Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Joe Mammy

Bloomberg Pays Fines for 32,000 Florida Felons to Vote!

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Bloomberg is doing this solely to poke Trump. He only donated enough money to pay off the fines of 32,000 felons, which is less than 2% of ex-felons in Florida. It's a drop in the bucket, designed more to maximize Trump outrage than to maximize Democrat votes.

In the study that I linked upthread, political scientists concluded that if ALL ex-felons in Florida got the right to vote, then the Democrat advantage -- if it happened at all -- would be no more than 8000-48,000 total votes. And that's based on restoring the voting rights of 1.7 million felons. But, for 32,000 felons, that alleged advantage would be as low as 150 votes.

As I've said many times in this thread, Bloomberg is not getting much bang for his buck here. This is all for show.

The effort by Florida democrats might be too late. Especially for grass roots in person outreach and for voter registration. The Dems are relying on VMB and ads increasing participation. 

>> Tweet 1 of 7. FL Republicans have narrowed the voter registration gap w/Dems to historic lows: a gap of fewer than 185,000k, or 1.3% points. In 2016, the gap was more than 327k, or 2.55 points While Dems sheltered in place, Republicans registered voters. <<

https://mobile.twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1309106063728431107

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I think Bloomberg et.al. found a way to create a check and balance against authoritarian government. It's important to look at the history of what happened here.  As I understand it, this is what happened:

- Florida voters voted, via referendum, that ex-felons would have their voting rights restored

- Florida governor and legislature, in response to the referendum, created new legislation preventing the voting rights from being restored until said ex-felons repaid fines, court fees, etc.

- Assorted groups sued, and the legislation was upheld earlier this year

- In many cases, the Florida government refused to provide information on what fines were actually owed, thereby preventing voting entirely (I'm here to pay my fine, how much?  We're not sure.  OK, so I can vote?  No, not until your fine is paid.)

- Bloomberg et.al. contributed to charitable organizations that had sprung up to pay the fines and go through procedures to force the government to determine the fines

Therein lies the trap of the logic you are following. 

See, the government is NOT an authoritarian government. never has been. Cant be due a very sophisticated set of checks and balances created for the republic.  You can slap a label on a person like Donald trump and say  "he sometimes says things that make him seem to me as authoritarian" and then copy and paste that into everything he does but there are a lot of pitfalls in doing that.  He is a man. Doing a job. Held in check by two other branches of government and many, many people.  

the other problem with that is you just created an argument for the very thing you seem opposed to.  You are against an authoritarian yet you are completely OK with YOUR guy tossing out money and driving the bus however he wants to without any checks and balances in it. 

So, basically, its okay if the person who thinks like you do makes the decision on his own but not the guy with the different opinion who is working within the confines of system with checks and balances that are built to prevent these very instances. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

Buying votes is illegal in Florida.

Right...these groups have been helping people get their fees/fines paid (for months now, even before the state SC ruling) as they saw the writing on the wall.  They are perfectly legal groups doing their thing, so what does that tell us about this characterization that giving to these groups is "buying votes"?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shutout said:

I am honestly surprised that several of you are so casually ok with people buying votes. Considering you choose to live in a free country and you want equal representation, I would think you would be opposed to a scenario where you could be marginalized or negated completely by a person with a lot of money. 

You might want to be specific.  I haven't read every post in this thread, but I am unaware of anyone "ok" with people buying votes.  Speaking personally, you can read my rants about money in politics in this country and how the rich and powerful have way too much influence (along with corporations) and I am absolutely opposed to Citizens United and "Corporations are people too".  These are all things the GOP have fought for and argued for years.  So if we're being honest, we can go to a million different incidents to find the bold.  We don't have to mischaracterize giving to a charity that is helping people get their voting rights back to show this.

1 hour ago, Shutout said:

If the complete opposite were true, that is, if it were completely legal to put your vote up on Ebay, we would live by the complete rules of literally a few dozen powerful figures, some which may not even be in our country. I can't imagine not protecting against that vehemently. Otherwise we may all as well slaves to a master with money. 

Have you paid attention to the tribalism in this country.  I could easily make the argument we're already there and been there for many years...unless you're speaking of literal slavery at which point, the second little paragraph here is complete hyperbole.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

You might want to be specific.  I haven't read every post in this thread, but I am unaware of anyone "ok" with people buying votes.  Speaking personally, you can read my rants about money in politics in this country and how the rich and powerful have way too much influence (along with corporations) and I am absolutely opposed to Citizens United and "Corporations are people too".  These are all things the GOP have fought for and argued for years.  So if we're being honest, we can go to a million different incidents to find the bold.  We don't have to mischaracterize giving to a charity that is helping people get their voting rights back to show this.

Have you paid attention to the tribalism in this country.  I could easily make the argument we're already there and been there for many years...unless you're speaking of literal slavery at which point, the second little paragraph here is complete hyperbole.  

Tribalism in this country is best illustrated by certain demographics of the population who blindly vote democrat despite never receiving anything more than being subjected to programs that, by design, keep them in a perpetual state of remaining beholden to the party that has always had the same agenda but simply changed the tactics and phrases.

The people in this thread who are rallying this thread are, of course, okay with buy votes because despite the off-hand "its just helping pay a fine...nothing expected in return" remarks, we all KNOW what the agenda is here. If it were NOT the case then why would this thread be IN the Politics forum? Its a political agenda. If it were what people are snickering and labeling it as, it would be in th free for all forum because it would be just a nice humanitarian "help a brother out"  post. 

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I think Bloomberg et.al. found a way to create a check and balance against authoritarian government. It's important to look at the history of what happened here.  As I understand it, this is what happened:

- Florida voters voted, via referendum, that ex-felons would have their voting rights restored

- Florida governor and legislature, in response to the referendum, created new legislation preventing the voting rights from being restored until said ex-felons repaid fines, court fees, etc.

- Assorted groups sued, and the legislation was upheld earlier this year

- In many cases, the Florida government refused to provide information on what fines were actually owed, thereby preventing voting entirely (I'm here to pay my fine, how much?  We're not sure.  OK, so I can vote?  No, not until your fine is paid.)

- Bloomberg et.al. contributed to charitable organizations that had sprung up to pay the fines and go through procedures to force the government to determine the fines

So this is generally correct but let me make a couple clarifications.  First one is that the amendment said specifically this:
 

Quote

No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.

There is no mention of the court fees, legal fees etc.  ZERO.  Once the measure passed (60% of the state wanted this), then the shenanigans began.  As clearly stated if one was sentenced to 5 years in jail and a $50,000 fine, then they'd only be afforded their right to vote again once they served their time and paid the $50K.  That's pretty cut/dry and pretty easy to figure out because it's all in the sentencing paperwork.  However, the Florida legislature decided to go beyond the wording presented to the voters and add on all these other fees and costs from the process.  When drafting the legislation they even attempted to include their personal lawyer fees.  They had to get documentation from their lawyer saying they had settled up....I believe that was removed eventually, but I bring it up to show the lengths they were going to in order to tack on all these things not written into the amendment.  Anyway, apparently the state is known for having a TERRIBLE financial records system making it difficult to figure out who owes what.  That goes to the second bold item.  I can't say they were refusing to provide, but I do believe in many cases they COULDN'T provide the information.  Obviously this was a feature not a bug for many and why they pushed for it.  We have a lot of that attitude down here...ask anyone trying to collect their unemployment these days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Tribalism in this country is best illustrated by certain demographics of the population who blindly vote democrat despite never receiving anything more than being subjected to programs that, by design, keep them in a perpetual state of remaining beholden to the party that has always had the same agenda but simply changed the tactics and phrases.

The people in this thread who are rallying this thread are, of course, okay with buy votes because despite the off-hand "its just helping pay a fine...nothing expected in return" remarks, we all KNOW what the agenda is here. If it were NOT the case then why would this thread be IN the Politics forum? Its a political agenda. If it were what people are snickering and labeling it as, it would be in th free for all forum because it would be just a nice humanitarian "help a brother out"  post. 

No...nobody in here is ok with buying votes.  There is zero need to just fabricate things like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think the government of Florida would be happy getting these fines paid since they made it an issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mile High said:

You would think the government of Florida would be happy getting these fines paid since they made it an issue. 

Nah...that doesn’t appear to be the point for the GOP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Tribalism in this country is best illustrated by certain demographics of the population who blindly vote democrat despite never receiving anything more than being subjected to programs that, by design, keep them in a perpetual state of remaining beholden to the party that has always had the same agenda but simply changed the tactics and phrases.

The people in this thread who are rallying this thread are, of course, okay with buy votes because despite the off-hand "its just helping pay a fine...nothing expected in return" remarks, we all KNOW what the agenda is here. If it were NOT the case then why would this thread be IN the Politics forum? Its a political agenda. If it were what people are snickering and labeling it as, it would be in th free for all forum because it would be just a nice humanitarian "help a brother out"  post. 

Based on my reading of the thread, "buying votes" as being used here is a pretty meaningless statement.  By the standard trying to be established for that phrase in this thread, sending money to a campaign or PAC/Super PAC to put commercials on television to influence votes is "buying votes".  You can call donating to a charity "buying votes" all you want.  It doesn't make it so and as I've pointed out a multitude of times, if this were a real issue, the state would have never legitimized the organizations in the first place.  That's something the naysayers are going to have to get around before you can credibly try and apply the label of "buying votes".  The good news is, it can likely happen here...it's Florida, but until it does it's a hollow argument.  

I'll also point out that "tribalism" is NOT unique to one "side" as illustrated in this very thread with the attempts to water down terms into meaningless fear mongering sound bytes.  It's interesting that you go here first after I list things like CU as things I take issue with and point out the litany of examples we already have in place that one tribe already subscribes to in a full throated manner that can actually be considered "buying votes" by the standard attempting to be set in this thread.  Reality is, you can't have it both ways without being an obvious hypocrite.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Based on my reading of the thread, "buying votes" as being used here is a pretty meaningless statement.  By the standard trying to be established for that phrase in this thread, sending money to a campaign or PAC/Super PAC to put commercials on television to influence votes is "buying votes".  You can call donating to a charity "buying votes" all you want.  It doesn't make it so and as I've pointed out a multitude of times, if this were a real issue, the state would have never legitimized the organizations in the first place.  That's something the naysayers are going to have to get around before you can credibly try and apply the label of "buying votes".  The good news is, it can likely happen here...it's Florida, but until it does it's a hollow argument.  

I'll also point out that "tribalism" is NOT unique to one "side" as illustrated in this very thread with the attempts to water down terms into meaningless fear mongering sound bytes.  It's interesting that you go here first after I list things like CU as things I take issue with and point out the litany of examples we already have in place that one tribe already subscribes to in a full throated manner that can actually be considered "buying votes" by the standard attempting to be set in this thread.  Reality is, you can't have it both ways without being an obvious hypocrite.  

You're going down a rabbit hole lined with a lot of personal opinions. 

I suppose it is not enough of a clue in for you that your own state's lawmakers are concerned that this is a problem. Of course not because they aren't on your side of the political party. The true hypocrisy in a thread like this is that the very fact it is IN the political forum and some of you are defending tooth and nail referring to it as charity.  has nothing to do with a political agenda here, chief. No need to suggest it has a single thing to do with buying votes despite countless comments referring to it as ways for Bloom to help Biden get votes, etc. 

Fini.  This is not discussion, this is more of the same.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shutout said:

You're going down a rabbit hole lined with a lot of personal opinions. 

I suppose it is not enough of a clue in for you that your own state's lawmakers are concerned that this is a problem. Of course not because they aren't on your side of the political party. The true hypocrisy in a thread like this is that the very fact it is IN the political forum and some of you are defending tooth and nail referring to it as charity.  has nothing to do with a political agenda here, chief. No need to suggest it has a single thing to do with buying votes despite countless comments referring to it as ways for Bloom to help Biden get votes, etc. 

Fini.  This is not discussion, this is more of the same.  

It is not buying votes, it is an honest attempt to thwart a hideous act by a nakedly partisan legislature.  Naturally, you won't see it that way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Summer said:

The 8th Amendment weeps.

I guess that all depends on what your definition of excessive is when talking about child molesters, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Shutout said:

You're going down a rabbit hole lined with a lot of personal opinions. 

I suppose it is not enough of a clue in for you that your own state's lawmakers are concerned that this is a problem. Of course not because they aren't on your side of the political party. The true hypocrisy in a thread like this is that the very fact it is IN the political forum and some of you are defending tooth and nail referring to it as charity.  has nothing to do with a political agenda here, chief. No need to suggest it has a single thing to do with buying votes despite countless comments referring to it as ways for Bloom to help Biden get votes, etc. 

Fini.  This is not discussion, this is more of the same.  

To be clear here.....my "side" is getting more people to vote.  I don't care if they are democrats or republicans....I want as many people voting as possible.  And I'll also point out that SOME of our law makers are NOW concerned.  These charity groups have been around since 2018 and not a peep of "concern" from ANY of the lawmakers feigning concern from then until just a couple weeks ago.  If you want to label the groups as something other than charity groups, take it up with the state.  That's how the state classifies them.  If it makes you feel better that I use PAC or Super PAC (even though they aren't that) I can use that.  They are groups who are helping felons navigate the quagmire laid before them by the state legislature, despite the "go ahead" from the electorate here, to get their voting rights back.  And to my knowledge there isn't a question on the paperwork asking for party affiliation.  They are helping democratic and GOP ex-felons all the same.  I know that's weird in this day and age, but there are still some who care about the law and helping others who don't have the means to help themselves and political party doesn't stand in their way.  Refreshing right?

We could be talking about this in the FFA or the Asst Coaches forum and none of those realities would change.  I don't know why you're hung up on where it's being talked about...feels a little like a "shoot the messenger to ignore the message" kind of position.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sand said:
1 hour ago, Joe Summer said:

The 8th Amendment weeps.

I guess that all depends on what your definition of excessive is when talking about child molesters, etc.

The primary purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant shows up for trial.

It should not be wielded as a means to punish people who have not yet been convicted, nor should it be used to induce guilty pleas, nor should it be used to hamstring a person's ability to defend themselves. These are core principles that should define any constitutional Republic.

Excessive bail should not be used to extort a confession. (If that last phrase sounds familiar, it's because you said something similar when complaining about the government pressuring Michael Flynn to plead guilty).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Summer said:

The primary purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant shows up for trial.

It should not be wielded as a means to punish people who have not yet been convicted, nor should it be used to induce guilty pleas, nor should it be used to hamstring a person's ability to defend themselves. These are core principles that should define any constitutional Republic.

Excessive bail should not be used to extort a confession. (If that last phrase sounds familiar, it's because you said something similar when complaining about the government pressuring Michael Flynn to plead guilty).

I think all that went way beyond what I was trying to say, but I gotta give you props for the research.  :hifive:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dawgtrails said:

That's different though....he is acting outside of congress to give away taxpayer money.  (oh wait, that doesn't make it better at all...actually worse)   Or money from a program that has yet to actually exist....good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Just for the record, do we now agree that expanding government programs now counts as "buying votes?"  Because I would love for that to be the new standard.

I think I'd be OK with categorizing most legislation as buying votes, whether that's expanding programs, reducing programs, creating tax exemptions, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My soon to be 18 year old gets to vote for the first time in November. I have a $50 Chipotle gift card. Maybe I’ll slide it under his bedroom door wrapped in a Biden flyer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Just for the record, do we now agree that expanding government programs now counts as "buying votes?"  Because I would love for that to be the new standard.

That's the wonder of this thread IK....it apparently means whatever you want it to mean!!!  :thumbup: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2020 at 11:00 AM, Joe Mammy said:

As a Floridian I voted on an amendment that allowed felons to vote after serving their time in 2018. It was passed by a large majority. 

The law was aimed at carrying out a 2018 constitutional amendment that restored voting rights to felons “upon completion of all terms of sentence,” a key phrase that has been at the heart of an appeal by Gov DeSantis in June 2020.

The appeal was upheld. Many thought the reasoning for the appeal was that most of the felons were minorities that would vote for a Dem.

Bloomberg just stepped in with $16M and freed 32,000 felons to vote effectively thumbing his nose at the Republicans. Brilliant!  Likely Illegal

 

You had a slight spelling error in your original post.    Fixed. 

https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/2020/09/24/florida-seeks-investigation-on-bloomberg-donation-on-voting/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 7:52 AM, Jobber said:

My soon to be 18 year old gets to vote for the first time in November. I have a $50 Chipotle gift card. Maybe I’ll slide it under his bedroom door wrapped in a Biden flyer.

That's some next level parental thinking there, but you may want to weigh the $50 cost of the card to gain a Biden voter against the risk of death and the typical $30,000 cost of treatment of the Norovirus on Chipotle's menu.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spodog said:

It's ironic that the phrase "Likely illegal" does not exist in either the quote box that you improperly altered, or in the text of the article you linked.

Anyway, this is just a bit of political theater from the Republican AG of Florida. If she really thought that this was an illegal act, then she would not have made a big public show of her actions here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

In what way does that show it is likely illegal?

 

Well, here in America we actually wait for the conclusion of the investigation, the indictment, and then the trial before that determination is made, so check back in 2021. 

Or you could simply search frantically for a tweet by a reporter that states that Bloomberg was merely acting out of sense of righteousness and therefore any action he takes can't be illegal. 

Your call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2020 at 11:11 AM, [scooter] said:

This is.....kind of a dumb move.

Felons don't exactly fall into the "likely voter" category, and around 40% of them are Trump supporters anyway.

Bloomberg would have gotten more bang for his buck by using the $16 million on advertising.

No, they don't fit that category, but a pack of cigarettes or a couple of dollars U.S. Currency is a proven method to fix that problem:

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-skid-row-voter-fraud-20181120-story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spodog said:

No, they don't fit that category, but a pack of cigarettes or a couple of dollars U.S. Currency is a proven method to fix that problem:

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-skid-row-voter-fraud-20181120-story.html

:confused:

That's a story about getting people to sign a petition, in which an item of value is conditional upon getting the signature.

It has no correlation to the subject of this thread.

On the other hand...if conservatives think that the two situations are the same, it might explain why so many of them think that Bloomberg's act is illegal. :lol:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

:confused:

That's a story about getting people to sign a petition, in which an item of value is conditional upon getting the signature.

It has no correlation to the subject of this thread.

On the other hand...if conservatives think that the two situations are the same, it might explain why so many of them think that Bloomberg's act is illegal. :lol:

Direct quote from the fist article I linked:

Quote

Using cash and cigarettes as lures, the defendants approached homeless people on skid row and asked them to forge signatures on state ballot measure petitions and voter registration forms, the district attorney’s office said.

If you don't like the article, you can go directly to the DA's news release:  https://da.lacounty.gov/media/news/nine-charged-large-scale-voter-fraud-scheme-skid-row

The defendants are accused of engaging in the solicitation of hundreds of false and/or forged signatures on state ballot petitions and voter registration forms by allegedly offering homeless people $1 and/or cigarettes for their participation

Again in '18 elections:  https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/indictments-charge-widespread-voting-fraud-scheme-in-los-angeles/79490/

This crap has been happening here in L.A. for years.   There were investigations about it happening in Chicago as well during Obama's '08 campaign, which is why the FBI did a multi-city investigation into ACORN surrounding items like this in the '08 election.    Fraudulent voter registration was only one of ACORN's specialties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spodog said:

Direct quote from the fist article I linked:

 

:confused:

Once again, this is not related to the thread topic. Bloomberg is not giving something of value on condition of getting a signature on a voter registration form.

Also, Bloomberg is not attempting to acquire forged signatures.

Strange thread derailment here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, spodog said:

The defendants are accused of engaging in the solicitation

Bloomberg isn't soliciting anything.

Come on, don't you guys remember "No quid pro quo"??? It used to be the favorite phrase of the Trump supporters around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spodog said:

That's some next level parental thinking there, but you may want to weigh the $50 cost of the card to gain a Biden voter against the risk of death and the typical $30,000 cost of treatment of the Norovirus on Chipotle's menu.    

"We can't live in fear" I think is the right take here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spodog said:

Well, here in America we actually wait for the conclusion of the investigation, the indictment, and then the trial before that determination is made, so check back in 2021. 

Or you could simply search frantically for a tweet by a reporter that states that Bloomberg was merely acting out of sense of righteousness and therefore any action he takes can't be illegal. 

Your call. 

Or we could wait for something more than partisan GOP members saying something needs to be investigated before claiming something is likely illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

It's ironic that the phrase "Likely illegal" does not exist in either the quote box that you improperly altered, or in the text of the article you linked.

Anyway, this is just a bit of political theater from the Republican AG of Florida. If she really thought that this was an illegal act, then she would not have made a big public show of her actions here.

nor would they have approved the organizations and legitimized them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

It's ironic that the phrase "Likely illegal" does not exist in either the quote box that you improperly altered, or in the text of the article you linked.

Anyway, this is just a bit of political theater from the Republican AG of Florida. If she really thought that this was an illegal act, then she would not have made a big public show of her actions here.

Apparently Trump has done a lot of likely illegal things if any Democrats think there should be an investigation...that seems to be the threshold being argued for...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spodog said:
6 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

:confused:

That's a story about getting people to sign a petition, in which an item of value is conditional upon getting the signature.

It has no correlation to the subject of this thread.

On the other hand...if conservatives think that the two situations are the same, it might explain why so many of them think that Bloomberg's act is illegal. :lol:

Direct quote from the fist article I linked:

Quote

Using cash and cigarettes as lures, the defendants approached homeless people on skid row and asked them to forge signatures on state ballot measure petitions and voter registration forms, the district attorney’s office said.

If you don't like the article, you can go directly to the DA's news release:  https://da.lacounty.gov/media/news/nine-charged-large-scale-voter-fraud-scheme-skid-row

The defendants are accused of engaging in the solicitation of hundreds of false and/or forged signatures on state ballot petitions and voter registration forms by allegedly offering homeless people $1 and/or cigarettes for their participation

Again in '18 elections:  https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/indictments-charge-widespread-voting-fraud-scheme-in-los-angeles/79490/

This crap has been happening here in L.A. for years.   There were investigations about it happening in Chicago as well during Obama's '08 campaign, which is why the FBI did a multi-city investigation into ACORN surrounding items like this in the '08 election.    Fraudulent voter registration was only one of ACORN's specialties. 

How do you feel this situation relates to what's going on here in Florida?  I need help connecting those dots...TIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 12:32 PM, [scooter] said:

Bloomberg isn't soliciting anything.

Even when you now combine it with his huge ad buy for Biden

In and of itself the fine paying doesn't cross any lines (IMO), but combining that with a high profile ad buy definitely does (again, IMO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sand said:
On 9/26/2020 at 10:32 AM, [scooter] said:

Bloomberg isn't soliciting anything.

Even when you now combine it with his huge ad buy for Biden

In and of itself the fine paying doesn't cross any lines (IMO), but combining that with a high profile ad buy definitely does (again, IMO).

"Solicitation" requires a quid pro quo.

There's no quid pro quo here. This is nothing more than a PAC exercising its right to free speech.

(If the TV ads contain language which say something to the effect of "Hey felons, I'm going to pay your fines if you agree to vote for Biden," then I'd say that a line has been crossed. But I very much doubt that will happen.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sand said:

Even when you now combine it with his huge ad buy for Biden

In and of itself the fine paying doesn't cross any lines (IMO), but combining that with a high profile ad buy definitely does (again, IMO).

If paying for a huge amount of ads is "buying votes" their both guilty here in Florida.  Every single commercial break there are at least two political ads.  I'm not watching things not on DVR at this point...this is brutal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot of hand-wringing from distressed Conservatives here, but what I DON'T see are very many FACTS.

There are A LOT of unanswered questions to this story. SUCH AS:

1. how long has the nonprofit been in business?
2. does the nonprofit have the blessing of the state?
3. has the nonprofit actually paid off any fines yet?
4. does the nonprofit pay money to the felons, or to the state?
5. how many felons have successfully paid off their fines and registered to vote through this nonprofit?

and MOST importantly:

6. has Bloomberg actually done anything besides RUN HIS MOUTH? Has he donated a single penny yet?

The whole thing seems sketchy to me. I see an opportunistic "nonprofit" raising funds, and I see an opportunistic former politician attaching his name to the cause, but I don't see much evidence of anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 12:26 PM, spodog said:

Bloomberg just stepped in with $16M and freed 32,000 felons to vote effectively thumbing his nose at the Republicans. Brilliant! 

You had a slight spelling error in your original post.    Fixed. 

https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/2020/09/24/florida-seeks-investigation-on-bloomberg-donation-on-voting/

Sorry friend. Brilliant was spelled perfectly.

Alot of people would say you could not spell it any better.

Squirming now are ya? 36 days, tick, tick, tick...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sea Duck said:

I see a lot of hand-wringing from distressed Conservatives here, but what I DON'T see are very many FACTS.

There are A LOT of unanswered questions to this story. SUCH AS:

1. how long has the nonprofit been in business?
2. does the nonprofit have the blessing of the state?
3. has the nonprofit actually paid off any fines yet?
4. does the nonprofit pay money to the felons, or to the state?
5. how many felons have successfully paid off their fines and registered to vote through this nonprofit?

and MOST importantly:

6. has Bloomberg actually done anything besides RUN HIS MOUTH? Has he donated a single penny yet?

The whole thing seems sketchy to me. I see an opportunistic "nonprofit" raising funds, and I see an opportunistic former politician attaching his name to the cause, but I don't see much evidence of anything else.

1. 2018

2. They are a registered 501(c)(3) and enjoy nonprofit status. Not sure why or what the blessing of the state has to do with anything

3. Yes

4. They pay the fines directly to the court

5. Over 4000

6. He donated 16 million dollars

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

6. He donated 16 million dollars

Did he?? WashingtonPost.com says that "his team has raised $16 million."

How do we KNOW that the money was actually donated BY Bloomberg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Did he?? WashingtonPost.com says that "his team has raised $16 million."

How do we KNOW that the money was actually donated BY Bloomberg?

Where are you going with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Did he?? WashingtonPost.com says that "his team has raised $16 million."

How do we KNOW that the money was actually donated BY Bloomberg?

Ive asked this several times.

Even other articles saying he made fundraising calls that got the group up to that amount.  Its unclear how much he actually donated himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:
12 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Did he?? WashingtonPost.com says that "his team has raised $16 million."

How do we KNOW that the money was actually donated BY Bloomberg?

Where are you going with this?

I'm not going anywhere with this. I just see a lot of ASSUMPTIONS being made on both sides. I want to see all the FACTS before making a conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

I'm not going anywhere with this. I just see a lot of ASSUMPTIONS being made on both sides. I want to see all the FACTS before making a conclusion.

OK. I did my best to answer all the questions you had

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Commish said:

If paying for a huge amount of ads is "buying votes" their both guilty here in Florida.  Every single commercial break there are at least two political ads.  I'm not watching things not on DVR at this point...this is brutal.  

Sometimes there is a big advantage in living in a deep blue or deep red state.  We have about $0 spent on ads here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sand said:

Sometimes there is a big advantage in living in a deep blue or deep red state.  We have about $0 spent on ads here.

Yeah...I'm learning that quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.