50,000 Democratic voter registrations in Georgia mysteriously dissapear

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

Who would ever call you a partisan hack? Henceforth, you shall be known as Little Atilla. Tilla for short.

Why thank you! I kinda like that - I think I'll have some stationary printed up!

So, no rebuttal to being proven wrong the last time, eh? You finally saw that Democrats outnumber Republicans?

Okay. Good. Progress.

What? You missed it? The latest figures you provide have Democrats at 29% and republicans at 33% - I'm not real good in math, but isn't 33 more than 29? It was when I was in school, but that was a long time ago, and things change. Those same figures have independents at 35%, which is a bit heartening, but not so much as last month, when it peaked at 47%. I guess election season must be polarizing some folks or something.

From the same graph as earlier, if you had bothered to look, in 2003 it appears that Republicans outnumbered Democrats, but again the resolution isn't everything it could be... however, you ARE correct in that the Republicans are declining, which is a GOOD thing, and neglect to mention that the Democrats are as well, which is a GOOD thing, too.

It was pretty straightforward and obvious; I knew you'd see it.

Let's look at your evidence this time around, shall we?

In 1988, it shows Democrats at 33, Independents at about 32, and Republicans at 31.

look at it again. The "33" is for Independents. the Democrats were around 36 at that point. The only place the figures are numbered for the Democrats and the Republicans are on the right end of their lines - all the other numbers are for Independents.

Not for nothing, I'd say that's almost a textbook interpretation of the words "Traditionally, the breakdown of 'identification' was usually closer to thirds for each group Democrats/Independents/Republicans." (PS, honestly, I might have given the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, ssshhh.)

Bite your tongue! Giving Republicans "benefits"! Indeed!

But yeah, if "traditionally" is limited to 1988, then it was "traditionally".

So, let's see I was correct there, now lessee ... looking at your chosen graph again:

1. In 1988 Democrats were at 33, and in 2012 they were at 31. A net two-point swing in 24 years? That's a fair description of "remaining basically the same" ... I'd say, wouldn't you? Wait I'm sorry, wouldn't a normal person?

Again, check your graph again. it was around "36" in 1988 for Democrats, so it's not a "two point swing", it's a "seven point DROP". In the same time frame, the Republicans have had about a "three point drop". Agreed, both are "dropping" in support, but the Democrats have dropped over twice as fast.

2. In 1988, Independents are at 32, in 2012 they're at 40 (higher than any group at any time on this graph). Yep, again, safe to say that "Independents are growing" eh?

The actual numbers from the graph are 33 to 40, but yes, I'd call that "growth", and rather dramatic growth at that, in my estimation - yours may differ, however, which is of course allowed.

3. In 1988 Republicans are at 31, in 2012, they are at 28, quite notably the lowest point of any group measured on the graph. Declining? Yeah, yeah they are.

And that is a GOOD thing - hopefully they will just go POP! and disappear soon - and take the Democrats with them, to make room for some "new" blood. maybe the Whigs can make a comeback, who knows?

So, I'm right in all three of my summation examples from your chosen graph, even though I wasn't referring to that graph!

Dang, I am good.

Better luck next time, Tilla.

Well, I wouldn't say "right", especially in light of your having read the wrong numbers from it, but it's probably "close enough for government work", eh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Didn't we say that Bush is not all that conservative? A socialist coined the term Neocon as a slur against people who left the radical movement.
Giving us a definition of fascism is not going to change a thing here. Fascism is still a leftist ideology.
The late Professor Antony Sutton has the best explanation I've ever seen.

Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither "left" nor "right." "Left" and "right" are artificial devicces to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change. The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.

The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis. For example, a clash of political left and political right brings about another political system, a synthesis of the two, niether left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where "change" is promoted and "conflict management" is termed the means to bring about this change.

In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State...

www.prisonplanet.com...

I hope you take this to heart and realize that the goal is domination by Statist government, ultimately by a One World Govt, with the Elites at the top of the food chain. If you prefer to think of it as rule by the 1% go ahead with that.

a reply to: nenothtu

Glad you like your moniker.

By "latest" I'm assuming you're referring to the month-by-month poll results linked in a completely different post and completely different article than the one (with annual numbers) that we were previously discussing?

Yeah, that's a great comparison, LOL. Maybe you want to go back to the Pew link I listed several pages ago and demonstrate how something I said about the Gallup poll doesn't quite fit the Pew, too. Or maybe, find another graph from some other completely different source that compares trends over the last century in pork bellies or cow manure and show how that relates.

You know, something truly and obviously relevant to the matter we were discussing, right?

a reply to: Gryphon66



Of course you leave out the best part....

The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism.


the wiki link you forgot to put

Oxymorons are in plain sight.

a reply to: nenothtu

I'm not really sure why I'm bothering but, no, the number floating above the graph lines is not "Independent" (did some one say arbitrary?) the number floating above the graph is to mark the value of the high-point of the graph.

I guess you haven't done this kind of thing in a while, it's okay. Go ahead and blame it on me, or redefine the scales and terms of the graphs, or what words mean, or what logic is. Enjoy it.

The graphs say what I said they do, but you know what, screw the graphs. It's just data, and facts, and evidence.

Meaningless to Righter-than-Right pundits like yourself who have Belief on their side.

a reply to: xuenchen

Now the question you have to ask yourself, Foxy, is did I just quote two different relevant points to be made in context, or did I take a page out of your playbook and just totally misrepresent what I was quoting ...

C'mon, "punk" do you feel lucky?

Here's an article from Newsweek, hardly a right wing sort of media.

But on September 9, the group received a broad subpoena from the office of the Georgia secretary of state, Republican Brian Kemp, as part of an investigation into the group stemming from evidence of fraudulent registration applications. Kemp’s office also sent a letter to county election officials in Georgia’s 159 counties warning that a “preliminary investigation has revealed significant illegal activities.” At an emergency meeting of the State Board of Elections last Wednesday, the deadline for the subpoena was extended to Friday.

At the the State Elections Board meeting, Kemp’s office stated that there were 25 forms that are not valid and another 26 that are suspect. Kemp’s chief investigator, Chris Harvey, acknowledged that the New Georgia Project has been helpful in identifying the problematic forms.

www.newsweek.com...

So they've already found invalid registration forms and there is an investigation.
What's new?So what
So what I can observe about this is that the New Georgia Project which went out and got people to register to vote got mad when govt officials spotted some invalid forms and then launched an investigation. www.amren.com...
In true form.... The Left employs its Alinskyite strategies

Swamp election officials with overwhelming numbers of registrations at the last possible minute, a huge proportion of which are deliberately fraudulent, in order to create systematic chaos. This accomplishes numerous goals:
•Makes verification of registrations difficult, given the small size and limited budgets of state and local election offices.
•Provides multiple opportunities for vote fraud.
•Throws the entire voting process into question, providing pretext for lawsuits where concessions may be obtained from election officials.
•When election officials challenge registrations, they are accused of “voter suppression.” This in turn serves complementary goals:
◦Charge of “voter suppression” reinforces the Left’s narrative about America as an oppressive, “racist” country.
◦Publicity and lawsuits intimidate election officials, who settle on terms favorable to the Left.
Activists sue state authorities for “voter suppression,” creating further chaos and pressuring them to become de facto taxpayer-funded voter registration operations;,” creating further chaos and pressuring them to become de facto taxpayer-funded voter registration operations;

3. Eric Holder’s Justice Department tacitly supports voter intimidation tactics, sues states and backs private lawsuits, and resists reform as “voter suppression.”

4. Leftist echo chamber discredits allegations of vote fraud, supports “suppression” theme, and promotes advantageous legislation.

The ultimate goal is a systematized, taxpayer-funded voting machinery that

www.aim.org...

originally posted by: Gryphon66

By "latest" I'm assuming you're referring to the month-by-month poll results linked in a completely different post and completely different article than the one (with annual numbers) that we were previously discussing?

yes, that's the one - I liked the finer resolution it presented, as well as the fact that it didn't stop TWO YEARS ago - that it was more up to date. Concentrating on that one paragraph is a great way to draw attention away from the points made about the original graph though, isn't it? You know - the points in the bulk of the post?

Yeah, that's a great comparison, LOL. Maybe you want to go back to the Pew link I listed several pages ago and demonstrate how something I said about the Gallup poll doesn't quite fit the Pew, too. Or maybe, find another graph from some other completely different source that compares trends over the last century in pork bellies or cow manure and show how that relates.

Why? Both the original graph AND the "latest" tabular data were from the same source - Gallup - and on the same topic - political affiliation. Are you implying that there is some internal conflict in Gallup's numbers?

You know, something truly and obviously relevant to the matter we were discussing, right?

Butbutbut - they were YOUR numbers! YOU brought 'em to the table!

Are you trying to back away from them now?

a reply to: Gryphon66



The "Master" has spoken.

Perfect deflection.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

I'm not really sure why I'm bothering but, no, the number floating above the graph lines is not "Independent" (did some one say arbitrary?) the number floating above the graph is to mark the value of the high-point of the graph.

I guess you haven't done this kind of thing in a while, it's okay. Go ahead and blame it on me, or redefine the scales and terms of the graphs, or what words mean, or what logic is. Enjoy it.

Negative, sir. I eat graphs for breakfast. Those "high point on the graphs" numbers just happen to coincide with the "independent" peaks, amirite? All except for the "33" at the left end. Now we can plainly see that the neatlines are labeled at "32" and then "38", leaving a six point gap between the two, which the "Democrat" line splits nearly evenly, placing it at 32+(1/2)*6=35, not "33" as the label states. The label of "33", coincidentally enough, is right where the "Independent" line strikes the left end of the graph. Coincidence? You decide.

This also means that I was one point high on my earlier estimate of "36" for the Democrats at that point - sue me. I told you I was bad at math!

The graphs say what I said they do, but you know what, screw the graphs. It's just data, and facts, and evidence.

Meaningless to Righter-than-Right pundits like yourself who have Belief on their side.

Belief is a lovely thing, but belief and graphs are better - both of which are on my side, which I think ought to have been amply demonstrated by this point. But yeah, screw the graphs if the data on them doesn't say what YOU want it to say, right?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Right, because words don't mean what they mean or what they have always meant, they mean what you want them to.

Because, you know, all opinions are equal for the belief-based mentality.

Fascists and fascism are and have always been defined to be far right-wing ideologies. Use any reference work, anywhere.

Mussolini was totalitarian, a right-wing philosophy. Hitler was rabidly AGAINST communism and true socialism.

Read a history book.

... and you just quoted from Alex Jones' site, and expect to be taken seriously by anyone anywhere?

We're done here.

PS: If my options are a godless, one-world government, with RFID chips in my hands and head, or some world based on your illogical, irrational, superstitious, faith-based Tea Party Paradise ... I say bring on the Mark, baby.

(G is the 6th letter of the Roman alphabet, 66, and the number of his name, blah-bwuah-oogy-boogy)

LOL ... oh god. Goodnight Gracie.

a reply to: nenothtu

Do you have milk or cream with your graphs? Or do you eat them dry?

Now you're just mindlessly repeating my critiques of your argument.

"I know you are but what am I?"

Have fun, Tilly.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Mussolini was totalitarian, a right-wing philosophy. Hitler was rabidly AGAINST communism and true socialism.

Wow.

That criteria also places Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Pot, etc at the "right" end of the spectrum, too. They were also "totalitarians", as were just about ALL of the 19th 20th century's alleged "communists".

Who knew that those nefarious commies were also "right wingers"!

And Hitler -that BASTARD! having the gall to actually name his political party the "National Socialist Party"!

Geez, how are we supposed to keep all of this straight with the Big Wheels mixing it all up like that!

Read a history book.

Um, yeah, sure, I'll get right on that - I guess living through a goodly chunk of it doesn't much count, eh?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

Do you have milk or cream with your graphs? Or do you eat them dry?

Dry, sometimes VERY dry, but a sprinkle of sugar helps them go down.

Now you're just mindlessly repeating my critiques of your argument.

"I know you are but what am I?"

Have fun, Tilly.

Is that a response to my points on how to read a graph, and what that one actually said? Was there a response in there? Did I miss something?

Sorry, Tilly:

1. You said "commies." How much are the dues at JohnBirch these days?

2. What country was Marx the dictator of again?

3. And, because it's you, perhaps I need to clarify whether you meant Karl, Groucho, Harpo or Zeppo?

a reply to: nenothtu

I hope they always go down smoothly.

Learn to read a graph before you give pointers, eh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Karl. Karl was the one, although I wasn't too partial to the other Marx brothers, either.

Karl wrote a book - "The Communist Manifesto". You've read it, haven't you? You know, the one that set the stage for all those other flamin' authoritarian "right wingers"? The one where he mentions a "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Do you advocate for "dictatorships", and see some of then as somehow NOT "authoritarian"?

It's mildly interesting that you pounced on poor old Karl, and entirely ignored the rest...

What did Karl Marx ever do to piss you off?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh cut the cr&$ on the "belief" thing. Did you NOT read and comprehend my entire post on secular humanism and how the seculars who hate God with a passion called their own belief system a religion till the Christians challenged them in a court of law saying their takeover of the public school system violates separation of church and state?
You must have overlooked that whole segment on supposedly "rational thinking" of seculars because well you know words are just words and you apply your own meaning to them
Big Projection on your part since that is EXACTLY what secular humanists do, they apply their own meaning to words, which meaning can change according to the lava lamp of Progressive thought.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

I hope they always go down smoothly.

Learn to read a graph before you give pointers, eh?

I note, with some interest, that you appear entirely unable to refute my reading of it... or you would have done so.

When in doubt, snipe, eh?