What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (3 Viewers)

Kobach's claims of "voter fraud" have been soundly discredited, including by members of the disbanded voter fraud committee that he headed up.  In order to beef up his "voter fraud" numbers he includes everything that has to do with misconduct relating to elections, including that of election officials.   His whole campaign for voter fraud came up empty and he's left citing a few anecdotal cases from around the nation.   

 
During my lifetime voting has become much, much easier.  We have more polling places, we have mail voting and easier absentee voting.  It use to be you pretty much stood in line on election day only and cast your ballot at a very limited number of places.  I do not see every adjustment to the trend towards massive expansion of voting opportunities as a frontal assault on the right to vote.  That said if the right to vote falls with more impediments to certain segments of society that must be regarded with a jaundiced eye and correct immediately. 

To me, production of I.D. seems a minimal confirmation, a prudent precaution.  If that precaution is to be instituted there is an obligation, however, to make certain that every citizen wanting I.D. be issued it in a timely manner and without cost.  If this is a societal protection society should bear the cost, it should not fall disproportionally upon individuals.

 
-fish- said:
Kobach's claims of "voter fraud" have been soundly discredited, including by members of the disbanded voter fraud committee that he headed up.  In order to beef up his "voter fraud" numbers he includes everything that has to do with misconduct relating to elections, including that of election officials.   His whole campaign for voter fraud came up empty and he's left citing a few anecdotal cases from around the nation.   
Click to expand...
Some other opinion you will discredit as well -

Someone named Zoe Zorka from Elite Daily website

IF HOSPITALS REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION TO PREVENT INSURANCE FRAUD, ISN’T IT TIME TO REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION TO PREVENT VOTER FRAUD?

While some might scoff at the idea that voter fraud could sway an election, the truth is voter fraud is very easy to commit — and it could very well sway elections.

In 2012, my sister went to vote in her district. The elderly volunteer told her, “It looks like you’ve already voted.” She replied that she had not and the elderly volunteer shrugged it off and chalked it up to another volunteer highlighting the wrong name. My sister was allowed to vote.

While my sister’s case could have been an anomaly, writers for the National Review found out just how easy it is to vote as dead people.

If healthcare systems and insurance companies are worried about insurance fraud affecting their bottom line, we should be concerned about voter fraud affecting our basic democratic principles.

WHY IS IT SO EASY AND HOW COULD IT SWAY ELECTIONS?

If someone really wanted to sway a tight election, especially a state or a local one, it wouldn’t be too difficult. Here’s how:

1. Determine your area’s precincts. Suppose a city has 12 voting precincts; someone with a car could easily drive to all of the precincts in the same day.

2. Buy area voter lists. Registered voter lists are available and can easily be purchased by just about anyone.

3. Find about 10 willing participants (the more nondescript the better). You want people who blend into the crowd — unremarkable and forgettable.

4. Have each person select an identity from each of the 12 precincts (if they can select dead voters, all the better). Think about how easy it would be to pass as anyone who is your general age and race demographic.

I could be Rachel Smith, Kaylee Harding, Melissa Alvarez…. pretty much any white or Hispanic woman between ages 21 and 35. (Younger voters are 21 percent less likely to vote than older voters, so the odds would be even more in my favor.)

5. On voting day, send fraudulent voters as early as possible to cast their ballots at the 12 different precincts. Sure, there’s the off chance that one of the actual people voted already.

But, considering only 58 percent of the country voted in the 2012 presidential election, and even fewer vote in state and local elections during non-presidential voting years, the odds tend to be in the fraudulent voters’ favor. This is especially true if a fraudulent voter is impersonating someone who is dead.

Supposing this works (and without voting ID requirements, it very well could), you may have just swayed a close election by casting 120 fraudulent voted.

BUT SURELY NO ELECTION CAN BE THAT CLOSE, RIGHT?

Wrong.

In 1994, Sam Gejdenson won the Connecticut Second District Congressionalelection by four votes. Republican Todd Thomsen was elected as Oklahoma’s 25th District State Representative in 2005 by two votes.

Mobilize enough fraudulent voters and you just very well may be able to throw a national election.

 
-fish- said:
Kobach's claims of "voter fraud" have been soundly discredited, including by members of the disbanded voter fraud committee that he headed up.  In order to beef up his "voter fraud" numbers he includes everything that has to do with misconduct relating to elections, including that of election officials.   His whole campaign for voter fraud came up empty and he's left citing a few anecdotal cases from around the nation.   
Click to expand...
Shhhhhhhhh.  It's out there.  He can feel it!

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
That is a lie.  I don’t care if Q himself directed you to come in here and say that.  It isn’t true, you should be ashamed to say it, and you should retract it and apologize. 
Click to expand...
That is absolutely the truth and the only ones that can't accept that are the lemmings that follow them. 

You should be ashamed to not have the ability to see and understand that. It really doesn't speak well of you.

I retract nothing of what I said and one day you will see why.

 
JohnnyU said:
All you leftist do is misdirect. You know voter fraud is out there and that voter ids could help with it.  Admit it!!!
Click to expand...


Qanon said:
You guys are really funny when you select a few outlets you don't agree with, and you readily accept and eat up anything you see on the MSM, including newspapers, magazines, on line shows, opinion pieces etc. etc. etc. 

You guys are in my opinion are the ones that have no clue of what is happening in this country and are being used to spread DNC talking points. 
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. This may be true of some folks out there, but these posts diminish the contributions of many solid posters here, unfairly so IMO. Maybe one step for all sides is not to assume the lowest common denominator argument, and I do concede that both "sides" are guilty of this at times.

 
JohnnyU said:
Some other opinion you will discredit as well -

Someone named Zoe Zorka from Elite Daily website

IF HOSPITALS REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION TO PREVENT INSURANCE FRAUD, ISN’T IT TIME TO REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION TO PREVENT VOTER FRAUD?

While some might scoff at the idea that voter fraud could sway an election, the truth is voter fraud is very easy to commit — and it could very well sway elections.

In 2012, my sister went to vote in her district. The elderly volunteer told her, “It looks like you’ve already voted.” She replied that she had not and the elderly volunteer shrugged it off and chalked it up to another volunteer highlighting the wrong name. My sister was allowed to vote.

While my sister’s case could have been an anomaly, writers for the National Review found out just how easy it is to vote as dead people.

If healthcare systems and insurance companies are worried about insurance fraud affecting their bottom line, we should be concerned about voter fraud affecting our basic democratic principles.

WHY IS IT SO EASY AND HOW COULD IT SWAY ELECTIONS?

If someone really wanted to sway a tight election, especially a state or a local one, it wouldn’t be too difficult. Here’s how:

1. Determine your area’s precincts. Suppose a city has 12 voting precincts; someone with a car could easily drive to all of the precincts in the same day.

2. Buy area voter lists. Registered voter lists are available and can easily be purchased by just about anyone.

3. Find about 10 willing participants (the more nondescript the better). You want people who blend into the crowd — unremarkable and forgettable.

4. Have each person select an identity from each of the 12 precincts (if they can select dead voters, all the better). Think about how easy it would be to pass as anyone who is your general age and race demographic.

I could be Rachel Smith, Kaylee Harding, Melissa Alvarez…. pretty much any white or Hispanic woman between ages 21 and 35. (Younger voters are 21 percent less likely to vote than older voters, so the odds would be even more in my favor.)

5. On voting day, send fraudulent voters as early as possible to cast their ballots at the 12 different precincts. Sure, there’s the off chance that one of the actual people voted already.

But, considering only 58 percent of the country voted in the 2012 presidential election, and even fewer vote in state and local elections during non-presidential voting years, the odds tend to be in the fraudulent voters’ favor. This is especially true if a fraudulent voter is impersonating someone who is dead.

Supposing this works (and without voting ID requirements, it very well could), you may have just swayed a close election by casting 120 fraudulent voted.

BUT SURELY NO ELECTION CAN BE THAT CLOSE, RIGHT?

Wrong.

In 1994, Sam Gejdenson won the Connecticut Second District Congressionalelection by four votes. Republican Todd Thomsen was elected as Oklahoma’s 25th District State Representative in 2005 by two votes.

Mobilize enough fraudulent voters and you just very well may be able to throw a national election.
Click to expand...
This "easy" way to swing an election doesn't seem easy to me.

 
never seen so many senators play up their attorney backgrounds and babble on & on to show just how brilliant they are.   Both sides.  Really sickening.  IMO

They should just stop this epic crap fest & vote.  We all know & they know how they are going to vote right now regardless of the answers.  IMO

 
Qanon said:
That is absolutely the truth and the only ones that can't accept that are the lemmings that follow them. 

You should be ashamed to not have the ability to see and understand that. It really doesn't speak well of you.

I retract nothing of what I said and one day you will see why.
Click to expand...
You posted this in the middle of a discussion where people were disagreeing with information presented in a Washington Post article.  Is WaPo not MSM?

 
JohnnyU said:
Some other opinion you will discredit as well -

Someone named Zoe Zorka from Elite Daily website
Click to expand...
"Someone named Zoe Zorka."   You're not even trying to find a credible source.  

Zoe Zorka.    She's a technical writer, blogger and model with ZERO experience in politics or elections who has never worked outside of marketing by her own admission.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
I respectfully disagree. This may be true of some folks out there, but these posts diminish the contributions of many solid posters here, unfairly so IMO. Maybe one step for all sides is not to assume the lowest common denominator argument, and I do concede that both "sides" are guilty of this at times.
Click to expand...
They do not diminish any ones contribution. Their truth is what some hear and read but many times the truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow and many will only believe the truth that they can accept.

My truth and your truth may be totally different, based on sources and beliefs.
 

 
JohnnyU said:
Some other opinion you will discredit as well -

Someone named Zoe Zorka from Elite Daily website

IF HOSPITALS REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION TO PREVENT INSURANCE FRAUD, ISN’T IT TIME TO REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION TO PREVENT VOTER FRAUD?

While some might scoff at the idea that voter fraud could sway an election, the truth is voter fraud is very easy to commit — and it could very well sway elections.

In 2012, my sister went to vote in her district. The elderly volunteer told her, “It looks like you’ve already voted.” She replied that she had not and the elderly volunteer shrugged it off and chalked it up to another volunteer highlighting the wrong name. My sister was allowed to vote.

While my sister’s case could have been an anomaly, writers for the National Review found out just how easy it is to vote as dead people.

If healthcare systems and insurance companies are worried about insurance fraud affecting their bottom line, we should be concerned about voter fraud affecting our basic democratic principles.

WHY IS IT SO EASY AND HOW COULD IT SWAY ELECTIONS?

If someone really wanted to sway a tight election, especially a state or a local one, it wouldn’t be too difficult. Here’s how:

1. Determine your area’s precincts. Suppose a city has 12 voting precincts; someone with a car could easily drive to all of the precincts in the same day.

2. Buy area voter lists. Registered voter lists are available and can easily be purchased by just about anyone.

3. Find about 10 willing participants (the more nondescript the better). You want people who blend into the crowd — unremarkable and forgettable.

4. Have each person select an identity from each of the 12 precincts (if they can select dead voters, all the better). Think about how easy it would be to pass as anyone who is your general age and race demographic.

I could be Rachel Smith, Kaylee Harding, Melissa Alvarez…. pretty much any white or Hispanic woman between ages 21 and 35. (Younger voters are 21 percent less likely to vote than older voters, so the odds would be even more in my favor.)

5. On voting day, send fraudulent voters as early as possible to cast their ballots at the 12 different precincts. Sure, there’s the off chance that one of the actual people voted already.

But, considering only 58 percent of the country voted in the 2012 presidential election, and even fewer vote in state and local elections during non-presidential voting years, the odds tend to be in the fraudulent voters’ favor. This is especially true if a fraudulent voter is impersonating someone who is dead.

Supposing this works (and without voting ID requirements, it very well could), you may have just swayed a close election by casting 120 fraudulent voted.

BUT SURELY NO ELECTION CAN BE THAT CLOSE, RIGHT?

Wrong.

In 1994, Sam Gejdenson won the Connecticut Second District Congressionalelection by four votes. Republican Todd Thomsen was elected as Oklahoma’s 25th District State Representative in 2005 by two votes.

Mobilize enough fraudulent voters and you just very well may be able to throw a national election.
Click to expand...
Why don't you have any of the same concerns about the 10 of thousands if not 100's of thousands that are disenfranchised by Voter ID? The impact of voter ID in desinfrachising voters is magnitudes of order worse than the impact of Voter identity fraud and its like a farty in the wind to you. Doesn't even merit an acknowledgment in your arguments. 

Kris Kobach won by 300 votes in teh Ks primary. He disenfranchised 30,000 legal citizen voters. If you are as concerned about voter integrity as you say you are that should make your blood boil. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
During my lifetime voting has become much, much easier.  We have more polling places, we have mail voting and easier absentee voting.  It use to be you pretty much stood in line on election day only and cast your ballot at a very limited number of places.  I do not see every adjustment to the trend towards massive expansion of voting opportunities as a frontal assault on the right to vote.  That said if the right to vote falls with more impediments to certain segments of society that must be regarded with a jaundiced eye and correct immediately. 

To me, production of I.D. seems a minimal confirmation, a prudent precaution.  If that precaution is to be instituted there is an obligation, however, to make certain that every citizen wanting I.D. be issued it in a timely manner and without cost.  If this is a societal protection society should bear the cost, it should not fall disproportionally upon individuals.
Click to expand...
That would defeat the true purpose of these ID laws, to make it harder for poor people, especially minorities, to vote. The GOP legislatures won't  voluntarily fund free IDs and even if forced to they'll use other methods to make it difficult/impossible for poor people to obtain these free IDs. None of the Republicans on the Supreme Court now will ever find any voter suppression methods that favor the GOP illegal and Kavanaugh won't either. 

 
Qanon said:
That is absolutely the truth and the only ones that can't accept that are the lemmings that follow them. 

You should be ashamed to not have the ability to see and understand that. It really doesn't speak well of you.

I retract nothing of what I said and one day you will see why.
Click to expand...
I love it when the poster who told the owner of this site to "go #### yourself" tries to shame anyone here. One of the biggest hypocrites on this site.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Dickinson said:
That is a lie.  I don’t care if Q himself directed you to come in here and say that.  It isn’t true, you should be ashamed to say it, and you should retract it and apologize. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:

Aren't you the guy who told the owner of this website to "go #### yourself"

You may want to get off your high horse.

 
Jackstraw said:
Why don't you have any of the same concerns about the 10 of thousands if not 100's of thousands that are disenfranchised by Voter ID? The impact of voter ID in desinfrachising voters is magnitudes of order worse than the impact of Voter identity fraud and its like a farty in the wind to you. Doesn't even merit an acknowledgment in your arguments. 

Kris Kobach won by 300 votes in teh Ks primary. He disenfranchised 30,000 legal citizen voters. If you are as concerned about voter integrity as you say you are that should make your blood boil. 
Click to expand...
The left loves this talking point.

"Minorities are too stupid/lazy/incompetent to locate a DMV, sit there for 2 hours, and pay $10 for an ID"

Do you realize how racist you are for thinking that?

 
NFL2DF said:
Not sure how it could be massively oversold when half the country believes it doesn't even exist.
Click to expand...


Insomniac said:
That would defeat the true purpose of these ID laws, to make it harder for poor people, especially minorities, to vote. The GOP legislatures won't  voluntarily fund free IDs and even if forced to they'll use other methods to make it difficult/impossible for poor people to obtain these free IDs. None of the Republicans on the Supreme Court now will ever find any voter suppression methods that favor the GOP illegal and Kavanaugh won't either. 
Click to expand...
Not seeing much middle ground. 

 
Qanon said:
They do not diminish any ones contribution. Their truth is what some hear and read but many times the truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow and many will only believe the truth that they can accept.

My truth and your truth may be totally different, based on sources and beliefs.
 
Click to expand...
One person's interpretation of facts may be different than another person's interpretation of the same facts. But that starts to get into their perception, their experiences, their beliefs, as you say.

My point is most people here aren't "just believing what the MSM tells them" as much as the portrayal was describing.

Apologies for the turn away from Kavanaugh. My point is tangential at best to the point of the thread.

 
Insomniac said:
How can you reach a middle ground with an opponent that you don't believe will ever act in good faith?
Click to expand...
Act but verify.  It beats consigning oneself to perpetual inaction.  Certainly a facile mind such as you possess could structure something.

Actually inaction may be the wrong term.  Opposition should not be termed inaction.  Rather it may be appropriate to continue opposition while offering up reasonable options.  Frankly I believe both sides of the debate love the standoff.  I believe both sides love the ability to characterize, and occasionally mischaracterize the stance of the other side for red meat for their bases.  BTW this is not to saddle you with the label of being firmly in the camp of one side.  I have read you enough over time to know that you are often quite nuanced.  I hope I don't offend you by addressing you and the larger issue at the same time.  the two should not be conflated.  In my book you are good folk.

 
TEXAS DOCTORS at Kavanaugh Hearing Say They Saw Liberal Protesters Paid “With a Literal Bag of Cash”

TOM SCHLUETER, TEXAS: Hello, I’m Dr. Tom Schlueter from Texas, we came here to participate in the hearings, to get in the line. They told us to be here at 8:00, 8:30 at the latest, to get in line to go inside and hear the hearings. We got here at about 8:15 and there was already 100 people in line, and most of them would be probably classified by me as ‘opposing everything going on with Judge Kavanaugh,’ and so we began to see a process of things unfolding as we were standing in line that kept the line from going ahead.

One thing was there were people who had come along… who had a bag of money, and people would hand them a piece of paper, and then they would give them money. So we know money was exchanged for some of the people to be here, just to protest.

There was no depth to what their understanding, they were just here to be a disruption, protesters. They were actually told, we heard them say this, ‘when you go in, we want you to yell, to scream, and even possibly to get arrested.’ So that was some of the processes we saw happening…

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Act but verify.  It beats consigning oneself to perpetual inaction.  Certainly a facile mind such as you possess could structure something.

Actually inaction may be the wrong term.  Opposition should not be termed inaction.  Rather it may be appropriate to continue opposition while offering up reasonable options.  Frankly I believe both sides of the debate love the standoff.  I believe both sides love the ability to characterize, and occasionally mischaracterize the stance of the other side for red meat for their bases.  BTW this is not to saddle you with the label of being firmly in the camp of one side.  I have read you enough over time to know that you are often quite nuanced.  I hope I don't offend you by addressing you and the larger issue at the same time.  the two should not be conflated.  In my book you are good folk.
Click to expand...
The middle ground is taking a digital photograph of every person that comes in to vote and linking it with who that person said he is.  I've been pushing that for years but nobody wants to do it.  Would be super easy and wouldn't prevent anyone from voting and would make it simple to prosecute anyone that tries to impersonate another voter.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
The middle ground is taking a digital photograph of every person that comes in to vote and linking it with who that person said he is.  I've been pushing that for years but nobody wants to do it.  Would be super easy and wouldn't prevent anyone from voting and would make it simple to prosecute anyone that tries to impersonate another voter.
Click to expand...
An interesting proposal. One I have not heard before.  I am sorry I missed your earlier offerings of this idea.

I like ideas so much more than inflamed rhetoric.  If its all right with you I may just put this forward in similar discussions.  I will lend attribution for the idea to an anonymous think tank person.  I think that may carry more weight than fatguyinalittlecoat, but perhaps I do not fully appreciate the cache of yourself.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
irishidiot said:
never seen so many senators play up their attorney backgrounds and babble on & on to show just how brilliant they are.   Both sides.  Really sickening.  IMO

They should just stop this epic crap fest & vote.  We all know & they know how they are going to vote right now regardless of the answers.  IMO
Click to expand...
Agreed.  Its turned into a circus and demeaned the entire process. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
The middle ground is taking a digital photograph of every person that comes in to vote and linking it with who that person said he is.  I've been pushing that for years but nobody wants to do it.  Would be super easy and wouldn't prevent anyone from voting and would make it simple to prosecute anyone that tries to impersonate another voter.
Click to expand...
What about the people that vote by mail? Here in Colorado you get your ballot a few weeks ahead of the election and can turn it anytime before the end of election day. 

 
I think that these confirmation hearings have gotten a little off track from Congress' constitutional advice-and-consent role.  Having watched most of Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, I think he is clearly qualified (though I disagree with his leanings). 

With that having been said, the withholding of documents and his questionable testimony in his prior confirmation hearing are concerning and should be the focus of the hearing IMO.    

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Act but verify.  It beats consigning oneself to perpetual inaction.  Certainly a facile mind such as you possess could structure something.

Actually inaction may be the wrong term.  Opposition should not be termed inaction.  Rather it may be appropriate to continue opposition while offering up reasonable options.  Frankly I believe both sides of the debate love the standoff.  I believe both sides love the ability to characterize, and occasionally mischaracterize the stance of the other side for red meat for their bases.  BTW this is not to saddle you with the label of being firmly in the camp of one side.  I have read you enough over time to know that you are often quite nuanced.  I hope I don't offend you by addressing you and the larger issue at the same time.  the two should not be conflated.  In my book you are good folk.
Click to expand...
I'll give it a try. The idea you proposed would be a good start but not enough. I'd add some provisions to the law that would require that there be enough sites to get the IDs that one would be relatively near the all people that need them and that they be open at times that people can get IDs without having to miss work.Where possible they should be near public transportation. For people in rural areas that don't have a large enough population to justify a permanent site there should be mobile ID units that make well publicized stops so people out in the boonies can get an ID. Throw in automatic registration of voters when they turn 18 while you're at it. 

The GOP wouldn't go for any of it because it would cost a decent amount of money and not accomplish their true purpose. In any event they don't need to compromise in much of the country because they control the state and local governments and can impose whatever policies they want. There's no reason to think the likely Supreme Court for the next 5-10 years will protect voting rights. Perhaps I'm misjudging the members of the Court but every time I hear  "we just call balls and strikes" I think a just god would hurl a thunderbolt at them.

 
Kavanaugh is doing really well today, They should go to a vote and let this happen. They have more documentation than for any previous nominee.

They know they can't stop it.

Just making speeches for their bases.

Total waste of time

 
Insomniac said:
I'll give it a try. The idea you proposed would be a good start but not enough. I'd add some provisions to the law that would require that there be enough sites to get the IDs that one would be relatively near the all people that need them and that they be open at times that people can get IDs without having to miss work.Where possible they should be near public transportation. For people in rural areas that don't have a large enough population to justify a permanent site there should be mobile ID units that make well publicized stops so people out in the boonies can get an ID. Throw in automatic registration of voters when they turn 18 while you're at it. 

The GOP wouldn't go for any of it because it would cost a decent amount of money and not accomplish their true purpose. In any event they don't need to compromise in much of the country because they control the state and local governments and can impose whatever policies they want. There's no reason to think the likely Supreme Court for the next 5-10 years will protect voting rights. Perhaps I'm misjudging the members of the Court but every time I hear  "we just call balls and strikes" I think a just god would hurl a thunderbolt at them.
Click to expand...
A Zeusian view of god, I like it.  

Well it does forward the "at what price certainty?" argument.  Certainly Republicans are willing to pay some price for this assurance, no?

 
The Indestructible said:
I think that these confirmation hearings have gotten a little off track from Congress' constitutional advice-and-consent role.  Having watched most of Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, I think he is clearly qualified (though I disagree with his leanings). 

With that having been said, the withholding of documents and his questionable testimony in his prior confirmation hearing are concerning and should be the focus of the hearing IMO.    
Click to expand...
I haven't watched all that much, but I've found him to be a lot more off-putting and dishonest than the typical conservative Justice.  Lying about "growing up in a city plagued by gun violence" when he was raised in maybe the richest suburb in America was just such a gross and needlessly dishonest moment.  Reminded me a lot of his unnecessary and obviously absurd statement about Trump, in literally his first words to the public after the nomination:

Throughout this process, I have witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a supreme court nomination.
Click to expand...
None of this is disqualifying of course, but ... eww.  I get enough remorseless bald-faced lying from the executive branch these days.

 
dawgtrails said:
And then what? They get food stamps and free health care? Or are you suggesting that the candidate themselves are paying these organized and determined criminals in cash?
Click to expand...
Why do the poor vote democratic not realizing they are being bamboozled with government handouts? 

 
JohnnyU said:
See African American conservative Candice Owen's video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILQXW2Ob1PU (How to Escape the Democrat Plantation (an easy guide).
Click to expand...
OK, I wanted to be fair so I watched the whole six minute video.  I found it incredibly misleading and obnoxious.  In any case, your claim that I asked you to clarify was that "poor people" are being "bamboozled with government handouts."  The video isn't about poor people or government handouts at all.  It's about the Civil Rights Act and the segregated South. 

I don't really think it's very nice of you to respond to a request for clarification by posting a six minute video that's unrelated to your point in the first place.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
OK, I wanted to be fair so I watched the whole six minute video.  I found it incredibly misleading and obnoxious.  In any case, your claim that I asked you to clarify was that "poor people" are being "bamboozled with government handouts."  The video isn't about poor people or government handouts at all.  It's about the Civil Rights Act and the segregated South. 

I don't really think it's very nice of you to respond to a request for clarification by posting a six minute video that's unrelated to your point in the first place.
Click to expand...
By the Democratic Plantation she is inferring how the democrats use government aid to get African Americans in the current day plantation and keep them there so they don't advance out of it and keep voting democrat..  That is what Candice Owens is about.  You can see other readings about Candice Owens to see where she is coming from and what her beliefs are and they fall right in line with "bamboozled". 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top