Voter Fraud In Ohio

[MTK]

Seems they should have just used a better example if they didn't want him being exposed.

[JWsleep]

Back to voter fraud.

Claiming voter fraud is a standard move by parties that have an interest in low voter turn out. Registering as many new voters as possible is a standard move for parties with an interest in high voter turn out. Can you guess which party is which in this election?

Much more serious than ACORN trying to register Mickey Mouse (Note: this is very different from Mickey ACTUALLY VOTING--see this for more on the ACORN stuff: ) is the attempts to disenfranchise legit voters. If legit voters are prevented from voting in an election, that's a serious blow to the whole idea of democracy. (See here for a partisan view: Voter Disenfranchisement: There's Nothing Some Fear More Than Citizens Exercising Their Constitutional Rights )

Can you guess which side I'm on?

[firstdown]

[quote=JWsleep;492089]Back to voter fraud.

Claiming voter fraud is a standard move by parties that have an interest in low voter turn out. Registering as many new voters as possible is a standard move for parties with an interest in high voter turn out. Can you guess which party is which in this election?

Much more serious than ACORN trying to register Mickey Mouse (Note: this is very different from Mickey ACTUALLY VOTING--see this for more on the ACORN stuff: ) is the attempts to disenfranchise legit voters. If legit voters are prevented from voting in an election, that's a serious blow to the whole idea of democracy. (See here for a partisan view: Voter Disenfranchisement: There's Nothing Some Fear More Than Citizens Exercising Their Constitutional Rights )

Can you guess which side I'm on?[/quot

The word disenfranchised is also used by groups that do not want anyone enforcing the rules and that anyone who puts in an application should be allowed to just vote without question. Accorn had two people thrown in jail here in Va. for voter fraud and thats just VA. They are also under FBI investigation. I also find it funny how the dems seem to want no one to review these registrations claiming fear of disenfrnchising them but back in 2000 they wanted to throw out all of those ballots sent in from our servicemen over sea's. It seem they just want to be selective as long as its in their favor.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The word disenfranchised is also used by groups that do not want anyone enforcing the rules and that anyone who puts in an application should be allowed to just vote without question. Accorn had two people thrown in jail here in Va. for voter fraud and thats just VA. They are also under FBI investigation. I also find it funny how the dems seem to want no one to review these registrations claiming fear of disenfrnchising them but back in 2000 they wanted to throw out all of those ballots sent in from our servicemen over sea's. It seem they just want to be selective as long as its in their favor.

Who's saying anyone should be allowed to vote without question? That's obviously wrong as well (two wrongs, etc.) And disenfranchising servicemen is certainly wrong and undemocratic. And as I said in my post, the campaign challenging the registrations will be the one with an interest in throwing out votes. My point is it's wrong, whoever does it. But there's no doubt that's it's a staple of the Republican playbook from way back (at least the 1960s) and they are playing it big time now.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Who's saying anyone should be allowed to vote without question? That's obviously wrong as well (two wrongs, etc.) And disenfranchising servicemen is certainly wrong and undemocratic. And as I said in my post, the campaign challenging the registrations will be the one with an interest in throwing out votes. My point is it's wrong, whoever does it. But there's no doubt that's it's a staple of the Republican playbook from way back (at least the 1960s) and they are playing it big time now.

Its a staple of both parties so don't put the dems above any of this. Parties worry about voter fraud in areas where it is likley that the voter will be voting for the other party. Thats why the Dems tried to discredit the military over seas vote because they knew it was in the Rep. favor and its why the rep. go after certain voters.

[saden1]

Republican Voter Registration Chief Arrested for Fraud in California. How ironic.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by saden1

Republican Voter Registration Chief Arrested for Fraud in California. How ironic.

Gotta love it.

[MTK]

Brad Friedman: The Republican voter fraud hoax | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

[JWsleep]

Again, I agree that we should cut bloated gov't spending. But I don't think McCain will be able to do anything serious--so we're just going to get a continuation of the Bush debt spending. Is that good policy? My guess is Obama will end up raising middle class taxes at some point. And I am not against that, so long as it's part of balancing the budget.

And I'm still not sure where you'd set the tax rates if we drop them across the board. If you want to keep defense strong, and you want to pay even for a "revamped" SS, medicare, etc. the monies have to come from somewhere. Past progressive tax rates have been much higher on the top tier, and the economy did well (See the Eisenhower years, e.g.). 39 is not too much of a burden. And there ought to be ways to deduct for charitable contributions--rather than sending your money to the gov't, send it to the charity of your choice. That would help the nation as well.

I reiterate that I think the issue of fair taxation policy if the #1 divide between libs and conservatives. Doubt we'll ever agree, but it sure beats talking about all the red herring stuff in this campaign!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

it sure beats talking about all the red herring stuff in this campaign!

We definitely agree here.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Again, I agree that we should cut bloated gov't spending. But I don't think McCain will be able to do anything serious--so we're just going to get a continuation of the Bush debt spending. Is that good policy? My guess is Obama will end up raising middle class taxes at some point. And I am not against that, so long as it's part of balancing the budget.

And I'm still not sure where you'd set the tax rates if we drop them across the board. If you want to keep defense strong, and you want to pay even for a "revamped" SS, medicare, etc. the monies have to come from somewhere. Past progressive tax rates have been much higher on the top tier, and the economy did well (See the Eisenhower years, e.g.). 39 is not too much of a burden. And there ought to be ways to deduct for charitable contributions--rather than sending your money to the gov't, send it to the charity of your choice. That would help the nation as well.

I reiterate that I think the issue of fair taxation policy if the #1 divide between libs and conservatives. Doubt we'll ever agree, but it sure beats talking about all the red herring stuff in this campaign!

Well if you think 39% taxation is not all that high I guess your sending the goverment a check each year so your paying 39%.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well if you think 39% taxation is not all that high I guess your sending the goverment a check each year so your paying 39%.

If I made over 250,000 I would, as part of a well-worked out economic policy. Given that we will all be paying taxes, my view is that those with more income can afford to bear a higher percentage of the tax burden, for the reasons I gave above.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

If I made over 250,000 I would, as part of a well-worked out economic policy. Given that we will all be paying taxes, my view is that those with more income can afford to bear a higher percentage of the tax burden, for the reasons I gave above.

They are. I find it interesting you think its OK for them to work 4 months just to pay taxes but admit its not for you. I'm not saying they should not pay taxes but find it strang how people can sit back and say rais their taxes but no not mine.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by firstdown

They are. I find it interesting you think its OK for them to work 4 months just to pay taxes but admit its not for you. I'm not saying they should not pay taxes but find it strang how people can sit back and say rais their taxes but no not mine.

Actually, I'm one of those weirdos who's ok with them raising my taxes now, if it's part of a good program.

Look, either my argument is a good one or it isn't. I claim that the rich can bear the burden of a higher tax rate better than the middle class or the poor. Further, I claimed that effective progressive taxation is better for the economy than the trickle-down alternative. Finally, I claimed that the rich have benefited more from living in this society--its infrastructure, its institutions, its government, etc.--so it's reasonable to ask them to pay more. If this argument works, it works even if I'm rich.

For the record, I learned to think this way from my grandfather, a tax lawyer and law professor. He was rich and happily paid higher taxes. He liked Justice Brandise's dicutm: with my taxes I buy civilization.

No one but my grandfather, as far as I know, likes paying taxes. But we can see that it might be a necessary thing to do, even if we don't like it. The alternative is worse, or so I claim.

[dmek25]

with the massive deficit we now face, any ideas on how to start paying on it? or is now the republican way to spend, spend, and spend some more, and let our grand-kids worry about it? lets face facts. no matter who gets into office, out taxes are going up. that's just a fact. i guess the real debate is who will raise them more