Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > tickles4us > tickles |
Trump's Right... The Election is Rigged...
|
Trump's Right... The Election is Rigged... The election process has been getting rigged for decades and the people doing the rigging are Trumps kind of people. At the start of the nation voting was limited to property owning white men. Then when the laws were changed to allow minorities, women and youth to vote the people like Trump moved to more insidious methods to suppress voters they didn't want to effect the process. Jim Crow laws were passed to control the poor and the minorities. These Jim Crow laws included literacy tests, poll taxes and the grandfather clauses. Quoted from wikipedia.com. grandfather clause The term originated in late nineteenth-century legislation and constitutional amendments passed by a number of U.S. Southern states, which created new requirements for literacy tests, payment of poll taxes, and/or residency and property restrictions to register to vote. States in some cases exempted those whose ancestors (grandfathers) had the right to vote before the Civil War, or as of a particular date, from such requirements. The intent and effect of such rules was to prevent poor and illiterate African-American former slaves and their descendants from voting, but without denying poor and illiterate whites the right to vote. Although these original grandfather clauses were eventually ruled unconstitutional, the terms grandfather clause and grandfather have been adapted to other uses. End quote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was supposed to have fixed these issues but it seems it still goes on only by a different means now. The Republicans realized they needed a different way to control the outcome of elections. So they have been busy thinking of ways to suppress the voters they don't want voting. You see it is so much more effective to stop voters from voting then to waste time and effort to pretend to be someone else and cast a vote on their behalf. You can have a much more efficient and effective effect on the outcome of elections this way and it holds effect for as long as these laws and miss handling of records can be done. They are clearly thinking long term... So in the last twenty years or so what you saw was a hyped up unsubstantiated claim of voter fraud. The republican party has been very persistent on enacting as many restrictive laws as they could to limit who will likely be voting. They have made up false lists of convicted felons to keep people from being able to cast their vote when they went to the polls. This tactic was used very effectively in Florida back in the 2000 election between Bush and Gore, do you remember that one? Some 12,000 people were incorrectly listed as felons and purged from the rolls meaning they were turned away when they went to vote. That's many many more than enough to have changed the ultimate outcome of that election. The following is from "wikipedia.com.This Election Is Being Rigged—but Not by Democrats The GOP’s voter-suppression efforts are the real voter fraud. By Ari BermanTwitter" "The incoming Bush administration prioritized prosecutions of voter fraud over investigations into voter disenfranchisement—longtime civil-rights lawyers were forced out of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, US Attorneys were fired for refusing to pursue bogus fraud cases, and the first strict voter-ID laws were passed by Republican legislatures. The Bush Justice Department launched a five-year investigation into alleged voter-fraud abuses." See the article and the project turnout video. "But the administration never found the widespread fraud it was looking for, as I explained to the filmmakers Kelly Duane de la Vega, Jessica Anthony, and Ian Inaba of Project Turnout." end of quote. That's right your oppressive right wing government has spent who knows how much tax payers dollars to investigate the alleged widespread voter fraud and found that it is an illusion. One propagated by your oppressive right wing government.  That brings up another method of voter control... laws that prevent felons from voting while incarcerated and/or after they have served their time and been released. Some states don't allow anyone ever convicted of a felony to ever vote again unless... See how your state is measuring up. The link below goes to a page with felon voting rights by state. the trend has been to ease the process for felons to regain their right to vote. But you can be sure it is a tedious process to get your right to vote re-instated in many states for many reasons. I wonder if it is more of a problem in those states that are known as Red states? You might ask why take away or restore the right of the felon to vote in the first place... you also might have noticed that felons are disproportionately minorities and tend to be leaning left except of course the right wing fanatics such as skinheads and aryan nation types. ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx But one thing that bothers me about these state laws restricting a felons right to vote is it also seems to restrict their right to vote for president which is a federal level vote and shouldn't be restricted by state law. Here in Vermont you can vote regardless of your status in jail or out as a felon. I'm not too sure how well that works out when you are sent to an out of state prison though.Then there are the cases where names are somehow removed or lost from the voter rolls when you show up to vote. Many states are requiring photo ID in some form or another to be presented somewhere in the process of either registering or voting. This has been initiated by the Republicans and has been very much pushed by Republican states almost exclusively. The idea of requiring Id started in South Carolina in 1950 and was very loose as in any document with the persons name on it would do. Over the following 30 years Hawaii, Texas, Florida and then Alaska joined that list. In 1999 Virginia tried to require ID's but wasn't successful. Since then the Republicans have been full bore in their attempt to pass this kind of legislation on a state level. In 2002 president Bush signed the "Help Amerca Vote Act" into law requiring first time voters in federal elections to provide either photo or non-photo ID upon registration or arrival at the polling place. How does putting further restrictions on help people to vote?  With all these states pushing and passing photo ID or other requirements to vote it was inevitable that the Supreme Court would get involved. Essentially the Supreme Court said on June 25, 2013 that the "preclearance" requirements in section 4 of the "1965 voting Rights Act" weren't up to date for today's demographic and jurisdictional situations. So that provision was stricken from the law. Section 4 was a part that determined what locations had to comply with the requirement to get permission from the court to make changes to the voting laws for that area in order to protect the voters whom have been discriminated against in the past. As the Supreme Court doesn't make law or create legislation it is up to the people and their representatives to change the law if they decide it needs to be changed now that section 4 has been determined to be outdated. So now we have states passing photo ID laws with very little interference from the Supreme Court. The problem with voter photo ID and other restrictions is it tends to discriminate against the Democratic voter base more than the Republican voter base which explains the Republicans interest. People with low income, minorities, students and young or old voters are less likely to have a fixed address of sufficient time to register or a photo ID or fail to meet some other requirement. So those voters get turned away and can't register or vote. While some states will allow you to do a "provisional" ballot if you don't have the required ID, they also may have qualifications that you have to follow afterwards in order to get your vote counted. These qualifications vary by state but you may have to provide your proof within days of your vote in order for it to be counted instead of thrown out. Then there are the more underhanded methods used to prevent people from going to the polls. Things like putting out false information to cause people to believe they are disqualified to vote do to some issue. "People" have sent mailers to people to cause them to think they could be jailed or were simply not eligible to vote. quoted from Electoral Fraud on wikipedia.... Legal threats: In this case voters will be made to believe, accurately or otherwise, that they are not legally entitled to vote, or that they are legally obliged to vote a particular way. Voters who are not confident about their entitlement to vote may also be intimidated by real or implied authority figures who suggest that those who vote when they are not entitled to will be imprisoned, deported or otherwise punished. For example, in 2004, in Wisconsin and elsewhere voters allegedly received flyers that said, "If you already voted in any election this year, you can’t vote in the Presidential Election", implying that those who had voted in earlier primary elections were ineligible to vote. Also, "If anybody in your family has ever been found guilty of anything you can’t vote in the Presidential Election." Finally, "If you violate any of these laws, you can get 10 years in prison and your will be taken away from you." Another method, allegedly used in Cook County, Illinois in 2004, is to falsely tell particular people that they are not eligible to vote. End quote. Now these were sent to people and neighborhoods that were likely to be voting Democratic but who do you think was responsible for sending them? Intimidation is another means of keeping people from the polls. This can range from bomb threats at polling places to actual threats against people or places. This isn't so much a problem in the states but then again someone seems to be making lots of stink about people being at the polls to watch people... Just coincidence that these are people who happen to be gun rights advocates and disgruntled voters wanting their candidate to win at any cost. People who are talking about not being responsible for what happens if they don't win. Now I'm not against requiring a photo ID to cast your vote but I'm saying that you have to make accommodations and laws that are uniform through out the country not all these varying state laws. It has to be done with lots of warning time to allow people to get things done and must be well advertised and a suitable information/education campaign done. Then it must be paid for by the government in some fashion at least for those who can't afford to spend the money and time on getting an official voter ID card. Lots of people in this country don't drive and don't have drivers licenses. Yeah... the Republican party has been busy for quite a few years manipulating the vote count in many ways. I wonder if that is what Trump is talking about when he says the election is rigged? Vive La Difference |
||||
|
First off you have no idea who the hell I'm voting for and as for history it has already shown us that left to no oversight that dead people manage to crawl out of their grave and vote and I doubt it was the republicans digging them up. I can also see that you are a true democrat as you went straight for the personal attacks before you know anything about the person you are attacking. The next thing you should look at is where you get your source information, is wikipedia really the best you can do? I think I would try a source not written from the uneducated masses you seem to dislike so much. There was a very good reason our founding fathers required land ownership to vote in early America. I would explain it to you but you could never understand. Maybe you could look it up on wikipedia. As for people rising from the dead... have you seen any zombies at the voting booths?  Seriously the number of voter impersonation fraud cases is really insignificant according to all investigations ever done to date. Don't take my word for it look it up, but instead of running to your talking head right wing instigators go to the real reports or investigations done. A good many of the issues are simply the goof ups of the workers checking off the wrong name that happened to be similar etc."Straight to the personal attacks" you mean like Trump has been doing his entire life let alone right from the beginning of the primary process? Do you see me saying "people like Trump" as insulting? I was simply describing the archetypical person that is associated with people like Trump... you know the bigoted, racist, better then everybody else, privileged, obnoxious, self-righteous, Do as I say not as I do types... I was just not feeling like typing all that out so I used an abbreviation "Trump" I guess you got the message though...  I bet my sources are better and more reliable then the right wing slop you slurp up. I don't have a problem with the uneducated masses as I happen to be "uneducated" from a technical point of view anyway. I have a problem with the ignorant fools who set there in front of their TV's or radio's and lap up whatever is fed to them by the media be it right wing or left wing. As for the reliability of wikipedia and your inference that it is written by the uneducated masses obviously you don't know your facts very well if you believe only the "uneducated masses" use or contribute to wikipedia. "There was a reason the founding fathers required land ownership to vote" Quoted from history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring07/elections.cfm John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later president, wrote in 1776 that no good could come from enfranchising more Americans: Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level. Colonial Voting restrictions reflected eighteenth-century English notions about gender, race, prudence, and financial success, as well as vested interest. Arguments for a white, male-only electorate focused on what the men of the era conceived of as the delicate nature of women and their inability to deal with the coarse realities of politics, as well as convictions about race and religion. African Americans and Native Americans were excluded, and, at different times and places, the Protestant majority denied the vote to Catholics and Jews. In some places, propertied women, free blacks, and Native Americans could vote, but those exceptions were just that. They were not signs of a popular belief in universal suffrage. Property requirements were widespread. Some colonies required a voter to own a certain amount of land or land of a specified value. Others required personal property of a certain value, or payment of a certain amount of taxes. Examples from 1763 show the variety of these requirements. Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40. Such requirements tended to delay a male colonist's entry into the voter ranks until he was settled down and established. They reflected the belief that freeholders, as property owners were called, had a legitimate interest in a community's success and well-being, paid taxes and deserved a voice in public affairs, had demonstrated they were energetic and intelligent enough to be trusted with a role in governance, and had enough resources to be independent thinkers not beholden to the wealthiest class. English jurist William Blackstone wrote in the 1700s: The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty. Colonies also restricted opportunities to serve in their legislatures. Immediately before the Revolution, five insisted on significant property requirements for officeholders. But candidates tended to be wealthy anyway. By twenty-first-century standards, colonial assemblies did not conduct much business. They passed few bills and dealt with a narrow range of issues. They tended to linger, however. Legislative sessions lasted weeks, sometimes months. Tradesmen, merchants, and owners of small and medium farms could not afford to neglect work for extended periods. The wealthy could. Holding office yielded few immediate benefits and some real costs. Men ran for office from a sense of duty and the prestige associated with a legislative seat. Colonial elections little resembled today's. Election intervals often were irregular. Governors called for polls whenever they seemed necessary—though Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania, for example, conducted them annually. Sheriffs posted notices of elections in prominent places throughout their bailiwicks. On the appointed day, voters traveled to a courthouse to cast their ballots. Campaigning by candidates was different from today's. There were no mass media or advertising. Candidates talked with voters in person, walking a line between undue familiarity and aloofness. Prospective officeholders were expected to be at the polls on election day and made a point to greet all voters. Failure to appear or to be civil to all could be disastrous. In some areas, candidates offered voters food and drink, evenhandedly giving "treats" to opponents as well as supporters. Some highborn Virginians thought meeting the electorate and making campaign promises were demeaning. In 1776, Robert Wormeley Carter lost an election. His father said his son was defeated even though he had "kissed the — of the people and very seriously accommodated himself to others." Elections often provided an excuse for people to visit neighbors and to conduct business. Behavior was not so restrained as today. A visitor who arrived by stagecoach on election day 1778 at the courthouse in Virginia's Hanover County wrote: The moment I alighted, a wretched pug-nosed fellow assailed me, to swap watches. I had hardly shaken him off, when I was attacked by a wild Irishman, who insisted on my "swapping horses" with him; and, in a twinkling ran up the pedigree of his horse to the grand-dam. Treating his importunity with little respect, I was near being involved in a boxing match, the Irishman swearing that I did not "rate him like a jintleman." Diversions aside, the main election-day business was to vote. A few colonies, including Pennsylvania, Delaware, and North Carolina, employed some form of ballot. Others, like Virginia, relied on public voice votes, an English tradition. Voice voting made ballot counts harder to rig and, cast in the presence of friends, neighbors, local officials, and candidates, left no doubt about a voter's intention. In Virginia, voice voting was a spectator event, every voter occupying center stage for a few moments. In his book Gentlemen Freeholders: Political Practices in Washington's Virginia, Charles S. Sydnor wrote: As each freeholder came before the sheriff, his name was called out in a loud voice, and the sheriff inquired how he would vote. The freeholder replied by giving the name of his preference. The appropriate clerk then wrote down the voter's name, the sheriff announced it as enrolled, and often the candidate for whom he had voted arose, bowed, and publicly thanked him. Apparently, voter turnout usually was low. Voting, especially in rural areas, took effort. Voters might have to travel a long distance to a courthouse and sometimes paid for food and lodging. The effort and expense, coupled with lost time from shops, inns, and farms, meant some men stayed at home election day. The Revolutionary War stimulated a desire for reform. Advocates of change said that the conflict was about liberty and representation. They believed in a voting system that embodied those aims for more people. Debates were most intense between 1776 and the adoption of the federal Constitution. The range of disputes was too vast and too complex to cover in depth in this space. The chief concerns, however, focused on extending voting rights to veterans, the implications of a broader electorate, and the validity of property requirements. Property requirements seemed to attract the most attention. They came under attack almost as soon as the Revolution began. Benjamin Franklin lampooned them when he wrote: Today a man owns a jackass worth 50 dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the mean time has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers—but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass? Property restrictions gradually disappeared in the nineteenth century. Tax-paying requirements replaced property ownership, though they too waned after the 1820s. By the 1850s, most economic barriers to voting had disappeared. Some Americans hoped the Constitution would clarify, unify, and perhaps expand voting rights nationally. It did not. Hayden wrote: "Under the constitution, then, the breadth of the right to vote for both state and national elections was fixed by state law. And at the time of ratification, this meant that many people—including most women, African Americans, Native Americans and propertyless white men—could not vote." By not addressing the suffrage issue more broadly, the Constitution's authors fostered a long-running battle over voting rights. This struggle lasted well into the twentieth century, forming a focal point for the civil rights and women's rights movements. Twenty-first century perspectives on the restrictiveness of early American voting ideas miss a point. By eighteenth-century standards, Americans enjoyed considerable voting rights, according to Andrew Jackson O'Shaughnessy, a University of Virginia history professor specializing in the Revolutionary period. The 1700s were the time of absolute monarchs in continental Europe. Centuries of skillful political maneuvering by kings had concentrated power in their hands at the expense of their subjects. "All European countries had something like a parliament at some time, but, these began to disappear in the late Middle Ages through the early modern period," O'Shaughnessy said in an interview. "These groups lost control of the power to tax. Kings found ways to tax without calling an elective body." Britain was an exception. Parliament retained the power to tax, ensuring elections and representative government. British voting practices, however, tended to be unfair, uneven, corrupt, and far more restrictive than America's. Some towns and cities, for example, could not vote, and growing urban areas went underrepresented, though rural areas with declining population retained parliamentary seats. This system, created in the medieval period, remained unchanged in the 1700s. It begged for reform, which came in 1832. So by comparison, America with its voting imperfections offered a broad-minded and healthy attitude toward the franchise. O'Shaughnessy also argues that representative government and its voting practices served America well in the post-Revolutionary period. "One reason that the United States was stable after the war was that it did not need to revamp its system of government, and the men in charge had experience in governing," he said. "This made the country far more stable than places that did not have this tradition and later went through dozens of constitutions and revolutions. In short, when it came to government and voting, Americans had a model to build on." Vive La Difference
| |||
10/20/2016 5:37 am |
wake me up when it's over.
| |||
|
Very well said.  Trump is laughable! 
| |||
|
Obviously, you have never lived in or around Chicago.
| |||
|
Well all I know is I'm voting tomorrow... Kk The observant make the best lovers, I may not do right, but I do write, I have bliss, joy, and happiness in my life, Kitkat Come check out my blog KItkat1415 check out this post by me Adventures In Body Grooming #39 April Topic Link: What Lies Beneath If April Showers Oh Bloody Hell What Kind Of Weather Turns Me On Bloggers Symposium 40
| |||
|
First off you have no idea who the hell I'm voting for and as for history it has already shown us that left to no oversight that dead people manage to crawl out of their grave and vote and I doubt it was the republicans digging them up. I can also see that you are a true democrat as you went straight for the personal attacks before you know anything about the person you are attacking. The next thing you should look at is where you get your source information, is wikipedia really the best you can do? I think I would try a source not written from the uneducated masses you seem to dislike so much. There was a very good reason our founding fathers required land ownership to vote in early America. I would explain it to you but you could never understand. Maybe you could look it up on wikipedia.
| |||
|
Just ask Bernie if the republicans rigged the vote against him... Or maybe ask why Trump's rallies in Chicago were met with such violence... Sorry, but Trump is actually the lesser of two evils here.
| |||
|
Bingo!
| |||
|
By far it amazes me how un-educated people are. Or is it you just picked and choices those things that make you sound good on a point like Trump? You have to look at all of history and what was going on at each time frame. Only a loser sounds like you.
| |||
|
Good post my friend. It's obvious why the voting rights act was stripped of any power and it's equally obvious why the voter ID laws were passed- to make it harder for poor people to vote while simultaneously making it difficult to obtain acceptable ID. The reason so many people refuse to see that this is an onerous restriction is that as always they're oblivious to the problems of poor minorities. My old man always vote liberal, but because he has lots of money and is very literate it isn't hard for him to obtain ID. In fact, he already has it. And he still doesn't see what's so hard about getting an ID. He has plenty of resources and affordable transportation, so as far as he's concerned, what's the problem? Frankly HE is the problem. He's an old white male and the system is rigged to favor HIM. Anyone who can't see that is blind, stupid or willfully ignorant. Become a member now and get a free tote bag.
| |||
|
What BS if you have to have to have Id to buy Sudafed, drive a car, buy booze and to sign up for social aid why is it a far cry to require id to vote. Elections happen every four years it's plenty of time to get an id card of some form. The biggest problem in America today is people have lost all common sense.
| |||
|
It ain't like that in Cali. People are strange when you're a stranger."
| |||
|
Vive La Difference
|
Become a member to create a blog
