50,000 Democratic voter registrations in Georgia mysteriously dissapear

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Aside from it being a point of faith for those of you on the right-wing ... why are you so surprised that Democrats win elections?

The answer is simple: there are more Democrats than Republicans in the United States.

In every poll for the last 15 years or so, Americans identifying as Democrats outnumber those identifying as Republican.

Gallup

Pew Research

I know that part of the problem is that you guys listen almost exclusively to Fox News, Rush, Hannity, etc., who don't mind outright lying to you to make you feel like you're in the overwhelming majority, and then goading you when you lose.

I look forward to a Republican win in the Senate this year, thanks to the gerrymandering effort Red State legislatures ... why?

Because maybe, just maybe, that'll stop the whining for a while.

Out of curiosity, where did you learn to count to 15? I ask because the stats and graphs do not support your statement concerning "EVERY poll" when the magic number of "15 years or so" is applied.

The stats and graphs show fluctuations over 15 years - as they always have.

So I'm thinking that you may have simply confused "15 years" with some other time frame including the number "15".

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Or "have the balls" to admit you're just spreading the same lies as the rest of the wingnut media machine.

Wingnut media machines spread lies?

Who knew?

Since you didn't specify, I must presume that includes the LEFT wing "wingnut media machines" as well, which is a wingnut faction I can see in full damage-control mode in this particular thread, which amuses me.

a reply to: nenothtu

That's the best critique you've got? Nitpicking an arbitrary date range? What date range would you like to compare?

Yeah, that's really, really important, eh? What about the facts of the matter? Did you have any comment about that?

You see, if you really wanted to try to prove something, you'd demonstrate counter-evidence and cite polling information that shows that there are more Republicans than Democrats.

Go ahead. I dare you. Start with Rasmussen; you'll have more luck there. (Rasmussen polls are slanted Right).

Because if not, you just sound ... picky if not whiney and asinine.

/shrug

a reply to: nenothtu

Oh joy, more wisdom!

So, the usual tighty-righty slang isn't good enough for you? You don't want to utilize socialist/progressive/leftist/liberal to describe what you're attempting to refer to?

Fair enough, you can use left-wingnut too. LOL.

Again, do you have any counter arguments, any other evidence, any facts that have gone unconsidered here?

Or are you still just pouty about someone not using the numbers and words you like?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

There is a clear and national attempt to repress the votes of American citizens.

And it is the Republican Party that is doing it.

Ooh!

Now you have intrigued me!

I'm always on the lookout for a valid argument to convince GOP members to leave the Republican Party, and have been ever since I realized that the Republican Party isn't made up of Republicans any more - at least not what passed for Republicans when I was younger.

Seriously - I seek ways to assist the Republican Party in it's crash and burn demise, and this presents potential. Honest - look at my posting history... I've repeatedly said that I will NEVER vote Republican again.

Therefore, I implore you to please be more specific for my sake, and the sake of the future of your country - precisely WHICH "American Citizens" are the Republican Party trying to repress the votes of? I've seen the claim before, but so far no one has been able to back that claim up.

We seriously need to hasten the demise of the Republican Party, so that we will have room to put an honestly conservative political party into place... and the Republicans are no longer that.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

That's the best critique you've got? Nitpicking an arbitrary date range? What date range would you like to compare?

It's not arbitrary - it's the date range YOU specified.

Yeah, that's really, really important, eh? What about the facts of the matter? Did you have any comment about that?

Yup, I did. You might have missed them in your mock horror at my timekeeping.

You see, if you really wanted to try to prove something, you'd demonstrate counter-evidence and cite polling information that shows that there are more Republicans than Democrats.

Go ahead. I dare you. Start with Rasmussen; you'll have more luck there. (Rasmussen polls are slanted Right).

Because if not, you just sound ... picky if not whiney and asinine.

/shrug

Huh? Counter evidence?

I REPOSTED YOUR OWN LINKS.

Those are counter evidence enough, if anyone cares to open them and look at them.

Who needs Rasmussen when he can reuse folks' own evidence against them?

a reply to: nenothtu

Yeah, I've seen your writing before, and always found you reasonable though a little right of center.

Nothing wrong with that. That's why I was so confused with your posts above. They pointed at ... trivial complaints.

Before I go to all the trouble of providing links, evidence, resources and so forth ... let me just throw the most obvious at you and see if there's any reason to proceed.

1. Numerous Republican officials and/or luminaries have admitted efforts to suppress or discourage certain groups from voting, thus managing to "deliver the state" to the Republican candidate or "control elections" or via keeping Republicans in Governorships, Voter IDs, arbitrarily changing voting locations and times, mucking around with early voting, etc. etc.

2. If Photo Voter IDs are readily and readily available to all voters, in terms of affordability, accessibility, dispensary locations, and the State makes efforts to ensure that every valid citizen who wishes to vote can vote, then there's no problem. If a State fails in any of those categories, then impediments are being placed to valid American citizens exercising their right to vote, and that is unconscionable.

There's two ... any need to go on?

originally posted by: mOjOm
According to the article:

Amidst this chaos, the Secretary of State publicly accused the New Georgia Project in September of submitting fraudulent registration forms. A subsequent investigation found just 25 confirmed forgeries out of more than 85,000 forms—a fraud rate of about 3/100ths of 1 percent.

25 our of 85,000. So Fraud doesn't seem to be the issue here. At least not Voter Fraud. Perhaps it's more along the lines of Partisan Political Action Fraud???

Didn't we go to the supreme court over less? We spent millions on hanging chads? Voter fraud encompasses everything from cemeteries, Chicago felons, machine tampering, to democrats trying to discount military ballots because they came in from the battlefield late, and it won't be long until you won't even have to be a US citizens to vote. Just sneak across the border get what amounts to a presidential pardon for an illegal act and you to can vote.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

Oh joy, more wisdom!

So, the usual tighty-righty slang isn't good enough for you? You don't want to utilize socialist/progressive/leftist/liberal to describe what you're attempting to refer to?

Nah, because those types get their panties in such a wad when they get called out for what they are. They seem to hate it when folks notice that the Emperor hasn't got any clothes on.

What is a "tighty-righty" slang?

Fair enough, you can use left-wingnut too. LOL.

Thank you. It's important to note that wing-nuttery isn't restricted to one wing - both have their share of nuts and non-thinking bots.

Again, do you have any counter arguments, any other evidence, any facts that have gone unconsidered here?

Or are you still just pouty about someone not using the numbers and words you like?

nah, I just get pouty and out of sorts when they throw around stuff they can't back up, when they use the words THEMSELVES which they then utterly fail to support.

Democrats and Republicans alike do violence to their alleged cause when they do that.

a reply to: nenothtu

RIght. 15 years. Why does that number irritate you so much? What range to you favor? Name one and we'll look at that.

You quoted my post in total. You think that by doing that and spuriously claiming that the evidence means something other than it means, you've done something?

Oy.

First Link Above (Gallup): OH LOOK, there's a graph which demonstrates data for years 1991 through 2011! Let's look at a part of that graph, and oh, let's just pick out a number ... say 15. Going back 15 years on the graph to 1999, why LOOK!

The light green line that describes Democrats or Democratic-leaning individuals is well above the dark green line indicating Republicans and Republican-leaning individuals. In 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012 ... its the same thing.

Light green above dark green, more Democrats than Republicans!

Now see, here's the thing about arbitrary ranges ... we could have picked 15 years or 7 years or 20 years ... anything that is within the scope of the graph. And overwhelmingly, the graph shows that there were more Democrats than Republicans.

Did you actually open the link? Or just start pontificating?

a reply to: nenothtu

Yeah except that you haven't done that. I've admitted somewhere here today or yesterday that if my only choices are the Republicans or the Democrats, why heck yes, I'm a leftist/communist/fascist/Kenyan/devil-worshippin' Democrat.

Anything but the deceitful, anti-rational, pro-superstitious nitwits that populate the modern Republican/Right wing.

So ... no big reveal there chief. And you got to use the "naked emperor" cliche again ... BONUS!

As opposed to your posts here (disappointing I might add, in light of what I'd read before) I have provided 100% more "back up" than you have by posting even one link ... because the only thing you're offering is fairly stale wit and tired platitudes.

/shrug

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

Yeah, I've seen your writing before, and always found you reasonable though a little right of center.

Now you've frightened me. Anyone who thinks me "a little right of center" is scary... that means they think Attila the Hun was a centrist.

Before I go to all the trouble of providing links, evidence, resources and so forth ... let me just throw the most obvious at you and see if there's any reason to proceed.

1. Numerous Republican officials and/or luminaries have admitted efforts to suppress or discourage certain groups from voting, thus managing to "deliver the state" to the Republican candidate or "control elections" or via keeping Republicans in Governorships, Voter IDs, arbitrarily changing voting locations and times, mucking around with early voting, etc. etc.

Which groups have they admitted to trying to suppress? That would seem to be political suicide, admitting to intentional voter suppression of citizens.

Just so you'll know, however, using "voter ID's" as a support is a non-starter. I have to have ID just to cash a check, and my check cashing has NO implications for the future of America - so I would expect to have to have ID to cast a vote, which does have those implications. As a matter of fact, I've never cast a vote where I didn't have to have ID, usually in the form of the voter card sent to me when I registered to vote.

I've never been on welfare, either, but I would expect to already have to have ID to get it - if I don't and can just go to the office and say "gimme stuff", someone give me a heads up, and I'll do that tomorrow. That by itself would seem to make the notion of voter ID's disenfranchising poor folks ludicrous, but I may be out in left field there - it may be that you don't have to prove anything to get on the gummint dole. If, however, I find that to be the case, I promise to be on the dole by 5 pm tomorrow. every little bit helps, you know?

2. If Photo Voter IDs are readily and readily available to all voters, in terms of affordability, accessibility, dispensary locations, and the State makes efforts to ensure that every valid citizen who wishes to vote can vote, then there's no problem. If a State fails in any of those categories, then impediments are being placed to valid American citizens exercising their right to vote, and that is unconscionable.

There's two ... any need to go on?

How else do these folks prove their identities for other purposes, as stated above? I managed for several years with no ID at all - but I didn't do anything during those years (including cashing checks) that would require me to prove who I was. Most places I've been have sent me a voter ID in the mail, but those weren't photo ID's and had to be backed up with something else, like a license or a state ID... which was also necessary for just about everything else short of just sitting. Therefore I didn't vote at those times, either.

It's not up to the State to "make efforts to ensure" that a citizen can vote - that would be up to the citizen. The State, for example, doesn't make any effort at all to ensure I can drive... that's all on me, if I want to engage in it. The state makes no effort that I can cash a check - or indeed, that I would even receive any checks to need cashing. The State actually does nothing for me at all, and I'm not sure why it should suddenly start.

I'm still intrigued about the welfare angle, though - can "the poor" REALLY get it just by saying so, without any effort or means to prove themselves? I ask because that's the usual argument I'm seeing against voter ID - that "the poor" somehow can't afford it - which is not an argument I'm buying, since I've been poor myself, and therefore know better. I've just never gotten on welfare, so THAT I don't know about.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Of course I opened the links and read the graphs - how else would I know that they don't support your initial statement?

I also read the body of the text around the graphs - same thing. It supports the graphs.... but does not support your contention. it does, however, present interesting avenues to build "spin", if one were inclined to do so...

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Gryphon66

Of course I opened the links and read the graphs - how else would I know that they don't support your initial statement?

Last first, because it's the easiest: then show exactly HOW the evidence doesn't support my conclusion. STATE the counter-evidence, PROVIDE contradicting data, QUOTE from the source and DISPROVE what I claimed.

I'm really starting to wonder about you nenothtu ... I hate to think you're just being openly deceptive.

Now, on to your wall of words.

EDIT: So, quote from the "words around the graph" ... prove your point!

a reply to: nenothtu

So, you're right of Attila the Hun? Okay, noted.

Guess I missed that; I had thought you were a reasonable, fairly level-headed poster.

Hey, everyone can make a mistake, eh?

Moving on.

I guess at this point, to limit screen scroll, and rather than bickering back and forth with someone who describes himself as you do ... I'm not sure what you and I have to discuss.

A few quick responses:

No one, anywhere, ever has suggested that voters not be identified in order to vote. Personally, I've noted that I've been IDed every time I've ever voted since 1984 in Georgia, and shown how every state has requirements for providing identification, checkin at the poll, etc. The constant lie that Democrats just want to throw open the doors is getting old.

"The dole" ... really? Haven't heard that term in a while. I'm not sure about what kind of ID you need to apply for social services; maybe someone here can help you. I've only been on unemployment once for about two weeks, I hated it and took a job at Walmart until I found something else, and hope to never have to repeat it again.

Why is that always the question? "How are these folks getting along now?" Can't we just be proactive for once? Why don't we just concentrate on getting every one an appropriate ID without all the hassles, costs, unfair requirements, etc. and MOVE ON?

If the State imposes new requirements that restrict or suppress a citizen's vote, then yes, I'm sorry it is the State's responsibility to insure that every citizen has the opportunity to get what is needed TO vote. If that's "nanny state" then it's nanny state; it's also the only fair and equitable option.

So, anyway, there's some responses. Since we seem to be quite far about on the political scale, and fairly resolute in our positions, I don't see much else to talk about. If you do, have at it. If not, best to you.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, he's actually nitpicking YOUR arbitrary date range of 15 years.

a reply to: nenothtu

We seriously need to hasten the demise of the Republican Party, so that we will have room to put an honestly conservative political party into place... and the Republicans are no longer that.

I would fully and wholeheartedly agree with you here, but the result of that is at least temporarily what we have now for another 2 years and maybe longer until the GOP finally figures out that being more Democrat won't stop the bleeding.
I think really that the real Elite plan is to merge the two parties till there really is no difference, like sometimes people say around here. Full Hegelian style, Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis....and as I've stated many times, Antony Sutton says the NWO is the Synthesis.
Glenn Beck actually had a comparable diagram on his blackboard before he left Fox.... where he showed that both parties were moving leftward. It was brilliant actually, and the wingnut left just ridiculed him to high heaven....but the synthesis is the NWO which Sutton says is neither right nor left. I often hear Progressives saying that B is just continuing the old Bush policies. But that does not make him a right wing guy. No no no, it just makes him another elite player on the NWO battlefield. RINOs on the right are often just as Big Govt as the lefties and lefties just as apt to use crony Capitalism to do their dirty work while they pursue their Utopian goals. And both sides go to war. Both sides are tied in to the military-industrial complex, its just that the left has convinced people they aren't really doing it! I wish the left would stop blaming all the wars on the Republicans for a change.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Guess I missed that; I had thought you were a reasonable, fairly level-headed poster.

What you meant is you thought he was more like you???? That's at least what I think you meant. I could be wrong

No one, anywhere, ever has suggested that voters not be identified in order to vote.

Oh perhaps not on this thread, but all the left wingnut media outlets have made sure that anyone reading their stuff is more likely to think that the GOP is trying to stop Democrats from voting Democrat by making them have an ID that is not simply based on an electric bill, as it may not be necessary to even be a US citizen to have an electric bill. It's the Democrats who are trying to get so many numbers of people that they have to win. But to make double sure, it looks like they are going for dead people too.
Really why would anyone want to deny the truth here if they truly believe in true democracy without cheating?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Last first, because it's the easiest: then show exactly HOW the evidence doesn't support my conclusion. STATE the counter-evidence, PROVIDE contradicting data, QUOTE from the source and DISPROVE what I claimed.

Apologies for being late responding - I had to make a random trip out to civilization for a bit.

I thought that the graphs themselves would be sufficient, but it's apparently not enough that they are in the links - it seems you need them to be posted here. Since I don't want to take valuable ATS server space up with graphs that could be viewed by simply clicking a link, I suppose I'll try a different way of posting them here in the thread. Might not work. We'll see:


content.gallup.com...

content.gallup.com...

If that worked, there is your counter evidence - it's just the same graphs from the links you provided way back when, but brought here so that lazy folks don't have to click a link. Sheesh!

The evidence in them does not support your conclusion, because your conclusion was:

In every poll for the last 15 years or so, Americans identifying as Democrats outnumber those identifying as Republican.

The graphs clearly show that not to have been the case.

I'm really starting to wonder about you nenothtu ... I hate to think you're just being openly deceptive.

Aside from the notion that "openly deceptive" is sort of an oxymoron, rest assured that you are in good company - quite a number of folks wonder about me.

EDIT: So, quote from the "words around the graph" ... prove your point!

From the same link:

That re-establishes a Democratic edge in party affiliation after the two parties were essentially tied in 2010 and 2011.

That's right up top, first paragraph in "the words surrounding the graphs".

While it's heartening to see that both Democrats AND Republicans are on a downward trend, it looks like the real story is the fact that Independents are on an accelerating upward swing.

It's all in the link... the link you initially provided.

ETA: well damn! It looks like folks are going to have to click a link to see the graphs anyhow! On the positive side, the links show only the graphs, so you don't have to hunt through a page to find them.

'

a reply to: Gryphon66

Anything but the deceitful, anti-rational, pro-superstitious nitwits that populate the modern Republican/Right wing.

Oh there's more of that blustery name calling again. You know I find there's nothing more deceitful than the godless secular humanists who believe that there are no absolute values and that the darkness of their human hearts should be allowed to prevail unfettered because they are operating on a completely relative scale of good and bad.

And just to make the point that I am neither syllabically challenged nor illiterate

Nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so

Hamlet:
What have you, my good friends, deserv'd at the hands of
Fortune, that she sends you to prison hither?


Guildenstern:
Prison, my lord?


Hamlet:
Denmark's a prison.


Rosencrantz:
Then is the world one.


Hamlet:
A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and
dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst.


Rosencrantz:
We think not so, my lord.


Hamlet:
Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.

Hamlet Act 2, scene 2, 239–251

www.enotes.com...

It is important to note that this citation of Secular Humanism as a religion is not merely dictum. The Supreme Court refers to the important 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371) in its holding that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.
The Ethical Culture movement is one denomination of Secular Humanism which reaches moral and cultural relativism, situation ethics, and attacks belief in a spiritual God and theistic values of the Old and New Testaments.

vftonline.org...


So, in case you were unable to follow that train of thought, so-called secularism claimed to be "rational thought" is still considered a religion by the US Supreme Court.