chisholm is still Milwaukee County’s DA.
The scenario in question was mass busing of voters to the polls and rewarding them for doing so. Enforcement thereof is not "extremely difficult". What you further go into is political corruption that we ought not tolerate. But even so, as I said, the answer is not literacy tests or becoming the arbiters of who is worthy or not worthy of voting. It is my conviction that doing so would be un-American.
-
Information sharing relies on citizens reporting their new address, such as needing to change their drivers license. How many people fail to do so? Unless you think Big Brother needs to have a giant database of everyone’s physical movements, this is a ridiculous assumption.
Hate to break it to you, but big brother already has your information. In fact, third parties have more information than you can fathom, as I was reminded recently when discussing the particulars of Facebook advertising with a contact I have in digital marketing. They have unbelievable metrics about you.
So while citizens' volunteering their change of address certainly assists voter roll updates, it's not the only avenue of doing so. The reason the DMV doesn't have your current address is 1) they don't really care and 2) there is no information-sharing structure between government entities.
-
Since tax records do not contain citizenship information, how would your tax records plan determine who is worthy to vote by virtue of being a citizen?
Or is being a citizen part of the worth/not worthy exception you talk about?
I have not mentioned a "tax records plan". If you've done some reading on Canada's plan, you may note that they offer two check boxes on their tax returns. One asking the individual to affirm citizenship, and another authorizing update of voting records using information from the return. That's frankly not exactly the way I'd go with it, or at the very least I'd want a cross-check of citizenship.
Many countries know factually who is a citizen and who is not because records begin at birth.
-
Asechrest is not forthcoming with actual, hard-core and applicable ways of containing vote fraud. Asechrest sees an ideal somewhere in the ether, and believes in it, but it has no substance yet. He is confident it will silence liberals’ cries of “Suppression!” and allow only legal citizens to vote.
He’ll tell us how this can be done as soon as he figures it out for realz.
You're welcome to address me directly, rather than with feigned juvenility.
Let me remind you that the primary Conservative answer to vote fraud is "VOTER ID". I'll say it again - if I ever had a vote for a plan, it would INCLUDE voter ID. So tell me again that I am not suggesting applicable ways of containing vote fraud, and it'll spell the demise of your own side's idea!
-
Now that’s just not honest. Enforcement is extremely difficult because few prosecutors have the resources to investigate the small but numerous cases where people are voting for other people, aren’t living in the precincts, etc. - instance of voter fraud that we know exists. Prosecutorial discretion will often overlook more wholesale fraud if they are wearing the same jerseys. Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm has rejected to pursue cases of vote fraud in Milwaukee, yet conducted numerous “John Doe cases where his armed police raided the homes of an aid to Scott Walker, Eric O’Keefe, the head of Wisconsin Club for Growth, and others just like the FBI raid on Roger Stone. These raids were for perceived political collusion! Ultimately most were thrown out as an Unconstitutional attack on the first amendment.
But when your city and county is run by democrats and socialists, these instances of prosecutorial overreach, or in the case of voter fraud, turning a blind eye, remain unchallenged and unpunished. Chisholm is still Milwaukee County’s DA.
I live in Texas. This morning, I was listening to a state senator talking about this subject.
There are 2 prosecutors at the state level that handle this crime.
They are short handed.
-
I have not mentioned a "tax records plan". If you've done some reading on Canada's plan, you may note that they offer two check boxes on their tax returns. One asking the individual to affirm citizenship, and another authorizing update of voting records using information from the return. That's frankly not exactly the way I'd go with it, or at the very least I'd want a cross-check of citizenship.
Many countries know factually who is a citizen and who is not because records begin at birth.
Yet, the United States does not know. And it is clear that illegal aliens are voting, so any action on this must not make that problem worse.
-
You're welcome to address me directly, rather than with feigned juvenility.
Let me remind you that the primary Conservative answer to vote fraud is "VOTER ID". I'll say it again - if I ever had a vote for a plan, it would INCLUDE voter ID. So tell me again that I am not suggesting applicable ways of containing vote fraud, and it'll spell the demise of your own side's idea!
What do you mean when you say “automatic?” How and when does this “automatic” registration occur in your plan? Third time I’ve asked.
-
I live in Texas. This morning, I was listening to a state senator talking about this subject.
There are 2 prosecutors at the state level that handle this crime.
They are short handed.
Nothing will change unless the citizenry, read “conservatives,” step up and demand it publicly and loudly and as unceasingly as the leftist media dismisses it. Therefore, nothing will change. I hope I am wrong.
-
What do you mean when you say “automatic?” How and when does this “automatic” registration occur in your plan? Third time I’ve asked.
Pretty easy. We contract Amazon to do it.
-
What do you mean when you say “automatic?” How and when does this “automatic” registration occur in your plan? Third time I’ve asked.
If you are an Illegal Alien, Democrat voter, or potential Democrat voter you automatically get registered. Also biologically challenged (dead) get registered upon issuance of Death Certificate.
-
What do you mean when you say “automatic?” How and when does this “automatic” registration occur in your plan? Third time I’ve asked.
He has a plan to rebuild voter rolls every year based off tax records.
Probably a good start for auditing voter records, but incomplete. There are many people who aren’t required to file records. Plus there is no check for actual eligibility.
-
He has a plan to rebuild voter rolls every year based off tax records.
Probably a good start for auditing voter records, but incomplete. There are many people who aren’t required to file records. Plus there is no check for actual eligibility.
You are right. That is a bad plan. Let’s see, how could we ... hey!
HOW ABOUT IF EVERY CITIZEN GOES TO THEIR COURTHOUSE, SHOWS I.D. AND PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, AND REGISTERS IN PERSON?
-
I have not mentioned a "tax records plan". If you've done some reading on Canada's plan, you may note that they offer two check boxes on their tax returns. One asking the individual to affirm citizenship, and another authorizing update of voting records using information from the return. That's frankly not exactly the way I'd go with it, or at the very least I'd want a cross-check of citizenship.
Many countries know factually who is a citizen and who is not because records begin at birth.
Good luck with cross-checking citizenship. The democrats are fighting the Census Bureau for asking a citizenship question on the fucking CENSUS. They are fighting it because when non-citizens increase the population count in a state, that state can get an increased number of congressional districts, this increasing their power in the House of Representatives. This is voter fraud by other means, perpetuated by the democrat party.
-
Good luck with cross-checking citizenship. The democrats are fighting the Census Bureau for asking a citizenship question on the fucking CENSUS. They are fighting it because when non-citizens increase the population count in a state, that state can get an increased number of congressional districts, this increasing their power in the House of Representatives. This is voter fraud by other means, perpetuated by the democrat party.
That fact should tell you all you need to know.
-
You are right. That is a bad plan. Let’s see, how could we ... hey!
HOW ABOUT IF EVERY CITIZEN GOES TO THEIR COURTHOUSE, SHOWS I.D. AND PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, AND REGISTERS IN PERSON?
RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
It would be a great study to crosscheck all those different databases against the voter rolls. I suspect that you could eliminate most of the names on the voter rolls as legitimate and then concentrate on the 5% left over to determine if they were valid.
The only reason I say that I don't think you could eliminate all of the names is because I'm sure quite a few are bogus.
-
What do you mean when you say “automatic?” How and when does this “automatic” registration occur in your plan? Third time I’ve asked.
Automatic means automatic. How and when? Good question, since the devil is always in the details. We have many other countries from which to draw ideas, though our solution would need to be unique. There are varying systems, including countries with compulsory registration, countries that have a national register, etc. The two key ideas are this: 1) registration is automatic upon rising to age of eligibility, with no need to opt-in, but an option to opt-out and 2) information is shared with the appropriate entities each time an individual interacts with a government agency. I also want to see voter ID implemented, and I think we should pull back from absentee and mail in voting.
My opinion is that a plan that has these parts gives both sides a critical piece they want, but not everything they want. In other words, it's a quintessential compromise. If it's done right, it could also reduce administration costs, keep voter rolls orders of magnitude more accurate, and protect against fraud.
Will it ever happen? Doubt it. It's a sizable undertaking, and the transition from our current system to the new system would be a bear.
-
Good luck with cross-checking citizenship. The democrats are fighting the Census Bureau for asking a citizenship question on the fucking CENSUS. They are fighting it because when non-citizens increase the population count in a state, that state can get an increased number of congressional districts, this increasing their power in the House of Representatives. This is voter fraud by other means, perpetuated by the democrat party.
The transition is the hard part, really. Long-term, if the system is done correctly, we could know factually who is and is not a citizen.
-
The transition is the hard part, really. Long-term, if the system is done correctly, we could know factually who is and is not a citizen.
If the democrats succeed, it will be another 10 years before we can ask again. And they will fight it in 10 years again. It’s fatiguing to continue to fight for facts when they fight for their right to be ignorant of facts.
-
The transition is the hard part, really. Long-term, if the system is done correctly, we could know factually who is and is not a citizen.
Simply microchip all citizens. No chip, no vote. Of course when we get to that voting would be pointless as the Corporation would control everything. Like it does now but we just don't know it.
-
Here's a novel concept: Let people register to vote that want to. Have them provide proof of residency and proof of citizenship. Issue them a "voter ID". Present that ID when they wish to vote, and match it to the voter records.
Move to another state? No problem! Require people who register to vote to surrender their voter ID card (under penalty of law) before getting the new one. In the application for the voter ID, provide a previous address if the person just moved there.
Finally, enforce laws pertaining to voter fraud.
-
Here's a novel concept: Let people register to vote that want to. Have them provide proof of residency and proof of citizenship. Issue them a "voter ID". Present that ID when they wish to vote, and match it to the voter records.
Move to another state? No problem! Require people who register to vote to surrender their voter ID card (under penalty of law) before getting the new one. In the application for the voter ID, provide a previous address if the person just moved there.
Finally, enforce laws pertaining to voter fraud.
It works for state issued Driver's Licenses.
-
Here's a novel concept: Let people register to vote that want to. Have them provide proof of residency and proof of citizenship. Issue them a "voter ID". Present that ID when they wish to vote, and match it to the voter records.
Move to another state? No problem! Require people who register to vote to surrender their voter ID card (under penalty of law) before getting the new one. In the application for the voter ID, provide a previous address if the person just moved there.
Finally, enforce laws pertaining to voter fraud.
Yes. Effort, and several proofs.
Sorry asechrest, but it just makes sense not to create a lot of registered voters if they’re not motivated in some way to get the registration done. Why create a bunch of inactive voters? It’s just one more opening for fraud.
-
Here's a novel concept: Let people register to vote that want to. Have them provide proof of residency and proof of citizenship. Issue them a "voter ID". Present that ID when they wish to vote, and match it to the voter records.
Move to another state? No problem! Require people who register to vote to surrender their voter ID card (under penalty of law) before getting the new one. In the application for the voter ID, provide a previous address if the person just moved there.
Finally, enforce laws pertaining to voter fraud.
Right now I don't know if you'd catch someone who moved to a new state, voted, and then voted by absentee ballot in their old state. Do they cross check your voter registration address with the deed records to prove you still live there? How would they even do that if you rent, unless someone else registers at that address? And if they do, so what? More than one voter can live at one address. When you turn in your old drivers license (if your state even requires you to) when you get your new license does the election board in your old state verify your license hasn't been canceled when vote day comes? I'm sure not if you aren't even required to show ID when you vote in person.
I heard that one form of election fraud was people just driving around and registering and voting in several states or districts. I don't know how true that was but when I moved from NC to TX I got an absentee ballot in the mail for NC that had been forwarded to me. I think I could have voted twice and gotten away with it.
-
Right now I don't know if you'd catch someone who moved to a new state, voted, and then voted by absentee ballot in their old state. Do they cross check your voter registration address with the deed records to prove you still live there? How would they even do that if you rent, unless someone else registers at that address? And if they do, so what? More than one voter can live at one address. When you turn in your old drivers license (if your state even requires you to) when you get your new license does the election board in your old state verify your license hasn't been canceled when vote day comes? I'm sure not if you aren't even required to show ID when you vote in person.
I heard that one form of election fraud was people just driving around and registering and voting in several states or districts. I don't know how true that was but when I moved from NC to TX I got an absentee ballot in the mail for NC that had been forwarded to me. I think I could have voted twice and gotten away with it.
I'm not a fan of national databases designed to track our movements, but I can see a need for a simple database that tracks voters. Of course, nothing on a national scale is simple, and is subject to abuse, but safeguards could be built in.
When you register to vote, your information would be stored in a national voter registration database. At the time of registration, the database would be searched to make sure you are not already registered elsewhere.
-
I'm not a fan of national databases designed to track our movements, but I can see a need for a simple database that tracks voters. Of course, nothing on a national scale is simple, and is subject to abuse, but safeguards could be built in.
When you register to vote, your information is stored in a national voter registration database. At the time of registration, the database is searched to make sure you are not already registered elsewhere.
Agree. I don't like them either but I don't see how you can prevent this type of fraud without one.
-
Right now I don't know if you'd catch someone who moved to a new state, voted, and then voted by absentee ballot in their old state. Do they cross check your voter registration address with the deed records to prove you still live there? How would they even do that if you rent, unless someone else registers at that address? And if they do, so what? More than one voter can live at one address. When you turn in your old drivers license (if your state even requires you to) when you get your new license does the election board in your old state verify your license hasn't been canceled when vote day comes? I'm sure not if you aren't even required to show ID when you vote in person.
I heard that one form of election fraud was people just driving around and registering and voting in several states or districts. I don't know how true that was but when I moved from NC to TX I got an absentee ballot in the mail for NC that had been forwarded to me. I think I could have voted twice and gotten away with it.
It's a problem, for sure.
States communicate with each other on a host of other issues, and in this day and time they really need to get together and clean up voter rolls.
But, until that happens, we can at least enforce our laws as written. And demand ID to vote.
-
I keep thinking we need a state and national reboot of the system. It’s obviously out of control right now. I honestly believe that while the left would howl if Trump ordered a cleansing/re-registering from a clean slate, we’d see a much different America when the smoke cleared.
-
Shouldn’t that be every CITIZEN counts? How is the census integrity helped by not knowing how many CITIZENS our country has?
https://mobile.twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1090814678434017280
-
Shouldn’t that be every CITIZEN counts? How is the census integrity helped by not knowing how many CITIZENS our country has?
https://mobile.twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1090814678434017280
It's called stacking congressional seats. If we weed out non citizens, then it means less seats in congress.
-
More caravans. Acosta will tell us that Trump probably is staging these so he can build us a wall.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/30/senior-dod-official-three-migrant-caravans-headed-to-u-s-one-with-12000/
-
It's called stacking congressional seats. If we weed out non citizens, then it means less seats in congress.
Once again with the ignorance. Stop it, please.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled 2 years ago that States could count all people living in the state for the purposes of apportionment of Congress. This wasn't close, every single justice agreed that they be counted. So then you're misrepresenting it.
Again - are you stupid or just hateful? Because what you posted shows complete ignorance of the topic you're posting about. Is that your MO, to just write crap and never bother to even wonder if it's factually correct?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/4/supreme-court-illegals-count-apportionment/
Oh yeah, I'm not even started with you yet...
-
Shouldn’t that be every CITIZEN counts? How is the census integrity helped by not knowing how many CITIZENS our country has?
https://mobile.twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1090814678434017280
I think I said that in this thread or somewhere else. Becky, we are in a war for America. I’m very, very worrieda out our country. Camala Harris is the enemy of America.
-
Once again with the ignorance. Stop it, please.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled 2 years ago that States could count all people living in the state for the purposes of apportionment of Congress. This wasn't close, every single justice agreed that they be counted. So then you're misrepresenting it.
Again - are you stupid or just hateful? Because what you posted shows complete ignorance of the topic you're posting about. Is that your MO, to just write crap and never bother to even wonder if it's factually correct?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/4/supreme-court-illegals-count-apportionment/
Oh yeah, I'm not even started with you yet...
Wow, you’re an internet tough guy now?
-
Once again with the ignorance. Stop it, please.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled 2 years ago that States could count all people living in the state for the purposes of apportionment of Congress. This wasn't close, every single justice agreed that they be counted. So then you're misrepresenting it.
Again - are you stupid or just hateful? Because what you posted shows complete ignorance of the topic you're posting about. Is that your MO, to just write crap and never bother to even wonder if it's factually correct?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/4/supreme-court-illegals-count-apportionment/
Oh yeah, I'm not even started with you yet...
You're having some serious issues there. I've noticed you become triggered when people won't buy into your faux intellect.
I suggest you look into some anger management therapy. Seriously.
-
I keep thinking we need a state and national reboot of the system. It’s obviously out of control right now. I honestly believe that while the left would howl if Trump ordered a cleansing/re-registering from a clean slate, we’d see a much different America when the smoke cleared.
I don't believe the president has the authority to order a cleansing or re-registering. I could be wrong, but other than congressional agreement of elections, I don't recall any part of the Constitution that gives the federal government authority over state election processes. There's just no authority for anyone at a national level to do anything with it.
I agree we need to reboot the system, but it is up to the states to do it.
-
You're having some serious issues there. I've noticed you become triggered when people won't buy into your faux intellect.
I suggest you look into some anger management therapy. Seriously.
Yeah, let's attack each other and not argue the issues. Much more exciting, and easier to boot.
-
Yeah, let's attack each other and not argue the issues. Much more exciting, and easier to boot.
Awww shucks.......you’re right (as always)......
Forgive me for standing up for myself.... I should just learn to take it and say nothing.....
/end of sarcasm.
-
Awww shucks.......you’re right (as always)......
Forgive me for standing up for myself.... I should just learn to take it and say nothing.....
/end of sarcasm.
-
^^^^^That is one of my favorite Star Trek episodes, and to me there is only one Star Trek.
-
^^^^^That is one of my favorite Star Trek episodes, and to me there is only one Star Trek.
Why do I get the idea that Logajan shows up at Trekky conventions dressed as Spock?
-
Why do I get the idea that Logajan shows up at Trekky conventions dressed as Spock?
Wrong. He dresses up as Sheldon Cooper (from the Big Bang Theory) dressing up as Spock. So basically, Spock twice removed.
-
I don't believe the president has the authority to order a cleansing or re-registering. I could be wrong, but other than congressional agreement of elections, I don't recall any part of the Constitution that gives the federal government authority over state election processes. There's just no authority for anyone at a national level to do anything with it.
You used to be right. But the precedent has been set. All it takes is a pen and a phone. Trump has those.
Oh yeah, and a no one to object.
I guess you are right. Trump doesn't have that.
-
You used to be right. But the precedent has been set. All it takes is a pen and a phone. Trump has those.
Oh yeah, and a no one to object.
I guess you are right. Trump doesn't have that.
You're correct that today power is what people allow you to do. That's horrible for a Republic and a huge step toward a dictatorship. We have laws and we should stick to them. The president does not have the authority to wipe out state voter rolls.
-
You're correct that today power is what people allow you to do. That's horrible for a Republic and a huge step toward a dictatorship. We have laws and we should stick to them. The president does not have the authority to wipe out state voter rolls.
But Obama had a "right" to not enforce Immigration Law and sig EO's that were questionable at best? No, I don't want Trump to be able to do that. Can you cite where he has? Also, do the Democrats have a "right" to all of a sudden find lost boxes of ballads in order to overturn a legitimate election?
-
But Obama had a "right" to not enforce Immigration Law and sig EO's that were questionable at best? No, I don't want Trump to be able to do that. Can you cite where he has? Also, do the Democrats have a "right" to all of a sudden find lost boxes of ballads in order to overturn a legitimate election?
Power is what people let you do. Authority is what they have to let you do.
As a Republic, we want authority to be limited. As partisans, you want power for your guy to be unlimited. So do they.
Is that clear or do I need to explain more?
-
Power is what people let you do. Authority is what they have to let you do.
As a Republic, we want authority to be limited. As partisans, you want power for your guy to be unlimited. So do they.
Is that clear or do I need to explain more?
Yes. You have to explain how I want "my guy" to have unlimited power. I don't and never would.
-
Power is what people let you do. Authority is what they have to let you do.
As a Republic, we want authority to be limited. As partisans, you want power for your guy to be unlimited. So do they.
Is that clear or do I need to explain more?
Don't put words in my mouth. I was only pointing out the utter hypocrisy of the Democrats. I don't trust ANY authority, Republican, nor Democrat, nor Communist, etc. It should all be limited. I only trust that ultimately THE PEOPLE can hold authority accountable by force if necessary. Of course they have removed any way we can do that, and now want our legally owned firearms to complete the task.
Plus, don't preach to me.
-
Power and authority need to be in the office not the person. It's the whole reason we broke from King George. The Democrats no longer respect the office. They have decided that the ideals of the person is what should have power and authority - their leftist ideals specifically. Nothing highlighted this more than Hillary during the debate where she said she would name SC nominees who would use the court for activism. Trump stated his nominees would uphold the Constitution (as the office is sworn to do). That tells you all you need to know about the left and their desire to replace rule of law with their own agenda.
-
Power and authority need to be in the office not the person. It's the whole reason we broke from King George. The Democrats no longer respect the office. They have decided that the ideals of the person is what should have power and authority - their leftist ideals specifically. Nothing highlighted this more than Hillary during the debate where she said she would name SC nominees who would use the court for activism. Trump stated his nominees would uphold the Constitution (as the office is sworn to do). That tells you all you need to know about the left and their desire to replace rule of law with their own agenda.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/26FmRKQ6p7gpKekAE/giphy.gif)
-
Don't put words in my mouth. I was only pointing out the utter hypocrisy of the Democrats. I don't trust ANY authority, Republican, nor Democrat, nor Communist, etc. It should all be limited. I only trust that ultimately THE PEOPLE can hold authority accountable by force if necessary.
And I'm pointing out the utter hypocrisy of republicans. Most...but obviously not you...are all for giving the president the authority to do new things, like wiping the state voter rolls clean or declaring spending authority to build a wall.
If you're going to suggest a change, make very, very sure that you like the other side having the ability to do it too.
-
Power and authority need to be in the office not the person. It's the whole reason we broke from King George. The Democrats no longer respect the office. They have decided that the ideals of the person is what should have power and authority - their leftist ideals specifically. Nothing highlighted this more than Hillary during the debate where she said she would name SC nominees who would use the court for activism. Trump stated his nominees would uphold the Constitution (as the office is sworn to do). That tells you all you need to know about the left and their desire to replace rule of law with their own agenda.
That's the theory. But the power and authority of the office become the power and authority of the person and sometimes vice versa.
Democrats have been out of the legal bounds for a very long time because Republicans haven't stopped them. Power is what people let you do.
-
And I'm pointing out the utter hypocrisy of republicans. Most...but obviously not you...are all for giving the president the authority to do new things, like wiping the state voter rolls clean or declaring spending authority to build a wall.
If you're going to suggest a change, make very, very sure that you like the other side having the ability to do it too.
Lucifer is right. You are just being an ass. I guess you got your feelings hurt somewhere along the line.
Suggesting that the president do something that he may not be authorized to do is just a call for action. Not an attack on the Constitution. And it certainly doesn't mean we want to give him unlimited power. You are making this shit up as you go for some personal reason. Maybe you are just trying to balance the scales on this site a little, but it isn't working. You are making yourself look small and petty.
-
Suggesting that the president do something that he may not be authorized to do is just a call for action. Not an attack on the Constitution.
I will not apologize for taking it seriously because I think we suffer because a lot of people do not take Constitutional authority seriously. It is supposed to be the unbreakable thing in our government. If Constitutional authority is universally ignored then we will have become a dictatorship with the president taking any action he chooses.
This is why suggesting the president take action he isn’t authorized to perform is an attack on the Constitution. A breakdown of Constitutional authority is a breakdown in law. I thought the same thing when Obama did it. I am not changing because the president has an R next to his name now.
-
I will not apologize for taking it seriously because I think we suffer because a lot of people do not take Constitutional authority seriously. It is supposed to be the unbreakable thing in our government. If Constitutional authorty is universally ignored then we will have become a dictatorship with the president taking any action he chooses.
This is why suggesting the president take action he isn’t authorized to perform us an attack on the Cos titution. A breakdown of Constitutional authority is a breakdown in law. I thought the same thing when Obama did it. I am not changing because the president has an R next to his name now.
Maybe I missed it, but when has President Trump taken action that wasn't authorized by the constitution? If anything he's been insistent on following the constitution, unlike his predecessor.
And while his predecessor took several actions that were questionable, it just sailed right through, no questions.
-
Maybe I missed it, but when has President Trump taken action that wasn't authorized by the constitution?
You forget all those breathless "news" reports that predicted that he MIGHT do something outside of his authority. Way too many people take their speculation and opinion as reliable news.
-
Maybe I missed it, but when has President Trump taken action that wasn't authorized by the constitution? If anything he's been insistent on following the constitution, unlike his predecessor.
And while his predecessor took several actions that were questionable, it just sailed right through, no questions.
You're right you completely missed it.
The phrase is "suggesting that the president...", not "the president did". It is about a suggestion made in this thread that the president perform an action which no president is authorized to do.
Wrong again Lucy.
Is this a tantrum because you can't post stuff that is correct? I told you that I hadn't even started with you yet...having fun?
-
Is this a tantrum because you can't post stuff that is correct? I told you that I hadn't even started with you yet...having fun?
You are really pathetic, sad excuse of a little man. Do everyone a favor and grow up.
-
You're right you completely missed it.
The phrase is "suggesting that the president...", not "the president did". It is about a suggestion made in this thread that the president perform an action which no president is authorized to do.
Wrong again Lucy.
Is this a tantrum because you can't post stuff that is correct? I told you that I hadn't even started with you yet...having fun?
Ok internet tough guy.
-
You are really pathetic, sad excuse of a little man. Do everyone a favor and grow up.
Sticks and stones Lucy.
-
Personally I think every state should wipe their voter roles today and start over. Let everyone that wants to vote re-register before the next election.
-
I think it’s a good idea too. I believe the rolls are contaminated to the point that most people would be appalled.
But Dems freaked over purging 1000 names. Can you imagine the uproar if a state purged everyone.
-
Well, here’s a thought. Obviously Texas was able to isolate illegal voters and even how many of them voted. Perhaps all states could do that. Of course, it would only work in states where the governors and Secretaries of State and attorney generals are all Republicans.
-
Could work if just the legislature or just the governor cared - Republican or Democrat. Both have enough discretionary money to fund a study if they choose, they just have to choose first.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1092997537005428736
-
But Obama had a "right" to not enforce Immigration Law and sig EO's that were questionable at best? No, I don't want Trump to be able to do that. Can you cite where he has? Also, do the Democrats have a "right" to all of a sudden find lost boxes of ballads in order to overturn a legitimate election?
I'rather ignore immigrants than take their children away and put them in concentration camps.
-
I'rather ignore immigrants than take their children away and put them in concentration camps./quote]
Did you feel that way when Bush and Obama were doing it? This isn't a new thing, it's been going on for 20 years. I agree it's wrong, we should keep families together. But we should have been doing that all along. Fortunately kids are far more resilient than we give them credit for.
At the same time, I don't think the answer is to release people to roam about the country while they wait for an immigration hearing. It sends a signal that they don't ever need to come back because they've accomplished what they're looking for - living in the US. Laws and rules are for the moral people who care about those kinds of things.
-
I'rather ignore immigrants than take their children away and put them in concentration camps.
Why was it OK when BHO was doing it? Where was the outrage?
-
I'rather ignore immigrants than take their children away and put them in concentration camps.
Hyperbolic. Perfect example of why you can’t be taken seriously.
And of course ignoring them means you’d release these kids into the US with their coyote “companions,” human traffickers, and sex slave masters. You’re a sick fuck.
Ice separates these kids, and cares for them, until their status and the legitimacy of their parents can be verified. Ignoring them is cruel and sick.
-
What about American citizens? Children are dragged away from their parents and put into foster homes when their parents break the law and are put in prison. Where's the outrage? This happens thousands and thousands of times each year. No outrage because citizen lives don't matter.
-
Steingar, at times you seem to be trying to become something other than an NPC, but then you spit out something like that. C’mon, bro ... you can do it! Have an ACTUAL opinion that is thought through and stands up to scrutiny! Shut us up with the real deal, don’t just lay yourself open to for filleting with a talking point!
I'rather ignore immigrants than take their children away and put them in concentration camps.
Start by answering all the questions put to you in the posts above.
-
(https://thelibertydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Meme-CNN-Liberals-Fake-News-300x231.jpg)
-
Why was it OK when BHO was doing it? Where was the outrage?
You guys need to get your story straight. Anthony claims he ignored it:
But Obama had a "right" to not enforce Immigration Law and sig EO's that were questionable at best? No, I don't want Trump to be able to do that. Can you cite where he has? Also, do the Democrats have a "right" to all of a sudden find lost boxes of ballads in order to overturn a legitimate election?
-
Hyperbolic. Perfect example of why you can’t be taken seriously.
Nice to know you think its OK to put kids in prison for being brown.
And of course ignoring them means you’d release these kids into the US with their coyote “companions,” human traffickers, and sex slave masters. You’re a sick fuck.
Ice separates these kids, and cares for them, until their status and the legitimacy of their parents can be verified. Ignoring them is cruel and sick.
Personally I think they should be left with their parents. Obviously you all think otherwise.
-
I'rather ignore immigrants than take their children away and put them in concentration camps.
How do you feel about leaving children in the hands of child sex and slave traffickers?
-
Nice to know you think its OK to put kids in prison for being brown.
Nice trolling post. And that's all it is.
Personally I think they should be left with their parents. Obviously you all think otherwise.
It's been pointed out many times that often these kids are being used, and not by their parents. Somehow liberals seem to think along with killing new born babies that having young preteen children from other countries brought here to be sex trafficked is just a fine idea. Or having young preteen children found left alone in the desert either dead or dying is just a part of "those seeking asylum".
And, of course, liberals want to grant rights to people who come here and break our laws. They want these criminals to have rights not granted to law abiding citizens.
A US citizen breaks a law and faces prison, which means separation from their family. In liberal utopia, and illegal alien, a person that has already committed a crime by illegally entering our country should be set free to do as they please because "we can't separate them from their family".
GMAFB.
-
How do you feel about leaving children in the hands of child sex and slave traffickers?
He doesn't care. Remember, he's a proud member of a party that advocates infanticide, as well as promoting bigotry and racism and anti civil rights.
His party only wants power, no matter the cost. If a bunch of children have to die or be sexually abused to get it, they are just "collateral damage", nothing more.
-
Nice to know you think its OK to put kids in prison for being brown.
Personally I think they should be left with their parents. Obviously you all think otherwise.
Like I said, you’re a sick fuck. Exactly how do you know that they are their parents? Have you not listened to the stories of coyotes “renting” children to get into asylum status? Have you not heard of the human trafficking problem, again with people posing as children’s parents? Have you not heard of kidnappings of children, rapes of women and children on their journey to the border?
Are these facts uncomfortable for you?
-
You guys need to get your story straight. Anthony claims he ignored it:
There is no “you guys” and no story to keep straight. This has been something DhS has had to deal with for decades. It isn’t really even a president issue, it is just a consequence of other policies and situations. For various reasons, children in custody of the DHS have been separated from parent since DHS started running Border Patrol. That can be becUse of a criminal record, medical reason or other issues.
Today almost all the lone children in custody are unaccompanied minors because it is difficult to identify parents in a foreign country.
-
Trump, himself, on television said he was separating children from their parents to be hard on them for entering the country illegally. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
-
Trump, himself, on television said he was separating children from their parents to be hard on them for entering the country illegally. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Please post that video.
-
Trump, himself, on television said he was separating children from their parents to be hard on them for entering the country illegally. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Facts, like the ones you ignore about the horrors incurred by the children being used and abused? Glad to know you turn your back on sex slavery and human trafficking. Your university should know your inclinations.
-
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fs0yxxpe61w011.png&f=1)
-
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fs0yxxpe61w011.png&f=1)
Honest to God, if that MS-13 member walked up to the border dragging an unwilling 13-year old girl, Steingar would turn his back on her and say its right to keep a child and her “daddy” together.
-
Please post that video.
As you wish.
-
The actual quote:
"We want to solve family separation, and I don't want the children to be taken away from parents, and when you are prosecute the parents for coming in illegally, which should happen, you have to take the children away."
Not at all what you think he said, which is
Trump, himself, on television said he was separating children from their parents to be hard on them for entering the country illegally. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
-
The quote is extracted in a misleading way, a YouTube video is titled with it, and hey presto, Trump is admitting to punishing parents, who’ve broken the law, by actually following immigration law designed to protect children!
And stooges like Steingar lap it up because confirmation bias. Most won’t even watch the video. Their bias will be confirmed by reading the title.
-
The actual quote:Not at all what you think he said, which is
Steingar must have read the MSNBC transcript.
-
The actual quote:Not at all what you think he said, which is
Exactly.
Perfesser has just twisted a few words to get his result. Typical.
-
Steingar must have read the MSNBC transcript.
Read? Are you serious??
Since when has he actually read anything?
-
Honest to God, if that MS-13 member walked up to the border dragging an unwilling 13-year old girl, Steingar would turn his back on her and say its right to keep a child and her “daddy” together.
From his desk chair in his ivory tower, yes he would. On scene, I’d hope he would act responsibly and separate them.
-
Wow. You guys don’t even believe it from Trumplethinskin’s own mouth. I’m impressed.
-
Wow. You guys don’t even believe it from Trumplethinskin’s own mouth. I’m impressed.
Thought of you whilst reading this WalkAway testimony. Come on, Steiny-whiny! You can dooooooo it ... just open your mind a little bit and light will dawn. You too can walk away!
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1945356878817544?view=permalink&id=2319151234771438&refid=18&__tn__=-R
-
Thought of you whilst reading this WalkAway testimony. Come on, Steiny-whiny! You can dooooooo it ... just open your mind a little bit and light will dawn. You too can walk away!
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1945356878817544?view=permalink&id=2319151234771438&refid=18&__tn__=-R
Spot on about the monolithic situation in media and academia and also spot on about going on emotion instead of logic. Conservatives do it too sometimes but in general liberals do it more. It's not a bad thing to be emotional and you certainly don't want to lack emotion. But policy should not be based on emotion.
-
Wow. You guys don’t even believe it from Trumplethinskin’s own mouth. I’m impressed.
For eight years the mocha messiah spouted lie after lie, all captured on video. And sycophants such as yourself fawned over every word as it were gospel. When the conservative media pointed out the inconsistencies and even out right lies, you and the lemmings united in a chorus of "racist!" believing each and every word put forth by The Empty Suit.
The democrat party, and devout followers such as yourself are the party of hatred, bigotry, racism, anti semitism and now have embraced infanticide. Your party is also promoting lawlessness and now has openly admitted preferring criminals over law abiding citizens. We've seen this play over and over in the past 100+ years and it never ends well. And for these movements to take hold all they need are the "useful idiots" such as yourself to devour the propaganda.
-
Wow. You guys don’t even believe it from Trumplethinskin’s own mouth. I’m impressed.
Is stupid really the only thing you can wrap your arms around and support?
No wonder your students hate you.
-
Wow. You guys don’t even believe it from Trumplethinskin’s own mouth. I’m impressed.
So you are very much against separating children from criminal parents? That leaves only two choices. 1) Put children in prison with their parents. And rapists, child molesters, murderers. 2) Don't prosecute criminals that have children with them. Regardless of crime, regardless if the children are theirs. Which do you choose?
-
From his desk chair in his ivory tower, yes he would. On scene, I’d hope he would act responsibly and separate them.
That’s the problem with liberals though Becky. The law of unintended consequences doesn’t exist in their world, as they are only judged on their intentions. Whatever problems come from their policies is not their concern, including the 13 year old girl who will be sold into sex slavery or worse. It simply doesn’t matter to them, as long as they get congratulated by their fellow SJWs for thinking about “the other guy”, even if their policy results in extreme cruelty and grotesque consequences for throw-away victims.
-
The quote is extracted in a misleading way, a YouTube video is titled with it, and hey presto, Trump is admitting to punishing parents, who’ve broken the law, by actually following immigration law designed to protect children!
And stooges like Steingar lap it up because confirmation bias. Most won’t even watch the video. Their bias will be confirmed by reading the title.
Where did you find a photo of mari from POA?
-
(https://i0.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/f9-1.jpg?w=580)
-
(https://i1.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Sc.jpg?resize=768%2C548)